TabSHAP

Our framework is instantiated using DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B, a state-of-the-art distilled reasoning model chosen for its balance of inference efficiency and logic capabilities. To adapt this general-purpose model to the specific distribution of tabular risk scoring, we utilize Quantized Low-Rank Adaptation (QLoRA) (Dettmers et al., 2024). QLoRA allows us to fine-tune the model in 4-bit precision while freezing the base parameters, significantly reducing memory overhead while retaining high-fidelity representations. The training pipeline is accelerated using the Unsloth optimization framework, which provides optimized kernels for gradient checkpointing and faster backpropagation.

Let $\mathcal{D}=\{(\mathbf{x}_{i},y_{i})\}_{i=1}^{N}$ be a tabular dataset where $\mathbf{x}_{i}$ contains $M$ features and $y_{i}\in\mathcal{C}$ is the target label (e.g., a binary or multiclass classification target). To bridge the modality gap, we employ a deterministic serialization function $\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{x})$ that converts structured rows into instruction-tuning prompts.

Unlike the natural language sentence templates often favored in prior work (e.g., TabLLM’s “The age is 39…”) (Hegselmann et al., 2023), we utilize a concise key-value representation to maximize token efficiency and structural clarity. As implemented in our conversion script, numerical values are cast to integers, and categorical strings are normalized (lowercased, spaces replaced with underscores) to reduce tokenizer fragmentation. The features are concatenated into a space-delimited string:

For example, a row is serialized as: age:50 workclass:private .... This feature string is embedded into a standard instruction-tuning template.

Unlike discriminative classifiers that output a fixed vector of class probabilities, generative LLMs distribute probability mass over a vast vocabulary $\mathcal{V}$. To extract a calibrated classification probability $P(y|\mathbf{x})$ suitable for Shapley estimation, we perform a direct logit probe at the final token position of the prompt.

Let $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{V}|}$ be the logits output by the model’s language modeling head. We compute the probability distribution over the vocabulary via the softmax function: $P(t|\mathbf{x})=\text{softmax}(\mathbf{z})_{t}$ for each token $t\in\mathcal{V}$.

Token Aggregation: A critical challenge in LLM interpretability is that tokenization is sensitive to spacing and casing. For example, the semantic concept “Yes” may be represented by distinct tokens such as “Yes”, “ yes”, or fragmented tokens like “ye” + “s”. Relying on a single token ID causes feature attribution to be unstable. To resolve this, we define a Verbalizer Mapping $\mathcal{T}:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow 2^{\mathcal{V}}$ that maps each target class $c\in\mathcal{C}$ (e.g., $\{\text{Yes},\text{No}\}$) to a set of semantically equivalent tokens.

We compute the raw probability mass for a class $c$ by aggregating over the top-$K$ most probable tokens:

This dynamic aggregation is particularly critical for distilled or quantized models, where tokenization artifacts may cause the model to output fragmented tokens. Finally, to ensure a valid probability distribution for the Shapley calculation, we normalize the aggregated probabilities over the candidate class subspace:

A core challenge in LLM interpretability is defining the “absence” of a feature in a text stream. Naive token-level deletion (e.g., masking individual tokens like “5” in “Age: 50”) corrupts the semantic integrity of the prompt, often creating invalid numerical values (e.g., “Age: 0”) that trigger model hallucinations unrelated to the feature’s true importance.

To address this, TabSHAP implements Atomic Feature Masking. Each tabular field is serialized as a single space-delimited token of the form key:value (see §3.2); we treat each such token as one atomic unit. During coalition evaluation, if a feature is absent from coalition $S$, its entire key:value string is omitted from the input block—we do not substitute mean, mode, or placeholder values. The instruction and response template remain fixed, so the model sees a valid prompt containing only the active features in $S$.

Computing exact Shapley values is computationally intractable for LLMs due to the exponential number of feature combinations. We adopt the Monte Carlo estimation framework from TokenSHAP (Horovicz and Goldshmidt, 2024), but we fundamentally alter the metric to suit tabular classification.

