Differential Privacy for Anomaly Detection: Analyzing the Trade-off Between Privacy and Explainability

Anomaly detection (AD), also referred to as outlier detection, is a statistical process aimed at identifying observations within a dataset that significantly deviate from the expected pattern of the majority of the data. Such a process finds wide application in various fields, such as finance and healthcare. While the primary objective of AD is to yield high detection accuracy, the requirements of explainability and privacy are also paramount. The first ensures the transparency of the AD process, while the second guarantees that no sensitive information is leaked to untrusted parties. In this work, we exploit the trade-off of applying Explainable AI (XAI) through SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and differential privacy (DP). We perform AD with different models and on various datasets, and we thoroughly evaluate the cost of privacy in terms of decreased accuracy and explainability. Our results show that the enforcement of privacy through DP has a significant impact on detection accuracy and explainability, which depends on both the dataset and the considered AD model. We further show that the visual interpretation of explanations is also influenced by the choice of the AD algorithm.

Climbing the Ladder of Interpretability with Counterfactual Concept Bottleneck Models

Current deep learning models are not designed to simultaneously address three fundamental questions: predict class labels to solve a given classification task (the "What?"), explain task predictions (the "Why?"), and imagine alternative scenarios that could result in different predictions (the "What if?"). The inability to answer these questions represents a crucial gap in deploying reliable AI agents, calibrating human trust, and deepening human-machine interaction. To bridge this gap, we introduce CounterFactual Concept Bottleneck Models (CF-CBMs), a class of models designed to efficiently address the above queries all at once without the need to run post-hoc searches. Our results show that CF-CBMs produce: accurate predictions (the "What?"), simple explanations for task predictions (the "Why?"), and interpretable counterfactuals (the "What if?"). CF-CBMs can also sample or estimate the most probable counterfactual to: (i) explain the effect of concept interventions on tasks, (ii) show users how to get a desired class label, and (iii) propose concept interventions via "task-driven" interventions.