Classical ML, validation, metrics, interpretation, debugging · insight-0179
Group correlated features before reading SHAP rankings
- Evidence type
- practitioner heuristic
- Difficulty
- medium
- Roles
- Data scientist, ML engineer
- Industries
- aviation, banking
Summary: situation, action, reason, boundary
Situation
Several features measure the same thing (fare level, average fare, revenue per passenger) and SHAP ranks them separately.
Action
Cluster correlated features, sum SHAP values within each group for global importance, and state that within-group splits are not meaningful.
Reason
When features are redundant, the model can use any of them and attributions spread across them in ways that depend on training randomness.
Boundary
Global SHAP summaries, feature-pruning decisions and executive explanations.
Symptom or risk
Credit is split among redundant features, so each looks modest and a weaker but unique feature appears more important.
Exceptions
Local explanations of a single prediction may still be useful at feature level if the audience understands redundancy.
Trade-offs
Groups are easier to explain but hide which column to monitor; keep the mapping.
Pitfalls
Dropping a feature because of low SHAP importance when its twin carries the signal.
Lessons and concepts
Claims and their sources
Redundant or related features can split credit in SHAP explanations.