Unless Iâm misunderstanding, isnât this âjustâ an issue of computing Shapley values incorrectly? If kindling is important to the fire, it should be included in the calculation; if your modeling neglects to consider it, then the problem is with the modeling and not with the Shapley algorithm per se.
Of course, I say âjustâ in quotes because actually computing real Shapley values that take everything into account is completely intractable. (I think this is your main point here, in which case I mostly agree. Shapley values will almost always be pretty made-up in the best of circumstances, so they should be taken lightly.)
I still find the concept of Shapley values useful in addressing this part of the OP:
Impact does not seem to be a property that can sensibly be assigned to an individual. If an individual (or organisation) takes an action, there a number of reasons why I think that the subsequent consequences/âimpact canât solely be attributed to that one individual.
I read this as sort of conflating the claims that âimpact canât be solely attributed to one personâ and âimpact canât be sensibly assigned to one person.â Shapley values help with assigning values to individuals even when theyâre not solely responsible for outcomes, so it helps pull these apart conceptually.
Much more fuzzily, my experience of learning about Shapley values took me from thinking âimpact attribution is basically impossibleâ (as in the quote above) to âhuh, if you add a bit more complexity you can get something decent out.â My takeaway is to be less easily convinced that problems of this type are fundamentally intractable.
Unless Iâm misunderstanding, isnât this âjustâ an issue of computing Shapley values incorrectly? If kindling is important to the fire, it should be included in the calculation; if your modeling neglects to consider it, then the problem is with the modeling and not with the Shapley algorithm per se.
Of course, I say âjustâ in quotes because actually computing real Shapley values that take everything into account is completely intractable. (I think this is your main point here, in which case I mostly agree. Shapley values will almost always be pretty made-up in the best of circumstances, so they should be taken lightly.)
I still find the concept of Shapley values useful in addressing this part of the OP:
I read this as sort of conflating the claims that âimpact canât be solely attributed to one personâ and âimpact canât be sensibly assigned to one person.â Shapley values help with assigning values to individuals even when theyâre not solely responsible for outcomes, so it helps pull these apart conceptually.
Much more fuzzily, my experience of learning about Shapley values took me from thinking âimpact attribution is basically impossibleâ (as in the quote above) to âhuh, if you add a bit more complexity you can get something decent out.â My takeaway is to be less easily convinced that problems of this type are fundamentally intractable.