Search

The rise of the digital era presents mounting difficulties for ideological and political instruction, as the swift dissemination of internet-based public sentiment and the expanding reach of social media frequently outpace conventional pedagogical approaches. Present methodologies suffer from poor precision in detecting risks and lack explicit metrics for assessing the fundamental competencies of instructors. To surmount these challenges, this paper presents a dual-core system framework. Chiefly, the Multi-modal Decision Support System (MADF-SE) merges classroom behavioral identification, semantic evaluation, and blockchain-enabled traceability to enhance both the precision and punctuality of hazard detection. Secondary to this, the Dynamic Capability Evolution Model (DCEM) quantitatively monitors and upgrades the cognitive, practical, and inventive skills of teachers over time. Furthermore, a hierarchical federated learning architecture is deployed to strike a balance between individual privacy safeguarding and inter-collegiate cooperation. Empirical testing and case analyses across more than 30 higher education institutions indicate that the introduced framework cuts the public opinion management timeframe by 50%, elevates instructor engagement in strategic choices from 20% to 60%, and boosts their collective core competencies by greater than 25% on an annual basis. These outcomes highlight a viable and scalable methodology for driving the digital evolution of ideological and political schooling.

This research examined user perceptions regarding the concept of "knowledge" in robotic systems and how this conceptualization diverges from perspectives on human knowledge. Utilizing the Justified True Belief (JTB) framework of epistemology, three experiments were executed to ascertain whether individuals apply identical criteria to a robot's epistemic states as they do to a human's. In Experiment 1, a Gettier-style scenario was presented to participants; their subsequent responses demonstrated that the prerequisites for attributing knowledge vary significantly between human and robotic agents. Experiment 2 investigated the precise threshold at which information is categorized as "knowledge," indicating that users demand a higher degree of direct verification from robots than from humans. Experiment 3 analyzed how these underlying beliefs regarding robotic knowledge, as mapped in Experiments 1 and 2, affect the moral assessments made by users. The findings indicated that when acting as an accomplice to an offense, a robot was assigned less responsibility by users than a human accomplice. Collectively, these outcomes imply that users view a robot's knowledge as rigid, dependent upon direct perception, and inherently distinct from human cognition and inference. These insights offer valuable implications for designing human–robot interaction (HRI) systems, as comprehending user perceptions of robotic knowledge may be critical for fostering trust in future human–robot collaboration.

The fraudulent application of image transformation methods to clinical data represents a severe hazard that can jeopardize patient safety. Consequently, identifying artificial alterations using deep learning frameworks is vital for mitigating the challenges posed by modified medical imagery in clinical environments. The experimental data were partitioned into an authentic fundus dataset and a manipulated dataset. The proposed framework for detecting fundus image modification utilizes a deep learning architecture rooted in a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) structure, incorporating a concatenation mechanism to achieve rapid processing speeds and minimize the attenuation of input image weights. When evaluating authentic data, the system attained an average sensitivity of 0.08, precision of 1.00, F1-score of 0.99, and an AUC of 0.988. On the manipulated dataset, the framework achieved a sensitivity of 1.00, precision of 0.84, F1-score of 0.92, and an AUC of 0.988. In comparison, a panel of five ophthalmologists demonstrated lower average metrics on the altered images, yielding a sensitivity of 0.71, precision of 0.61, F1-score of 0.65, and an AUC of 0.822. This investigation highlights the potential for mitigating and preventing the complications arising from fabricated medical imagery within healthcare systems. The introduced methodology for identifying altered fundus photographs via a deep learning model outperforms human specialists, proving to be an efficient diagnostic strategy.

Progress in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technologies alongside wearable electronics is driving the evolution of automated insulin delivery systems (AIDs) toward fully automated closed-loop configurations. The ultimate goal is to provide safe, individualized, and optimized management of blood glucose concentration (BGC) for patients living with diabetes. Although model predictive control offers an adaptable architecture for constructing AIDs control logic, accurate and efficient BGC regulation demands models capable of accounting for inter- and intra-patient variability as well as perturbation uncertainties. Innovations in artificial intelligence offer novel pathways for creating data-driven, fully closed-loop AIDs. Among these approaches, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) has gained substantial interest owing to its inherent robustness against disturbances. Consequently, this article presents a comprehensive literature review focused on DRL-based BGC control methodologies within AIDs. Initially, this paper systematically evaluates the advantages of deploying DRL frameworks in AIDs. Following this, it delivers an extensive analysis of diverse DRL methods and enhancements designed to surmount obstacles linked to their integration into AIDs, addressing factors such as restricted sample availability, personalization, and safety protocols. Furthermore, an application-centric assessment of DRL-based AIDs control algorithms is provided, highlighting critical hurdles encountered during practical implementation. Lastly, the paper addresses potential remedies for relevant BGC control challenges, outlines prospects for real-world application, and identifies future research trajectories.

