Search

While deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) have achieved substantial breakthroughs in computer vision, these models are frequently criticized for their lack of interpretability during decision-making. A core issue is that their underlying operational mechanism is generally perceived as a "black-box." To address this, the authors introduce the binary tree structure convolution (BTSC) module and control the activation thresholds of specific neurons to construct an interpretable DCNN framework. First, the authors develop the BTSC module, where every parent node branches into two distinct child layers, which are subsequently integrated into a standard DCNN architecture. The primary benefits of the BTSC module include: 1) child nodes emerging from separate parent nodes operate without mutual interference; 2) parent and child nodes are capable of knowledge inheritance. Second, by managing neural activation states, the authors design an information coding objective that directs neural nodes toward acquiring a predefined, targeted information coding scheme. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that: 1) the decisions executed by both ResNet and DenseNet models can be effectively clarified via the "decision information flow path" (termed the decision-path) established within the BTSC module; 2) this decision-path offers a logical explanation for the decision reversal mechanism (Robustness mechanism) inherent in DCNN models; 3) the reliability of a decision can be quantified by evaluating the alignment between the actual and anticipated decision-paths.

Foundation models have expanded the scope of artificial intelligence by supporting language generation, multimodal reasoning, knowledge-intensive assistance, decision support, and adaptable downstream applications. Their broad capabilities, however, do not establish that their outputs, explanations, internal processes, or deployment arrangements are trustworthy. This scoping review maps the research landscape concerning foundation-model trustworthiness across interpretability, explanation capabilities, hallucination, uncertainty, reliability, alignment, evaluation, and human oversight. The review uses structured search concepts, eligibility principles, evidence extraction, and dimension-based mapping to examine how peer-reviewed scholarship characterizes foundation models as general-purpose intelligent systems and how trustworthiness evidence is distributed across technical, human-centered, organizational, and governance domains. The synthesis indicates that interpretability methods can expose selected behavioral or representational features but do not independently demonstrate explanation fidelity, usefulness, or safety. Hallucination and factuality research identifies persistent risks involving fabrication, unsupported claims, weak grounding, and persuasive misinformation, while uncertainty methods remain constrained by calibration, context shift, and user-communication challenges. Alignment and post-training techniques may shape preferred behaviors but retain risks associated with proxy objectives, preference representation, and residual failure. Benchmarking, human evaluation, stress testing, and oversight provide partial evidence, yet their value depends on construct validity, domain relevance, intervention capacity, accountability, and lifecycle monitoring. The research landscape is therefore fragmented across disciplines and frequently model-centred rather than socio-technical. Key priorities include stronger foundation-model interpretability validation, consistent hallucination measurement, usable uncertainty communication, externally valid evaluation, meaningful oversight testing, multimodal analysis, and lifecycle governance. The review contributes an integrated evidence map while emphasizing that no single trustworthiness dimension certifies safety, reliability, accountability, or deployment readiness.