You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Deep neural networks obtain state-of-the-art performance on a series of tasks. However, they are easily fooled by adding a small adversarial perturbation to input. The perturbation is often human imperceptible on image data. We observe a significant difference in feature attributions of adversarially crafted examples from those of original ones. Based on this observation, we introduce a new framework to detect adversarial examples through thresholding a scale estimate of feature attribution scores. Furthermore, we extend our method to include multi-layer feature attributions in order to tackle the attacks with mixed confidence levels. Through vast experiments, our method achieves superior performances in distinguishing adversarial examples from popular attack methods on a variety of real data sets among state-of-the-art detection methods. In particular, our method is able to detect adversarial examples of mixed confidence levels, and transfer between different attacking methods.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: 

[2]: Despite widespread adoption, machine learning models remain mostly black boxes. Understanding the reasons behind predictions is, however, quite important in assessing trust, which is fundamental if one plans to take action based on a prediction, or when choosing whether to deploy a new model. Such understanding also provides insights into the model, which can be used to transform an untrustworthy model or prediction into a trustworthy one. In this work, we propose LIME, a novel explanation technique that explains the predictions of any classifier in an interpretable and faithful manner, by learning an interpretable model locally varound the prediction. We also propose a method to explain models by presenting representative individual predictions and their explanations in a non-redundant way, framing the task as a submodular optimization problem. We demonstrate the flexibility of these methods by explaining different models for text (e.g. random forests) and image classification (e.g. neural networks). We show the utility of explanations via novel experiments, both simulated and with human subjects, on various scenarios that require trust: deciding if one should trust a prediction, choosing between models, improving an untrustworthy classifier, and identifying why a classifier should not be trusted.

[3]: Understanding why a model makes a certain prediction can be as crucial as the prediction's accuracy in many applications. However, the highest accuracy for large modern datasets is often achieved by complex models that even experts struggle to interpret, such as ensemble or deep learning models, creating a tension between accuracy and interpretability. In response, various methods have recently been proposed to help users interpret the predictions of complex models, but it is often unclear how these methods are related and when one method is preferable over another. To address this problem, we present a unified framework for interpreting predictions, SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations). SHAP assigns each feature an importance value for a particular prediction. Its novel components include: (1) the identification of a new class of additive feature importance measures, and (2) theoretical results showing there is a unique solution in this class with a set of desirable properties. The new class unifies six existing methods, notable because several recent methods in the class lack the proposed desirable properties. Based on insights from this unification, we present new methods that show improved computational performance and or better consistency with human intuition than previous approaches.

[4]: Large Convolutional Network models have recently demonstrated impressive classification performance on the ImageNet benchmark [18]. However there is no clear understanding of why they perform so well, or how they might be improved. In this paper we explore both issues. We introduce a novel visualization technique that gives insight into the function of intermediate feature layers and the operation of the classifier. Used in a diagnostic role, these visualizations allow us to find model architectures that outperform on the ImageNet classification benchmark. We also perform an ablation study to discover the performance contribution from different model layers. We show our ImageNet model generalizes well to other datasets: when the softmax classifier is retrained, it convincingly beats the current state-of-the-art results on Caltech-101 and Caltech-256 datasets.
Another class is perturbation-based and thus model-agnostic. Given an instance, multiple perturbed samples are generated by masking different groups of features with a pre-specified reference value. The feature attribution of the instance is computed according to the prediction scores of a model on these samples. Popular perturbation based methods include Leave-One-Out [4] [1] , LIME [2] and KernelSHAP [3] .