SHAP Values vs. Feature Importance

1. Introduction

“All models are wrong, but some are useful.” – George Box

Machine learning models can be incredibly powerful, but what good are they if we can’t explain their decisions? In high-stakes fields like finance, healthcare, and AI fairness, understanding why a model makes a certain prediction is just as important as its accuracy.

I’ve seen this firsthand—working with machine learning models, I’ve often found myself questioning why certain features were ranked as the most “important.” Many data scientists rely on feature importance scores, assuming they tell the full story. But here’s the truth: they don’t.

Feature Importance vs. SHAP – The Common Confusion

If you’ve worked with models like Random Forest, XGBoost, or even linear regression, chances are you’ve looked at feature importance scores to understand which features matter. But here’s the problem:

• These scores don’t tell you the direction of impact—is a higher value good or bad?
• They can be misleading when features are correlated (something I’ve personally run into while working with financial data).
• They only provide global explanations—which is fine for feature selection but useless when you need to explain why one specific prediction happened.

This is where SHAP (SHapley Additive Explanations) values come in. SHAP doesn’t just rank features; it tells you how much each feature contributes to every single prediction, and whether that contribution is positive or negative. The first time I used SHAP, I was blown away by how much clearer my model explanations became.

What You’ll Learn in This Post

I’ve worked with both feature importance and SHAP in real-world projects, and I know exactly where each one shines and where it falls apart. In this post, I’ll walk you through:
✅ The hidden flaws of feature importance that most people overlook.
✅ Why SHAP is a game-changer—and where it might not be the best choice.
✅ When you should use SHAP vs. feature importance in your own projects.

By the end, you’ll have a clear, expert-level understanding of both techniques—and you’ll never misinterpret feature importance again.

Let’s dive in. 🚀

---

2. What is Feature Importance?

“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” – William Bruce Cameron

If you’ve ever tried to understand why a model makes certain decisions, feature importance was probably one of the first tools you reached for. I’ve used it countless times myself—especially when working with tree-based models like Random Forest and XGBoost. It gives you a quick way to rank features by their influence on predictions.

But here’s the issue: it’s often misinterpreted.

What Feature Importance Really Tells You

At its core, feature importance measures how much a feature contributes to a model’s predictions. But the way it does this depends entirely on the method you use. Here are the main types:

1. Gini Importance (a.k.a. Mean Decrease in Impurity)

• Used in tree-based models like Random Forest and XGBoost.
• Measures how much each feature reduces impurity in decision splits.
• The problem? It’s biased toward features with more categories or higher variance.

2. Permutation Importance

• Works by shuffling a feature’s values and seeing how much it worsens model performance.
• More reliable than Gini Importance, but can still be misleading if features are correlated.

3. Coefficients in Linear Models

• In regression models, the magnitude of coefficients is often treated as feature importance.
• The catch? If features are correlated, coefficients can be wildly misleading. (I’ve seen cases where a feature’s coefficient was negative just because another feature absorbed all the importance.)

---

Why Traditional Feature Importance Can Be Misleading

Here’s where things get tricky. Many data scientists assume that high feature importance means high predictive power—but that’s not always the case.

1. It Doesn’t Show Direction

Feature importance tells you how much a feature matters, but not whether it increases or decreases predictions. Imagine a credit scoring model:

• A high credit utilization rate might be an important feature.
• But is a higher value good or bad? Feature importance won’t tell you that.

2. Model-Specific Interpretability

• The same dataset can give completely different feature rankings in different models.
• A feature ranked highly in Random Forest might be ignored in a Logistic Regression model.
• If you rely solely on feature importance, you might misinterpret what’s actually driving your model’s decisions.

3. Correlation Can Skew Importance

This is a huge one. If two features are correlated, one might absorb all the importance while the other gets none. I’ve personally run into this issue in financial datasets—where income and credit score are highly correlated. One model ranked income as critical while completely ignoring credit score. Another ranked credit score at the top and ignored income.

Neither was “wrong,” but both were hiding the real story—these features were working together.

4. It’s Global, Not Local

• Feature importance only tells you about the average impact across the dataset.
• But what if you need to explain a single prediction?
• In real-world applications like fraud detection or loan approvals, you often need to know why one particular case was flagged, not just general trends.

