Paper:
Despite a growing literature on explaining neural networks, no consensus has been reached on how to explain a neural network decision or how to evaluate an explanation. Our contributions in this paper are twofold. First, we investigate schemes to combine explanation methods and reduce model uncertainty to obtain a single aggregated explanation. The aggregation is more robust and aligns better with the neural network than any single explanation method. Secondly, we propose a new approach to evaluating explanation methods that circumvents the need for manual evaluation and is not reliant on the alignment of neural networks and humans decision processes.

Review:
The paper has two main messages: 1- Averaging over the explanation (saliency map in the case of image data) of different methods results in a smaller error than an expected error of a single explanation method. 2- Introducing a new saliency map evaluation method by seeking to mitigate the effect of high spatial correlation in image data through grouping pixels into coherent segments. The paper then reports experimental results of the methods introduced in the first message being superior to existing saliency map methods using the second message (and an additional saliency map evaluation method in the literature). They also seek to magnify the capability of the 2nd message's evaluation method by showing its better capability at distinguishing between a random explanation and an explanation method with a signal in it.
I vote for rejecting this paper for two main reasons: the contributions are not enough for this veneue, and the paper's introduced methods are not backed by convincing motivations. The first message of the paper is trivial and cannot be considered as a novel contribution: the ''proof'' is basically the error of the mean is smaller than the mean of the errors. Additionally, this could have been useful if the case was that there was a need for playing the safe-card: that is, all of the existing methods have equal saliency map error and averaging will decrease the risk. Not only authors do not provide any evidence but also both the experimental results of the paper itself (results in Table 2 and Fig 4 are disproving this assumption) and the existing literature disprove it. Even considering this assumption to be correct, the contribution is minimal to the field and benefits of averaging saliency maps have been known since the SmoothGrad paper. The second contribution is an extension of existing evaluation methods (e.g. SDC) where instead of removing (replacing by mean) individual pixels, the first segment the image and remove the segments. The method, apart from being very similar to what is already there in the literature, is not introduced in a well-motivated manner. The authors claim that their evaluation method is able to circumvent the problem with removing individual pixels (which is the removed information of one pixel is mitigated by the spatial correlations in the image and therefore will not result in a proportional loss of prediction power) by removing ''features'' instead. Their definition of a feature, though, are segments generated by simple segmentation methods. There is a long line of literature showing the incorrectness of this assumption; i.e. a group of coherent nearby pixels does not necessarily constitute a feature seen by the network and does not necessarily remove the mentioned problem of the high correlation of pixels. This method does not remove "the interdependency of inputs" for the saliency evalatuion metric. Even assuming the correctness of this assumption, the contribution over what already exists in the literature is not enough for this venue.
A few suggestions:
* The authors talk about a ''true explanation''. This concept needs to be discussed more clearly and extensively. What does it mean to be a true evaluation? It is also important to prove that the introduced evaluation metric of IROF would assign perfect score for a given true explanation.
* The mentioned problem of pixel correlations that IROF seeks to mitigate is also existing in other modalities of data and the authors do not talk about how IROF could potentially be extended.
* The qualitative results in the text and the appendix do not show an advantage. It would be more crips if the authors could run simple tests on human subjects following the methods in the previous literature.
* There are many many grammatical and spelling errors in the paper. The font size for Figures is very small and unreadable unless by zooming in.
* Many of the introduced heuristics are not backed by evidence or arguments. One example is normalizing individual saliency maps between 0-1 which can naturally be harmful; e.g. aggregating a noisy low-variance method with almost equal importance everywhere (plus additive noise) and a high-variance one which does a good job at distinguishing important pixels - AGG-VAR will not mitigate this issue. 
One question:
The authors introduced aggregation as a method for a ''better explanation''. It has been known that another problem with saliency maps is robustness: one can generate adversarial examples against saliency maps. It would be an interesting question to see whether aggregation would improve robustness rather than how good the map itself is.