SoK: Taming the Triangle -- On the Interplays between Fairness, Interpretability and Privacy in Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning techniques are increasingly used for high-stakes decision-making, such as college admissions, loan attribution or recidivism prediction. Thus, it is crucial to ensure that the models learnt can be audited or understood by human users, do not create or reproduce discrimination or bias, and do not leak sensitive information regarding their training data. Indeed, interpretability, fairness and privacy are key requirements for the development of responsible machine learning, and all three have been studied extensively during the last decade. However, they were mainly considered in isolation, while in practice they interplay with each other, either positively or negatively. In this Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) paper, we survey the literature on the interactions between these three desiderata. More precisely, for each pairwise interaction, we summarize the identified synergies and tensions. These findings highlight several fundamental theoretical and empirical conflicts, while also demonstrating that jointly considering these different requirements is challenging when one aims at preserving a high level of utility. To solve this issue, we also discuss possible conciliation mechanisms, showing that a careful design can enable to successfully handle these different concerns in practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".