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

Title: INTERPRETATION OF NEURAL NETWORK IS FRAGILE

Paper content:
In order for machine learning to be deployed and trusted in many applications, it is crucial to be able to reliably explain why the machine learning algorithm makes certain predictions.
For example, if an algorithm classifies a given pathology image to be a malignant tumor, then the doctor may need to know which parts of the image led the algorithm to this classification.
How to interpret black-box predictors is thus an important and active area of research.
A fundamental question is: how much can we trust the interpretation itself?
In this paper, we show that interpretation of deep learning predictions is extremely fragile in the following sense:  two perceptively indistinguishable inputs with the same predicted label can be assigned very different}interpretations.
We systematically characterize the fragility of the interpretations generated by several widely-used feature-importance interpretation methods (saliency maps, integrated gradient, and DeepLIFT) on ImageNet and CIFAR-10.
Our experiments show that even small random perturbation can change the feature importance and new systematic perturbations can lead to dramatically different interpretations without changing the label.
We extend these results to show that interpretations based on exemplars (e.g. influence functions) are similarly fragile.
Our analysis of the geometry of the Hessian matrix gives insight on why fragility could be a fundamental challenge to the current interpretation approaches.
Predictions made by machine learning algorithms play an important role in our everyday lives and can affect decisions in technology, medicine, and even the legal system (Rich, 2015; Obermeyer & Emanuel, 2016) .
As the algorithms become increasingly complex, explanations for why an algorithm makes certain decisions are ever more crucial.
For example, if an AI system predicts a given pathology image to be malignant, then the doctor would want to know what features in the image led the algorithm to this classification.
Similarly, if an algorithm predicts an individual to be a credit risk, then the lender (and the borrower) might want to know why.
Therefore having interpretations for why certain predictions are made is critical for establishing trust and transparency between the users and the algorithm (Lipton, 2016) .Having
an interpretation is not enough, however. The explanation
itself must be robust in order to establish human trust. Take the pathology
predictor; an interpretation method might suggest that a particular section in an image is important for the malignant classification (e.g. that section could have high scores in saliency map). The clinician might
then focus on that section for investigation, treatment or even look for similar features in other patients. It would be highly
disconcerting if in an extremely similar image, visually indistinguishable from the original and also classified as malignant, a very different section is interpreted as being salient for the prediction. Thus, even if the
predictor is robust (both images are correctly labeled as malignant), that the interpretation is fragile would still be highly problematic in deployment.Our contributions. The fragility of
prediction in deep neural networks against adversarial attacks is an active area of research BID4 Kurakin et al., 2016; Papernot et al., 2016; Moosavi-Dezfooli et al., 2016) . In that setting,
fragility is exhibited when two perceptively indistinguishable images are assigned different labels by the neural network. In this paper, we
extend the definition of fragility to neural network interpretation. More precisely, we
define the interpretation of neural network to be fragile if perceptively indistinguishable images that have the same prediction label by the neural network are given substantially different interpretations. We systematically
The fragility of feature-importance maps. We generate feature-importance
scores, also called saliency maps, using three popular interpretation methods: simple gradient (a), DeepLIFT (b) and integrated
gradient (c).
The top row shows the the original
images
and their saliency maps and the bottom row shows the perturbed images (using the center attack with = 8, as described in Section 3) and the corresponding saliency maps. In all three images, the predicted label
has not changed due to perturbation; in fact the network's (SqueezeNet) confidence in the prediction has actually increased. However, the saliency maps of the perturbed
images are meaningless.investigate two classes of interpretation methods: methods that assign importance scores to each feature (this includes simple gradient (Simonyan et al., 2013) , DeepLift (Shrikumar et al., 2017) , and integrated gradient (Sundararajan et al., 2017) ), as well as a method that assigns importances to each training example: influence functions (Koh & Liang, 2017) . For both classes of interpretations, we show
that targeted perturbations can lead to dramatically different interpretations ( FIG0 ).Our findings highlight the fragility of interpretations
of neural networks, which has not been carefully considered in literature. Fragility directly limits how much we can trust and learn
from the interpretations. It also raises a significant new security concern. Especially
in medical or economic applications, users often take
the interpretation of a prediction as containing causal insight ("this image is a malignant tumor likely because of the section with a high saliency score"). An adversary could minutely manipulate the input to draw attention
