ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2023
Translating theory into practice: assessing the privacy implications of concept-based explanations for biomedical AI.
Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The privacy-explainability trade-off: unraveling the impacts of differential privacy and federated learning on attribution methods.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has achieved remarkable success in image generation, image analysis, and language modeling, making data-driven techniques increasingly relevant in practical real-world applications, promising enhanced creativity and efficiency for human users. However, the deployment of AI in high-stakes domains such as infrastructure and healthcare still raises concerns regarding algorithm accountability and safety. The emerging field of explainable AI (XAI) has made significant strides in developing interfaces that enable humans to comprehend the decisions made by data-driven models. Among these approaches, concept-based explainability stands out due to its ability to align explanations with high-level concepts familiar to users. Nonetheless, early research in adversarial machine learning has unveiled that exposing model explanations can render victim models more susceptible to attacks. This is the first study to investigate and compare the impact of concept-based explanations on the privacy of Deep Learning based AI models in the context of biomedical image analysis. An extensive privacy benchmark is conducted on three different state-of-the-art model architectures (ResNet50, NFNet, ConvNeXt) trained on two biomedical (ISIC and EyePACS) and one synthetic dataset (SCDB). The success of membership inference attacks while exposing varying degrees of attribution-based and concept-based explanations is systematically compared. The findings indicate that, in theory, concept-based explanations can potentially increase the vulnerability of a private AI system by up to 16% compared to attributions in the baseline setting. However, it is demonstrated that, in more realistic attack scenarios, the threat posed by explanations is negligible in practice. Furthermore, actionable recommendations are provided to ensure the safe deployment of concept-based XAI systems. In addition, the impact of differential privacy (DP) on the quality of concept-based explanations is explored, revealing that while negatively influencing the explanation ability, DP can have an adverse effect on the models' privacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.