Skip to main content

Comparing Strategies for Post-Hoc Explanations in Machine Learning Models

Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT,volume 68)


Most of the machine learning models act as black boxes, and hence, the need for interpreting them is rising. There are multiple approaches to understand the outcomes of a model. But in order to be able to trust the interpretations, there is a need to have a closer look at these approaches. This project compared three such frameworks—ELI5, LIME and SHAP. ELI5 and LIME follow the same approach toward interpreting the outcomes of machine learning algorithms by building an explainable model in the vicinity of the datapoint that needs to be explained, whereas SHAP works with Shapley values, a game theory approach toward assigning feature attribution. LIME outputs an R-squared value along with its feature attribution reports which help in quantifying the trust one must have in those interpretations. The R-squared value for surrogate models within different machine learning models varies. SHAP trades-off accuracy with time (theoretically). Assigning SHAP values to features is a time and computationally consuming task, and hence, it might require sampling beforehand. SHAP triumphs over LIME with respect to optimization of different kinds of machine learning models as it has explainers for different types of machine learning models, and LIME has one generic explainer for all model types.


  • Interpretability
  • LIME
  • SHAP
  • Explainable AI
  • ELI5

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions


  1. M.T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, S.C. Guestrin, Why should I trust you?: explaining the predictions of any classifier. arXiv:1602.04938

  2. J. Zhang, Y. Wang, P. Molino, L. Li, D.S. Ebert, Manifold: a model-agnostic framework for ınterpretation and diagnosis of machine learning models. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics.

  3. S.M. Lundberg, S.I. Lee, A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, in 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  4. P. Schmidt, F. Biessmann, Quantifying ınterpretability and trust in machine learning systems. Amazon Res. arXiv:1901.08558

  5. D.A. Melis, T.S. Jaakkola, On the robustness of ınterpretability methods. arXiv:1806.08049v1

  6. A. White, A.D. Garcez, Measurable conterfactual local explanations for any classifier. arXiv:1908.03020v2

  7. I. Giurgiu, A. Schumann, Explainable failure predictions with rnn classifiersbased on time series data. arXiv 1901.08554

    Google Scholar 

  8. S. Shi, X. Zhang, W. Fan, A modified pertrubed sampling method for local ınterpretable model-agnostic explanation. arXiv:2002.07434v1

  9. S. Shi, Y. Du, W. Fan, An extension of LIME with ımprovement of ınterpretability and fidelity. arXiv:2004.12277v1

  10. A.K. Noor, Potential of Cognitive Computing and Cognitive Systems (De Gruyter, 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  11. L.H. Gilpin, D. Bau, B.Z. Yuan, A.Bajwa, M. Specter, L. Kagal, Explaining explanations: an overview of ınterpretability of machine learning, in IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), Turin, Italy, pp. 80–89 (2018).

  12. C. Rudin, Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 206–215 (2019)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. D. Das, J. Ito, T. Kadowaki, K. Tsuda, An interpretable machine learning model for diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.

  14. R. Revetria, A. Catania, L. Cassettari, G. Guizzi, E. Romano, T. Murino, G. Improta, H. Fujita, Improving healthcare using cognitive computing based software: an application in emergency situation, in Advanced Research in Applied Artificial Intelligence. IEA/AIE 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7345 (Springer, Berlin)

    Google Scholar 

  15. D.V. Carvalho, E.M. Pereira, J.M. Cardoso, Machine learning interpretability: a survey on methods and metrics. Electronics 8, 832 (2019).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Preethi Nanjundan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Vij, A., Nanjundan, P. (2022). Comparing Strategies for Post-Hoc Explanations in Machine Learning Models. In: Shakya, S., Bestak, R., Palanisamy, R., Kamel, K.A. (eds) Mobile Computing and Sustainable Informatics. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, vol 68. Springer, Singapore.

Download citation