Merging Artificial Intelligence (AI) with Business Process Management Systems (BPMSs) has given rise to AI-Augmented Business Process Management Systems (ABPMSs). These modern setups deliver flexible adaptability, instantaneous process refinement, and superior knowledge management workflows. Yet, notable hurdles persist, especially regarding contextual clarity, user buy-in, and the incorporation of behavioral dynamics. This research introduces a novel conceptual model that unifies the Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization (SECI) knowledge paradigm with Agile workflows (specifically Scrum) and advanced AI capabilities like explainable AI (XAI), process mining, and Robotic Process Automation (RPA). This setup streamlines the formalization, validation, and dissemination of insights through structured, intuitive software and collaborative frameworks, particularly Communities of Practice (CoPs). The system highlights context-sensitive transparency, step-by-step deployment, and iterative refinement to foster productive human–AI partnerships. It delivers both conceptual and practical blueprints for linking AI strengths with corporate knowledge assets. The introduced model eases the upgrade path from legacy BPMSs to advanced ABPMSs by utilizing systematic practices and technologies. This strategy accelerates knowledge distribution and operational refinement, mapped out via exhaustive BPMN 2.0 diagrams.

Machine unlearning is vital for model optimization and privacy preservation, particularly when erasing entire data classes within classification frameworks. Nonetheless, current approaches frequently suffer from excessive computational overhead, such as calculating the inverse Hessian, or necessitate availability of the primary training set, which restricts their real-world utility. To address these limitations, we present Scrub-and-Learn, a category-aware weight adjusting framework engineered for the efficient removal of class-level information. Formulating unlearning as a sequential learning objective, our approach utilizes re-encoded labels from target class samples to steer parameter adjustments, successfully purging targeted information while maintaining the network's remaining capabilities. Empirical evaluations across several benchmarks show that our technique successfully wipes out designated categories—limiting the identification rate to under 5%—while maintaining the accuracy of the kept classes within a 4% variance compared to the baseline model.

The rapid evolution of generative artificial intelligence, most notably large language models like ChatGPT and GPT-4, has unlocked revolutionary opportunities for postgraduate scholarship. This systematic review evaluates how generative artificial intelligence utilities alter the quality, execution speed, ethical standards, and innovative potential of postgraduate inquiries. A thorough literature search was conducted across four major repositories: Google Scholar, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus. Adhering strictly to PRISMA protocols, 20 peer-reviewed articles published between 2019 and 2025 were chosen for detailed investigation based on their direct alignment with postgraduate research settings, explicit use of generative AI applications, and documented outcomes. The synthesis revealed four core dimensions: (i) research productivity and efficiency, where generative AI refines academic composition, data processing, and literature mapping; (ii) cognitive and creative assistance, where AI aids in drafting hypotheses, brainstorming novel concepts, and polishing text; (iii) academic honesty and ethical dilemmas, which highlight vulnerabilities surrounding plagiarism, data fabrication, and over-dependence on machine-generated text; and (iv) capacity shortages and skill evolution, indicating an accelerating necessity for postgraduate scholars to undergo training in AI literacy and ethics. Although these generative AI systems offer significant advantages by broadening access to analytical tools and boosting operational output for postgraduate scholars, this investigation reveals a stark lack of rigorous regulatory oversight and institutional frameworks across most universities. Furthermore, unequal regional access to state-of-the-art AI systems threatens global research equity. The review culminates in a proposal for a customized framework designed for the conscientious integration of GenAI into postgraduate studies, prioritizing institutional governance, human-machine partnerships, and ethical deployment. These insights enrich the ongoing debate regarding the trajectory of AI, offering scholars, investigators, and administrators data-driven strategies to harness AI capabilities while defending academic standards.

Deducing causal protein signalling networks using human immune system cellular data offers a encouraging pathway to decode both fundamental tissue signaling biology and the underlying abnormalities in pathological cells. Consequently, this domain has drawn substantial interest within bioinformatics. More recently, Bayesian network (BN) approaches have become highly prominent for reconstructing causal protein signalling pathways from high-dimensional single-cell datasets. Nevertheless, existing BN algorithms frequently suffer from elevated computational demands and overlook the interplay among signaling molecules across distinct single cells. To address these issues, this paper introduces a novel score-based BN framework named parallel discrete artificial bee colony (PDABC) for uncovering causal protein signalling architectures. Specifically, PDABC leverages a parallelized artificial bee colony framework to explore the search space and identify the globally optimal network topology maximizing the discrete K2 score metric. Performance assessments conducted on multiple synthetic benchmarks, alongside a public multi-parameter fluorescence-activated cell sorter dataset, demonstrate that the proposed PDABC framework exceeds contemporary state-of-the-art techniques regarding both structural accuracy and computational throughput.

