Devoted to interpreting the explicit behaviors of machine learning models, explanation methods can identify implicit characteristics of models to improve trustworthiness. However, explanation methods are shown as vulnerable to adversarial perturbations, implying security concerns in high-stakes domains. In this paper, we investigate when robust explanations are necessary and what they cost. We prove that the robustness of explanations is determined by the robustness of the model to be explained. Therefore, we can have robust explanations for free for a robust model. To have robust explanations for a non-robust model, composing the original model with a kernel is proved as an effective way that returns strictly more robust explanations. Nevertheless, we argue that this also incurs a robustness-faithfulness trade-off, i.e., contrary to common expectations, an explanation method may also become less faithful when it becomes more robust. This argument holds for any model. We are the first to introduce this trade-off and theoretically prove its existence for SmoothGrad. Theoretical findings are verified by empirical evidence on six state-of-the-art explanation methods and four backbones.

As black-box machine learning models become more complex and are applied in high-stakes settings, the need for providing explanations for their predictions becomes crucial. Although Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) \cite{ribeiro2016should} is a widely adopted method for understanding model behavior, it suffers from instability with respect to random seeds \cite{zafar2019dlime, shankaranarayana2019alime, bansal2020sam} and exhibits low local fidelity (i.e., how the explanation explains model's local behaviors) \cite{rahnama2019study, laugel2018defining}. Our study demonstrates that this instability is caused by small sample weights, resulting in the dominance of regularization and slow convergence. Additionally, LIME's sampling approach is non-local and biased towards the reference, leading to diminished local fidelity and instability to references. To address these challenges, we propose \textsc{Glime}, an enhanced framework that extends LIME and unifies several previous methods. Within the \textsc{Glime} framework, we derive an equivalent formulation of LIME that achieves significantly faster convergence and improved stability. By employing a local and unbiased sampling distribution, \textsc{Glime} generates explanations with higher local fidelity compared to LIME, while being independent of the reference choice. Moreover, \textsc{Glime} offers users the flexibility to choose sampling distribution based on their specific scenarios.

It is challenging to deal with censored data, where we only have access to the incomplete information of survival time instead of its exact value. Fortunately, under linear predictor assumption, people can obtain guaranteed coverage for the confidence interval of survival time using methods like Cox Regression. However, when relaxing the linear assumption with neural networks (e.g., Cox-MLP \citep{katzman2018deepsurv,kvamme2019time}), we lose the guaranteed coverage. To recover the guaranteed coverage without linear assumption, we propose two algorithms based on conformal inference. In the first algorithm \emph{WCCI}, we revisit weighted conformal inference and introduce a new non-conformity score based on partial likelihood. We then propose a two-stage algorithm \emph{T-SCI}, where we run WCCI in the first stage and apply quantile conformal inference to calibrate the results in the second stage. Theoretical analysis shows that T-SCI returns guaranteed coverage under milder assumptions than WCCI. We conduct extensive experiments on synthetic data and real data using different methods, which validate our analysis.