ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024
The privacy-explainability trade-off: unraveling the impacts of differential privacy and federated learning on attribution methods.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable federated transformer framework for joint leukemia classification and stage prediction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploiting explanations for model extraction via knowledge distillation and mitigation with private counterfactuals.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- EF-Feddr: communication-efficient federated learning with Douglas-Rachford splitting and error feedback.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the advent of deep learning (DL), the field has witnessed a continuous stream of innovations. However, the translation of these advancements into practical applications has not kept pace, particularly in safety-critical domains where artificial intelligence (AI) must meet stringent regulatory and ethical standards. This is underscored by the ongoing research in eXplainable AI (XAI) and privacy-preserving machine learning (PPML), which seek to address some limitations associated with these opaque and data-intensive models. Despite brisk research activity in both fields, little attention has been paid to their interaction. This work is the first to thoroughly investigate the effects of privacy-preserving techniques on explanations generated by common XAI methods for DL models. A detailed experimental analysis is conducted to quantify the impact of private training on the explanations provided by DL models, applied to six image datasets and five time series datasets across various domains. The analysis comprises three privacy techniques, nine XAI methods, and seven model architectures. The findings suggest non-negligible changes in explanations through the implementation of privacy measures. Apart from reporting individual effects of PPML on XAI, the paper gives clear recommendations for the choice of techniques in real applications. By unveiling the interdependencies of these pivotal technologies, this research marks an initial step toward resolving the challenges that hinder the deployment of AI in safety-critical settings.
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.