Instead of semantic similarity, TabSHAP measures the preservation of the model’s belief state. We define the value function $v(S)$ of a feature coalition $S$ as its Distributional Similarity to the full model output. Formally, let $P_{\text{full}}$ be the class distribution given all features, and $P_{S}$ the distribution under coalition $S$. Let $\mathrm{JSD}_{\mathrm{nat}}(\cdot\|\cdot)$ denote Jensen–Shannon divergence with the natural logarithm (in nats). We map divergence to a bounded similarity in $[0,1]$ by normalizing by $\ln 2$ (the maximum of $\mathrm{JSD}_{\mathrm{nat}}$ for a binary support):

A value of $v(S)\approx 1$ implies that $S$ yields a class distribution close to the full-input distribution; $v(S)$ near $0$ implies large divergence. For ablations, we swap the distance in this step for KL divergence or L1 distance, using the same bounded similarity maps as in our evaluation code (kl_divergence, l1_distance).

Datasets. We utilize the Adult Income dataset ($N=48,842$, 14 features) as a standard binary classification benchmark. We add the Heart Disease dataset ($N=1,025$, 13 features) to provide validation in a critical, high-stakes healthcare domain where interpretability is essential. Table 1 summarizes the datasets.

Models and Hyperparameters. We fine-tune DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B (Touvron et al., 2023) using QLoRA (Dettmers et al., 2024) on serialized feature strings. The training leverages the Unsloth optimization framework for memory efficiency. Key hyperparameters include a LoRA Rank of 16, $\alpha=16$, and 4-bit precision loading. For TabSHAP attribution, we use coalition sampling ratio $r=0.4$, a cap of $C_{\max}=800$ coalitions (including all $M$ leave-one-out sets), top-$10$ logits for class aggregation, and deterministic probing at the final prompt position (no stochastic decoding), so differences across runs come from feature subsets rather than sampling noise.

Baselines. We compare TabSHAP against:

• •

  Random Removal: A baseline where features are masked in random order.

• •

  XGBoost + TreeSHAP: A state-of-the-art tree ensemble interpreted via TreeSHAP (Lundberg and Lee, 2017), serving as a ”proxy ground truth” for tabular logic.

We assess whether TabSHAP identifies features that genuinely steer the model by sequentially deleting atomic key:value tokens from the ### Input: block (instruction and response template unchanged). At each step we recompute the class distribution and track the probability mass on the originally predicted class (top-$K$ aggregation). We report the mean over test instances versus the fraction of features removed (normalized by the average number of features per instance). Removal orders compared are: (i) JSD-based TabSHAP ranking, (ii) XGBoost precomputed TreeSHAP ranking (when available), and (iii) a random permutation. This yields the faithfulness plot (JSD TabSHAP vs. baselines) in our evaluation pipeline.

We hold the test subset and TabSHAP hyperparameters fixed, load JSD attributions from cache, and compute KL- and L1-based TabSHAP rankings on the same indices (caching each metric’s rankings after the first run). We then run the identical deletion procedure as in §4.2, but compare removal curves induced by JSD-, KL-, and L1-based orderings, alongside XGBoost- and random-order baselines. Up to $10$ features are removed per instance (or fewer if fewer fields exist). This produces the metric-ablation curves used in Figure 5.

We compare the global feature rankings derived from TabSHAP against those from XGBoost (TreeSHAP) on the Adult Income dataset.

Rank Correlation. We observe a moderate Spearman rank correlation ($\rho\approx 0.65$) between the two methods. This suggests that while the fine-tuned LLM captures the fundamental causal signals (e.g., Capital Gain, Marital Status), it relies on different internal logic than the tree ensemble.

Semantic Bias. Qualitative analysis reveals that the LLM tends to assign disproportionately higher importance to semantic, text-rich features (e.g., Occupation, Education) compared to XGBoost, which prioritizes precise numerical splits (e.g., Hours-per-week). This distinction highlights the value of using a faithful interpreter like TabSHAP rather than a global proxy; it reveals that Tabular LLMs solve tasks by leveraging semantic priors, a behavior concealed when approximating the LLM with a linear model.