user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Evaluations and Methods for Explanation through Robustness Analysis

Paper content:
Among multiple ways of interpreting a machine learning model, measuring the importance of a set of features tied to a prediction is probably one of the most intuitive way to explain a model.
In this paper, we establish the link between a set of features to a prediction with a new evaluation criteria, robustness analysis, which measures the minimum tolerance of adversarial perturbation.
By measuring the tolerance level for an adversarial attack, we can extract a set of features that provides most robust support for a current prediction, and also can extract a set of features that contrasts the current prediction to a target class by setting a targeted adversarial attack.
By applying this methodology to various prediction tasks across multiple domains, we observed the derived explanations are indeed capturing the significant feature set qualitatively and quantitatively.
With the significant progress of recent machine learning research, various machine learning models have been being rapidly adopted to countless real-world applications.
This rapid adaptation increasingly questions the machine learning model's credibility, fairness, and more generally interpretability.
In the line of this research, researchers have explored various notions of model interpretability.
Some researchers directly answer the trustability (Ribeiro et al., 2016) or the fairness of a model (Zhao et al., 2017) , while some other researchers seek to actually improve the model's performance by understanding the model's weak points (Koh & Liang, 2017) .
Even though the goal of such various model interpretability tasks varies, vast majority of them are built upon extracting relevant features for a prediction, so called feature-based explanation.
Feature-based explanation is commonly based on measuring the fidelity of the explanation to the model, which is essentially how close the sum of attribution scores for a set of features approximates the function value difference before and after removing the set of features.
Depending on their design, the fidelity-based attribution evaluation varies: completeness (Sundararajan et al., 2017) , sensitivity-n (Ancona et al., 2018) , infidelity (Yeh et al., 2019) , and causal local explanation metric (Plumb et al., 2018) .
The idea of smallest sufficient region (SSR) and smallest destroying region (SDR) (Fong & Vedaldi, 2017; Dabkowski & Gal, 2017 ) is worth noting because it considers the ranking of the feature attribution scores, not the actual score itself.
Intuitively, for a faithful attribution score, removing the most salient features would naturally lead to a large difference in prediction score.
Therefore, SDR-based evaluations measure how much the function value changes when the most high-valued salient features are removed.
Although the aforementioned attribution evaluations made success in many cases, setting features with an arbitrary reference values to zero-out the input is limited, in the sense that it only considers the prediction at the reference value while ignoring the rest of the input space.
Furthermore, the choice of reference value inherently introduces bias.
For example, if we set the feature value to 0 in rgb images, this introduces a bias in the attribution map that favors the bright pixels.
As a result, explanations that optimize upon such evaluations often omit important dark objects and the pertinent negative features in the image, which is the part of the image that does not contain object but is crucial to the prediction (Dhurandhar et al., 2018 ).
An alternative way to remove pixels is to use sampling from some predefined distribution or a generative model (Chang et al., 2018) , which nevertheless could still introduce some bias with respect to the defined distribution.
Moreover, they require a generative model that approximates the data distribution, which may not be available in certain domains.
In this paper, we remove such inherit bias by taking a different perspective on the input perturbation.
We start from an intuition that if a set of features are important to make a specific prediction, keeping them in the same values would preserve the prediction even though other irrelevant features are modified.
In other words, the model would be more sensitive on the changes of those important or relevant features than the ones that are not.
Unlike the foremost approaches including SDR and SSR that perturbs features to a specific reference point, we consider the minimum norm of perturbation to arbitrary directions, not just to a reference point, that can change model's prediction, also known as "minimum adversarial perturbation" in the literature (Goodfellow et al., 2014; Weng et al., 2018b) .
Based on this idea, we define new evaluation criteria to test the importance of a set of features.
By computing the minimum adversarial perturbation on the complementary set of features that can alter the model's decision, we could test the degree of importance of the set.
Although explicitly computing the importance value is NP-hard (Katz et al., 2017) , Carlini & Wagner (2017) and Madry et al. (2017) showed that the perturbations computed by adversarial attacks can serve as reasonably tight upper bounds, which lead to an efficient approximation for the proposed evaluation.
Furthermore, we can derive a new explanation framework by formulating the model explanation to a two-player min-max game between explanator and adversarial attacker.
The explanator aims to find a set of important features to maximize the minimum perturbation computed by the attacker.
This framework empirically performs much better than previous approaches quantitatively, with very inspiring examples.
To summarize our contributions:
• We define new evaluation criteria for feature-based explanations based on robustness analysis.
The evaluation criteria consider the worst case perturbations when a set of features are anchored, which does not introduce bias into the evaluation.
• We design efficient algorithms to generate explanations that maximize the proposed criteria, which perform favorably against baseline methods on the proposed evaluation criteria.
• Experiments in computer vision and NLP models demonstrate that the proposed explanation can indeed identify some important features that are not captured by previous methods.
Furthermore, our method is able to extract a set of features that contrasts the current prediction to a target class.
In this paper, we establish the link between a set of features to a prediction with a new evaluation criteria, robustness analysis, which measures the minimum tolerance of adversarial perturbation.
Furthermore, we develop a new explanation method to find important set of features to optimize this new criterion.
Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed new explanations are indeed capturing significant feature sets across multiple domains.
Figure 8 : Comparisons between our proposed methods under different criteria.
From left to right: untargeted Robustness-S r , targeted Robustness-S r , untargeted Robustness-S r , targeted Robustness-S r .
We omit points in the plot with value too high to fit in the scale of y-axis.

assistant: text: We propose new objective measurement for evaluating explanations based on the notion of adversarial robustness. The evaluation criteria further allows us to derive new explanations which capture pertinent features qualitatively and quantitatively.