SHAP and LLM explanation methods show consistently low alignment, with mean top-10 Jaccard similarity of 0.085¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Across nine LLMs, overlap between SHAP- and LLM-selected top-10 sentence sets is roughly one to two sentences per transcript, with weak rank-order agreement. → Ivo Bueno 2026
Evidence¶
Ivo Bueno 2026¶
Ivo Bueno, Babette Bühler, Philipp Stark, Tim Fütterer, Ulrich Trautwein, Dorottya Demszky, Heather Hill, Enkelejda Kasneci. (2026). From Scoring to Explanations: Evaluating SHAP and LLM Rationales for Rubric-based Teaching Quality Assessment. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05180 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.05180
q2 · i? · design · r2
Alignment analysis computing Jaccard similarity and Spearman rank correlation between SHAP and LLM top-10 sentence selections per transcript. The article reports these trends are consistent across model families and sizes, suggesting alignment is driven by the explanation method rather than model scale.
"Across nine LLMs, the mean Jaccard similarity between the indices of the top-10 sentence sets is 0.085, corresponding to an overlap of roughly one to two sentences per transcript, while the mean Spearman rank correlation is 0.062"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Deletion tests show SHAP sentence rankings are more faithful than LLM-generated rationales for PLM scorers — related
- SHAP explanations transfer robustly across architectures while LLM rationales transfer poorly to PLM predictions — related
- LLMs and instructors agree broadly on where feedback belongs but diverge on exact sentence spans, with span overlap strongly goal-dependent and LLMs highlighting more of each essay — related
- Human-LLM agreement on a complex multi-label codebook falls well below human-human agreement, while LLM-LLM agreement is comparable to human-human agreement — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
low-alignment-shap-llm-sentence-selection |
title |
SHAP and LLM explanation methods show consistently low alignment, with mean top-10 Jaccard similarity of 0.085 |
description |
SHAP and LLM explanation methods show consistently low alignment, with mean top-10 Jaccard similarity of 0.085 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
recheck_by |
2029 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-11 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ivo-bueno-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.