So, What’s the Alternative?

If you’re only looking for a quick way to rank features, traditional feature importance is fine. But if you need a deeper, more accurate explanation of your model’s decisions, you need something better.

This is where SHAP values come in. Unlike feature importance, SHAP:
✅ Handles correlated features properly.
✅ Shows whether a feature is increasing or decreasing a prediction.
✅ Works on a local level (individual predictions) and global level.

In the next section, I’ll show you why SHAP completely changed how I interpret models—and why it should probably be your go-to tool for explanations.

Let’s dive in. 🚀

---

3. What is SHAP (SHapley Additive Explanations)?

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton

I’ll be honest—when I first encountered SHAP values, I thought, “Great, another fancy technique promising to solve interpretability.” But once I started using it in real-world models, I quickly realized this wasn’t just another feature importance method—it was a complete shift in how we explain machine learning decisions.

Let’s break it down.

SHAP: A Smarter Way to Attribute Feature Contributions

SHAP is based on a concept from cooperative game theory called Shapley values. If that sounds theoretical, let me simplify it:

Imagine you and your friends win a prize in a team competition. The question is: how do you fairly split the prize based on each person’s contribution? Shapley values solve this problem by considering every possible way the team could have been formed and fairly distributing the reward.

Now, apply this to machine learning:

• The team is the set of features.
• The prize is the model’s prediction.
• SHAP calculates how much each feature contributes to the final prediction, ensuring a fair distribution.

Here’s why this is so powerful: unlike traditional feature importance, SHAP doesn’t just tell you which features matter—it tells you exactly how much they contribute and in which direction (positive or negative).

Why SHAP is a Game-Changer

I’ve used SHAP in scenarios where standard feature importance completely failed me. Here’s what makes it stand out:

✅ Consistent & Unbiased

• SHAP values always sum up to the exact model prediction (something most other methods don’t guarantee).
• This means no feature gets “extra credit” or “ignored” unfairly.

✅ Works Across Any Model Type

• Tree-based models? ✅
• Deep learning? ✅
• Linear regression? ✅
• Even black-box models? ✅

If you’ve ever struggled to interpret deep learning models, SHAP is one of the few techniques that actually works well.

✅ Handles Feature Interactions
One of my biggest frustrations with traditional feature importance was how it misrepresented correlated features. I’ve seen cases where two features were clearly working together, but feature importance made it seem like one was irrelevant. SHAP fixes this by correctly distributing credit between interacting features.

✅ Local & Global Interpretability

• Need a broad overview of which features matter? SHAP does that.
• Need to explain a single prediction? SHAP does that too.

This is critical in high-stakes applications. In finance, I’ve worked on fraud detection models where regulators needed to know exactly why a transaction was flagged. Traditional methods gave vague answers—SHAP pinpointed the exact reason behind each individual prediction.

Different SHAP Approaches: Picking the Right One

There’s no one-size-fits-all method for SHAP. The right choice depends on your model and dataset size.

🔹 Kernel SHAP (Model-Agnostic, but Slow)

• Works for any model, making it flexible.
• Downside? Computationally expensive—not ideal for large datasets.
• I’ve used it for smaller, tabular datasets where model interpretability was the priority over speed.

🔹 TreeSHAP (Fast for Tree-Based Models)

• Optimized for XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost, and Random Forests.
• Much faster than Kernel SHAP—I’ve used it on large datasets without performance issues.

🔹 DeepSHAP (For Neural Networks)

• Built on DeepLIFT concepts to explain deep learning models.
• If you’re working with CNNs, RNNs, or transformers, this is your go-to SHAP method.

So, Why Aren’t More People Using SHAP?

You might be wondering: If SHAP is so powerful, why isn’t it the default choice for feature importance?

Here’s the reality:

• It’s computationally expensive. Unlike simple feature importance, SHAP calculations grow exponentially with the number of features.
• It requires interpretation skills. While SHAP provides better explanations, you still need to understand how to read and interpret SHAP plots correctly.
• Many data scientists are just used to traditional methods. Feature importance is easier to compute, so it remains the default for many.