away from relevant features or onto his/her desired features. Such attacks might be especially hard to detect as the actual labels
have not changed.While we focus on image data here because most of the interpretation methods have been motivated by images, the fragility of neural network interpretation could be a much broader problem. Fig. 2 illustrates the intuition that when the decision boundary in
the
input feature space is complex, as is the case with deep nets, a small perturbation in the input can push the example into a region with very different loss contours. Because the feature importance is closely related to the gradient
which is perpendicular to the loss contours, the importance scores can also be dramatically different. We provide additional analysis of this in Section 5.
Related works To the best of our knowledge, the notion of adversarial examples has not previously been studied in the context of interpretation of neural networks.
Adversarial attacks to the input that changes the prediction of a network have been actively studied.
Szegedy et al. (2013) demonstrated that it is relatively easy to fool neural networks into making very different predictions for test images that are visually very similar to each other.
BID4 introduced the Fast Gradient Sign Method (FGSM) as a one-step prediction attack.
This was followed by more effective iterative attacks (Kurakin et al., 2016) Interpretation of neural network predictions is also an active research area.
Post-hoc interpretability (Lipton, 2016) is one family of methods that seek to "explain" the prediction without talking about the details of black-box model's hidden mechanisms.
These included tools to explain predictions by networks in terms of the features of the test example (Simonyan et al., 2013; Shrikumar et al., 2017; Sundararajan et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2016) , as well as in terms of contribution of training examples to the prediction at test time (Koh & Liang, 2017) .
These interpretations have gained increasing popularity, as they confer a degree of insight to human users of what the neural network might be doing (Lipton, 2016) .Conclusion
This paper demonstrates that interpretation of neural networks can be fragile in the specific sense that two similar inputs with the same predicted label can be given very different interpretations. We develop
new perturbations to illustrate this fragility and propose evaluation metrics as well as insights on why fragility occurs. Fragility
of neural network interpretation is orthogonal to fragility of the prediction-we demonstrate how perturbations can substantially change the interpretation without changing the predicted label. The two types
of fragility do arise from similar factors, as we discuss in Section 5. Our focus is
on the interpretation method, rather than on the original network, and as such we do not explore how interpretable is the original predictor. There is a separately
line of research that tries to design simpler and more interpretable prediction models BID0 .Our main message is that
robustness of the interpretation of a prediction is an important and challenging problem, especially as in many applications (e.g. many biomedical and social settings) users are as interested in the interpretation as in the prediction itself. Our results raise concerns
on how interpretations of neural networks are sensitive to noise and can be manipulated. Especially in settings where
the importance of individual or a small subset of features are interpreted, we show that these importance scores can be sensitive to even random perturbation. More dramatic manipulations
of interpretations can be achieved with our targeted perturbations, which raise security concerns. We do not suggest that interpretations
are meaningless, just as adversarial attacks on predictions do not imply that neural networks are useless. Interpretation methods do need to be used
and evaluated with caution while applied to neural networks, as they can be fooled into identifying features that would not be considered salient by human perception.Our results demonstrate that the interpretations (e.g. saliency maps) are vulnerable to perturbations, but this does not imply that the interpretation methods are broken by the perturbations. This is a subtle but important distinction
. Methods such as saliency measure the infinitesimal
sensitivity of the neural network at a particular input x. After a perturbation, the input has changed tox =
x + δ, and the salency now measures the sensitivity at the perturbed input. The saliency correctly captures the infinitesimal
sensitivity at the two inputs; it's doing what it is supposed to do. The fact that the two resulting saliency maps are
very different is fundamentally due to the network itself being fragile to such perturbations, as we illustrate with Fig. 2 .While we focus on image data (ImageNet and CIFAR-10
), because these are the standard benchmarks for popular interpretation tools, this fragility issue can be wide-spread in biomedical, economic and other settings where neural networks are increasingly used. Understanding interpretation fragility in these applications
and develop more robust methods are important agendas of research.

assistant: text: Can we trust a neural network's explanation for its prediction? We examine the robustness of several popular notions of interpretability of neural networks including saliency maps and influence functions and design adversarial examples against them.