Michel Grabisch

2papers

2 Papers

LGNov 3, 2022
A $k$-additive Choquet integral-based approach to approximate the SHAP values for local interpretability in machine learning

Guilherme Dean Pelegrina, Leonardo Tomazeli Duarte, Michel Grabisch

Besides accuracy, recent studies on machine learning models have been addressing the question on how the obtained results can be interpreted. Indeed, while complex machine learning models are able to provide very good results in terms of accuracy even in challenging applications, it is difficult to interpret them. Aiming at providing some interpretability for such models, one of the most famous methods, called SHAP, borrows the Shapley value concept from game theory in order to locally explain the predicted outcome of an instance of interest. As the SHAP values calculation needs previous computations on all possible coalitions of attributes, its computational cost can be very high. Therefore, a SHAP-based method called Kernel SHAP adopts an efficient strategy that approximate such values with less computational effort. In this paper, we also address local interpretability in machine learning based on Shapley values. Firstly, we provide a straightforward formulation of a SHAP-based method for local interpretability by using the Choquet integral, which leads to both Shapley values and Shapley interaction indices. Moreover, we also adopt the concept of $k$-additive games from game theory, which contributes to reduce the computational effort when estimating the SHAP values. The obtained results attest that our proposal needs less computations on coalitions of attributes to approximate the SHAP values.

AIJan 23, 2013
Assessing the value of a candidate. Comparing belief function and possibility theories

Didier Dubois, Michel Grabisch, Henri Prade et al.

The problem of assessing the value of a candidate is viewed here as a multiple combination problem. On the one hand a candidate can be evaluated according to different criteria, and on the other hand several experts are supposed to assess the value of candidates according to each criterion. Criteria are not equally important, experts are not equally competent or reliable. Moreover levels of satisfaction of criteria, or levels of confidence are only assumed to take their values in qualitative scales which are just linearly ordered. The problem is discussed within two frameworks, the transferable belief model and the qualitative possibility theory. They respectively offer a quantitative and a qualitative setting for handling the problem, providing thus a way to compare the nature of the underlying assumptions.