But if you’re serious about interpretable AI, SHAP is the tool you need to master.

In the next section, I’ll show you a side-by-side comparison of SHAP and traditional feature importance—so you can see exactly where each one shines and where it falls short.

Let’s break it down. 🚀

---

4. SHAP vs. Feature Importance – Key Differences

“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” – William Bruce Cameron

I’ve worked with both traditional feature importance and SHAP values on multiple projects, and let me tell you—they don’t always tell the same story. In fact, I’ve seen cases where relying solely on feature importance led to misinterpretations that cost teams valuable insights.

Let’s break down how they differ and when to use which.

SHAP vs. Feature Importance – A Side-by-Side Comparison

Feature	Feature Importance	SHAP Values
Interpretation	Global only	Local + Global
Works for Any Model?	No, model-dependent	Yes, model-agnostic
Considers Feature Interaction?	No	Yes
Handles Correlated Features?	No, biased	Yes, fair distribution
Computes Feature Direction?	No	Yes (+ or – impact)
Computational Cost	Low	High (Kernel SHAP can be slow)

Why This Difference Matters (With a Real-World Example)

Let me give you a concrete example of where I’ve personally seen SHAP outperform traditional feature importance.

The Loan Approval Model Dilemma

Imagine you’re building a loan approval model using decision trees. You include features like:

• Income
• Credit Score
• Debt-to-Income Ratio

When you check feature importance (using Gini importance from a Random Forest model), it tells you that Credit Score is the most important feature. Seems reasonable, right? But here’s where it gets misleading.

Now, when you run SHAP values, it reveals something interesting:

• Income and Credit Score are highly correlated.
• The model isn’t really making decisions based purely on Credit Score—it’s indirectly relying on Income to determine Credit Score.

💡 Key Insight: Traditional feature importance doesn’t account for correlation—it just tells you which features were used most in splits. SHAP, on the other hand, distributes credit fairly, exposing hidden relationships.

This insight alone changed how my team handled feature selection. Instead of blindly trusting the importance ranking, we dug deeper, leading to a more interpretable and fair model.

---

When to Use Feature Importance vs. SHAP

✅ Use Feature Importance When:

• You need a quick global explanation of your model.
• You’re working with a tree-based model (like Random Forest) where built-in importance scores are available.
• You want a low-cost, computationally efficient method.

❌ But be cautious of:

• Correlated features skewing the results.
• Lack of local interpretability—you won’t know why a specific prediction was made.

✅ Use SHAP When:

• You need both global and individual explanations.
• Your model is complex (e.g., deep learning, gradient boosting).
• You want to understand feature interactions.
• You’re working in a high-stakes domain (e.g., finance, healthcare, AI ethics).

🚀 Bottom Line: If you’re serious about understanding your model, SHAP is the gold standard. But if you’re looking for a quick-and-dirty explanation, feature importance can still be useful—just don’t take it at face value.

---

5. When Should You Use SHAP Over Feature Importance?

“The right tool for the right job.” That’s something I’ve learned the hard way in machine learning. Early on, I relied too much on traditional feature importance—because it was easy, fast, and built into models like Random Forest and XGBoost. But as I started working on real-world problems, I realized that sometimes, feature importance alone can mislead you.

So when should you stick with feature importance, and when should you go the extra mile with SHAP? Let’s break it down.

When SHAP is the Right Choice

There are times when you need more than just a ranked list of features—you need explanations that actually make sense. That’s when SHAP shines.

✅ Use SHAP When:

🔹 You need local explanations.
I’ve worked on credit scoring models where customers would ask, “Why was my loan rejected?” Feature importance could only tell me which factors were important in general, but SHAP showed why a specific customer was denied. This is critical in regulated industries like finance.

🔹 Feature interactions matter.
I once built a healthcare model that predicted disease risk based on symptoms. Traditional feature importance suggested that “Fever” was more important than “Cough”. But SHAP revealed that when Fever and Cough appeared together, they had a much bigger impact. Feature importance completely missed that interaction.

🔹 Fairness & accountability are priorities.
If you’re auditing an AI model for bias (e.g., ensuring loan approvals aren’t unfairly influenced by race or gender), SHAP is essential. It fairly distributes contributions across all features, making it a go-to tool for AI transparency.

