diff options
| author | Yuchen Pei <me@ypei.me> | 2019-01-03 09:14:14 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Yuchen Pei <me@ypei.me> | 2019-01-03 09:14:14 +0100 |
| commit | f1e5741d03d181d7417dcf06e40d81d5e0fd5434 (patch) | |
| tree | 48cd7512b18f0a87722f346748443366d0f699da /posts | |
| parent | 9b5045d3363a009b44edb986a7482e7ec450a8ec (diff) | |
corrected some attributions
Diffstat (limited to 'posts')
| -rw-r--r-- | posts/2018-12-02-lime-shapley.md | 10 |
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/posts/2018-12-02-lime-shapley.md b/posts/2018-12-02-lime-shapley.md index a73d32e..c78a1e3 100644 --- a/posts/2018-12-02-lime-shapley.md +++ b/posts/2018-12-02-lime-shapley.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ comments: true --- In this post I explain LIME (Ribeiro et. al. 2016), the Shapley values -(Shapley, 1953) and the SHAP values (Lundberg-Lee, 2017). +(Shapley, 1953) and the SHAP values (Strumbelj-Kononenko, 2014; Lundberg-Lee, 2017). __Acknowledgement__. Thanks to Josef Lindman Hörnlund for bringing the LIME and SHAP papers to my attention. The research was done while working at KTH @@ -247,9 +247,11 @@ Plugging this back into (6) we get the desired result. $\square$ SHAP ---- -The SHAP paper (Lundberg-Lee 2017) is not clear in its definition of the -\"SHAP values\" and its relation to LIME, so the following is my -interpretation of their interpretation model. +The paper that coined the term \"SHAP values\" (Lundberg-Lee 2017) +is not clear in its definition of the \"SHAP values\" and its +relation to LIME, so the following is my +interpretation of their interpretation model, which coincide with a +model studied in Strumbelj-Kononenko 2014. Recall that we want to calculate feature contributions to a model $f$ at a sample $x$. |