Hide table of contents

A huge thanks to @Agustín Covarrubias 🔸  for his feedback and support on the following article:


Shapley values are an extremely popular tool in both economics and explainable AI.

In this article, we use the concept of “synergy” to build intuition for why Shapley values are fair. There are four unique properties to Shapley values, and all of them can be justified visually. Let’s dive in!

A figure from Bloch et al., 2021 using the Python package SHAP
A figure from Bloch et al., 2021 using the Python package SHAP

The Game

On a sunny summer day, you and your two best friends decide to run a lemonade stand. Everyone contributes something special: Emma shares her family’s secret recipe, Liam finds premium-quality sugar, and you draw colorful posters.

The stand is a big hit! The group ends up making $280. But how best to split the profits? Each person contributed in a different way, and the success was clearly due to teamwork…

Luckily, Emma has a time machine. She goes back in time — redoing the day with different combinations of team members and recording the profits. This is how each simulation went:

Who was involved?Total profits
Only Emma$20
Only you$30
Only Liam$10
Emma and you$90
You and Liam$100
Liam and Emma$30
Emma, Liam, and you$280

Individually, Emma makes 20 dollars running the lemonade stand, and you make 30 dollars. But working together, the team makes 90 dollars.

The sum of individual profits is 20 + 30 = 50 dollars, which is clearly less than 90 dollars. That extra 90 - 50 = 40 dollars can be attributed to team dynamics. In game theory, this bonus is called the “synergy” of you and Emma. Let’s visualize our scenario as a Venn diagram.

Note: Synergies can also be negative (e.g., if Liam and Emma fought it could hurt profits).

The synergy bonuses in the Venn diagram are “unlocked” when the intersecting people are part of the team. To calculate total profit, we add up all areas relevant to that team.

For example, when the team consists of just you and Liam, three portions of the Venn diagram are unlocked: the area exclusive to you (30 dollars), the area exclusive to Liam (10 dollars), and the area exclusively shared by you and Liam (60 dollars). Adding these areas together, the total profit for team “You and Liam” comes out to 30 + 10 + 60 = 100 dollars.

Referring to our Venn diagram, the same formula holds true for every other team:

Team membersSum of synergiesTotal profits
Emma$20$20
You$30$30
Liam$10$10
Emma, You$20 + $30 + $40$90
You, Liam$30 + $10 + $60$100
Liam, Emma$10 + $20 + $0$30
Emma, You, Liam$20 + $30 + $10 + $40 + $60 + $0 + $120$280

Emma and Liam are impatient and want their fair share of money. They turn to you, the quick-witted leader for help. While staring at the Venn diagram, an idea strikes!

Take a moment to look over the visual. How would you slice up the Venn diagram fairly? Pause here, and continue when ready.


You decide to take each “synergy bonus” and cut it evenly among those involved.

Doing the math, each person’s share comes out to:

Emma and Liam agree the splits are fair. The money is handed out, and everyone skips happily home to dinner.

In this story, the final payouts are the Shapley values of each team member. This intuition is all you need to understand Shapley values. For the adventurous reader, we now tie things back to formal game theory.


The Formalities

Shapley values are a concept from cooperative game theory. You, Liam, and Emma are all considered “players” in a “coalition game”. Every possible “coalition” (or team) has a certain “payoff” (or profit). The mapping between coalition and payoff (a.k.a. which just corresponds to our first table of profits) is called the “characteristic function” (as it defines the nature, or *character*, of the game).

We define a set of players  (which, in this case, is You, Emma, and Liam), and a characteristic function , where :

We can see how this is the same mapping we had in our table of profits by players:

Who was involved?Total profits
Only Emma$20
Only you$30
Only Liam$10
Emma and you$90
You and Liam$100
Liam and Emma$30
Emma, Liam, and you$280

We also define a synergy function labeled  where :

Similarly, the synergy function just corresponds to areas of the Venn diagram:

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:4800/format:webp/1*QilJDt6fx0PcgpSnLks_fw.png

Thus, for a given player , the Shapley value is written as:

Which, in more compact notation, becomes:

The last is exactly the formula described on Wikipedia.


Concluding Notes

Shapley values are the ONLY way to guarantee:

  1. Efficiency — The sum of Shapley values adds up to the total payoff for the full group (in our case, $280).
  2. Symmetry — If two players interact identically with the rest of the group, their Shapley values are equal.
  3. Linearity — If the group runs a lemonade stand on two different days (with different team dynamics on each day), a player’s Shapley value is the sum of their payouts from each day.
  4. Null player — If a player contributes nothing on their own and never affects group dynamics, their Shapley value is 0.

Take a moment to justify these properties visually.

No matter what game you play and who you play with, Shapley values always preserve these natural properties of “fairness”.

Hopefully, you have gained some intuition for why Shapley values are “fair” and why they account for interactions among players. Proofs and more rigorous definitions can be found on Wikipedia.

Thanks for reading! :)

90

2
0
1

Reactions

2
0
1

More posts like this

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for posting this.

Do we have an intuition for how to apply shapely values in typical EA scenarios, for example: • How much credit goes to donors, vs charity evaluators, vs object level charities? • How much credit goes to charity founders/executives, vs other employees/contractors? • How much credit goes to meta vs object organizations?

Seconding this question, and wanted to ask more broadly: 

A big component/assumption of the example given is that we can "re-run" simulations of the world in which different combinations of actors were present to contribute, but this seems hard in practice. Do you know of any examples where Shapley values have been used in the "real world" and how they've tackled this question of how to evaluate counterfactual worlds?

(Also, great post! I've been meaning to learn about Shapley values for a while, and this intuitive example has proven very helpful!)

Thanks for cross posting, this got Shapley values to "click" for me!

Executive summary: Shapley values, which determine fair allocation of rewards in cooperative games, can be intuitively understood using Venn diagrams to visualize how individual contributions and synergies between players combine to create total value.

Key points:

  1. Shapley values calculate fair payouts by dividing both individual contributions and "synergy bonuses" (additional value from cooperation) among relevant team members
  2. Using a lemonade stand example, the method shows how to split $280 total profit among three contributors based on their individual and combined performances
  3. Venn diagrams provide an intuitive visualization where overlapping regions represent synergies between specific team combinations
  4. The approach guarantees four key properties: efficiency (payouts sum to total), symmetry (equal contributors get equal shares), linearity (additive across games), and null player (no contribution means no payout)
  5. This framework has practical applications in both economics and explainable AI for understanding and attributing value fairly

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while