When Feature Importance is Good Enough

Now, let’s be real—SHAP isn’t always necessary. It can be computationally expensive, and in some cases, traditional feature importance is good enough.

✅ Use Feature Importance When:

🔹 You just need a quick global ranking.
If I’m in the early stages of feature selection and need a fast way to identify important variables, I’ll start with feature importance. It helps narrow things down before diving deeper with SHAP.

🔹 You’re using tree-based models & SHAP is too expensive.
For massive datasets, running SHAP (especially Kernel SHAP) can be painfully slow. In those cases, I’ll use TreeSHAP (optimized for tree models) or even settle for built-in feature importance if interpretability isn’t a priority.

🔹 Your model is simple & feature correlation is minimal.
If I’m working with a linear model and there’s little correlation between features, feature importance (i.e., coefficients) is often enough. There’s no need to overcomplicate things when the relationships are straightforward.

Final Takeaway

🚀 If you need deep, reliable, instance-level explanations—use SHAP.
⚡ If you just need a quick, global ranking—feature importance is fine.

I’ve learned that choosing the right tool depends on the problem, not just convenience. If you blindly rely on feature importance, you might miss critical interactions. But if you run SHAP on every model, you might be wasting compute for no real benefit.

---

7. Best Practices for Using SHAP & Feature Importance in Real Projects

“All models are wrong, but some are useful.” I’ve seen this firsthand when working with model explainability. No single technique gives you the full picture—you need to combine approaches smartly. Over time, I’ve developed a few best practices that have saved me from misinterpretations and wasted compute power.

Start with Feature Importance, Then Move to SHAP

When I first approach a new dataset, I don’t jump straight into SHAP. Instead, I start with traditional feature importance to get a quick sense of which variables matter. It’s fast, and in many cases, that’s all you need to remove useless features and iterate faster.

But if I notice strange rankings or suspect hidden interactions, that’s my cue to switch to SHAP. SHAP doesn’t just tell me “what’s important,” it tells me “why.”

✅ Example: In a fraud detection model, feature importance showed that “IP Address” was critical. But SHAP revealed that IP Address alone wasn’t useful—it only mattered when combined with “Time of Transaction.” Without SHAP, I might have overvalued the wrong feature.

Use TreeSHAP for Large Datasets Instead of Kernel SHAP

Kernel SHAP is powerful but painfully slow. I learned this the hard way when I tried to explain a random forest model on a dataset with millions of rows—it took hours.

That’s why I always recommend:

🚀 If you’re working with tree-based models (Random Forest, XGBoost, CatBoost, LightGBM), use TreeSHAP.
⚡ Only use Kernel SHAP for small datasets or when you truly need a model-agnostic method.

Combine Methods: Sanity-Check SHAP with Permutation Importance

I never trust a single interpretability method blindly. A trick I use? Compare SHAP results with permutation importance.

If both methods agree, I feel more confident. But if they differ wildly, I start investigating:

• Did SHAP overemphasize feature interactions?
• Is my dataset highly correlated, causing feature importance biases?

Checking multiple methods ensures I don’t misinterpret what the model is really doing.

Use SHAP Visualizations Wisely

I can’t stress this enough: SHAP values mean nothing if you don’t visualize them properly.

Here’s what I personally use in real projects:

📊 SHAP Summary Plots → The best way to see overall feature impact.
🔗 SHAP Dependence Plots → Great for spotting how one feature interacts with another.
🌊 Waterfall Plots → The go-to method for explaining a single prediction (ideal for debugging & AI audits).

Using these plots has helped me explain complex models to non-technical stakeholders—which is often the hardest part of data science.

---

8. Conclusion

By now, you’ve seen that SHAP and Feature Importance aren’t competing methods—they complement each other.

🚀 SHAP is powerful but computationally expensive.
⚡ Feature Importance is quick but can be misleading.

Personally, I’ve found that interpretability is always context-dependent—there’s no “one-size-fits-all” solution. You have to pick the right tool for the job.

Now, I’d love to hear from you: What’s your experience with SHAP vs. Feature Importance? Have you ever been misled by one of these methods? Drop your thoughts below!