# Reconciling Privacy and Explainability in High-Stakes: A Systematic Inquiry

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.20798 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.20798/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 69 of its 110 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Dec 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 69)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02391/) (2016)
- [Densely Connected Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.06993/) (2016)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Deep Learning with Differential Privacy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.00133/) (2016)
- [Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6034/) (2013)
- [Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.05820/) (2016)
- [Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisited](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.00414/) (2019)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [EfficientNetV2: Smaller Models and Faster Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.00298/) (2021)
- [SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03825/) (2017)
- [RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07421/) (2018)
- [Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03685/) (2020)
- [Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorch](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.07896/) (2020)
- [Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1509.06321/) (2015)
- [Opacus: User-Friendly Differential Privacy Library in PyTorch](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.12298/) (2021)
- [The many Shapley values for model explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.08474/) (2019)
- [Top-down Neural Attention by Excitation Backprop](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.00507/) (2016)
- [Membership Inference Attacks on Machine Learning: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.07853/) (2021)
- [On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.08049/) (2018)
- [On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09392/) (2019)
- [Scalable Private Learning with PATE](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.08908/) (2018)
- [VinDr-CXR: An open dataset of chest X-rays with radiologist's annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.15029/) (2020)
- [Explainable Machine Learning in Deployment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06342/) (2019)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Understanding, Visualizing and Interpreting Deep Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.08296/) (2017)
- [Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.11097/) (2020)
- [Quantus: An Explainable AI Toolkit for Responsible Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.06861/) (2022)
- [The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.01602/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Training Therapeutic Judges and Multi-Agent Systems for Human-Aligned Mental Health Support](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.30887/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Deep learning's preponderance across scientific domains has reshaped high-stakes decision-making, making it essential to follow rigorous operational frameworks that include both Right-to-Privacy (RTP) and Right-to-Explanation (RTE). This paper examines the complexities of combining these two requirements. For RTP, we focus on `Differential privacy` (DP), which is considered the current gold standard for privacy-preserving machine learning due to its strong quantitative guarantee of privacy. For RTE, we focus on post-hoc explainers: they are the go-to option for model auditing as they operate independently of model training. We formally investigate DP models and various commonly-used post-hoc explainers: how to evaluate these explainers subject to RTP, and analyze the intrinsic interactions between DP models and these explainers. Furthermore, our work throws light on how RTP and RTE can be effectively combined in high-stakes applications. Our study concludes by outlining an industrial software pipeline, with the example of a wildly used use-case, that respects both RTP and RTE requirements.