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.

Pre-trained multilingual language models (PMLMs), including mBERT and XLM-R, have demonstrated strong capabilities in cross-lingual transfer. Nonetheless, these models are not explicitly optimized to capture cross-lingual indicators related to sentiment-bearing terms. This limitation disproportionately affects low-resource languages (LRLs), which suffer from under-representation within these architectures. To optimize the fine-tuning of these models for sentiment analysis in LRLs, this paper presents a novel intermediate task fine-tuning (ITFT) approach centered on a sentiment lexicon from a high-resource language (HRL). The authors evaluate this methodology using a 3-class sentiment classification framework across three LRLs: Sinhala, Tamil, and Bengali. The findings indicate that the proposed strategy surpasses standard vanilla fine-tuning of the PMLM, while also performing on par with or exceeding conventional ITFT techniques that utilize HRL sentiment classification datasets.

In recent years, deep learning has emerged as a promising framework for identifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) within clinical neuroimaging. Nonetheless, conventional architectures frequently fail to optimize feature extraction from medical scans and underutilize auxiliary data resources vital for diagnostic categorization. To resolve these challenges, this paper introduces a deep three-dimensional convolutional neural network architecture that integrates attention mechanisms with multi-task learning. An enhanced primary C3D network is deployed to generate initial, coarse low-level feature maps. This design implements a novel convolutional block tailored to capture the specific structural properties of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, along with a secondary block configured to compute localized attention weights for distinct pixel coordinates within the feature map, which are subsequently combined with the map's output. Thereafter, a series of fully connected layers implements multi-task learning, producing three distinct outputs that encompass the primary classification objective. During the training phase, the two auxiliary outputs leverage backpropagation to refine and enhance the primary classification performance. Empirical results demonstrate that this proposed framework outperforms existing state-of-the-art models for AD detection, yielding superior classification accuracy and enhanced performance metrics on the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset. These outcomes illustrate a compelling direction for prospective diagnostic classification research.

Offline reinforcement learning (RL) focuses on training policies exclusively from passively gathered datasets, establishing it as a data-driven decision-making framework. A major obstacle in offline RL is the phenomenon of distribution shift, which leads the algorithm to encounter out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. While constraining the divergence between the target policy and the behavior policy can alleviate distribution shift, this strategy can unduly restrict the target policy and degrade algorithmic performance, because it fails to explicitly differentiate between in-distribution and OOD samples. Furthermore, accurately learning and representing a multi-modal behavior policy is highly challenging when datasets are compiled from multiple distinct behavior policies. To resolve these limitations, the authors tackle the distribution shift problem through implicit policy constraints utilizing energy-based models (EBMs), bypassing the explicit modeling of the behavior policy. EBMs offer a powerful framework for characterizing complex multi-modal distributions while effectively distinguishing between in-distribution and OOD samples. Experimental outcomes demonstrate that this approach substantially surpasses explicit policy constraint methods and other baseline techniques. Furthermore, the trained energy model serves as an effective indicator of OOD encounters, providing alerts for potential failures.

Laminectomy represents one of the most frequently performed posterior spinal procedures. Because the lamina is situated in close proximity to critical neural structures, any operative damage can induce profound complications, potentially culminating in paralysis. To mitigate these risks and associated adverse events, surgical robotics and ultrasonic bone scalpels have been integrated into spinal laminectomy procedures, prompting extensive academic investigation into methods for detecting bone tissue states. At present, virtually all state-recognition methodologies rely on sensor signals acquired via high-precision instrumentation integrated into the end-effectors of surgical robots. Nevertheless, previous approaches have struggled to achieve highly accurate identification of spinal bone tissue states. In an innovative departure, this study frames the identification of bone tissue states as a time-series classification problem. The LSTM-FCN classification algorithm was deployed to analyze multi-sensor fusion signals combining force and cutting depth data, thereby enabling precise categorization of the laminal bone tissue state. Furthermore, experimental validation demonstrated that this approach achieves an accuracy of 98.85% in identifying bone tissue states during porcine spinal laminectomy. Crucially, the maximum penetration depth can be restricted to within 0.6 mm, confirming its safety and viability for practical clinical application.

Anticipating the movement of nearby traffic participants allows automated vehicles to formulate safe and efficient navigation strategies. This undertaking is highly intricate, given that the conduct of road users is shaped by numerous variables, resulting in a substantial variety of potential future paths (multi-modality). The majority of previous methodologies designed to tackle multi-modal trajectory forecasting rely on intricate machine learning architectures that offer minimal interpretability. Furthermore, the performance measures utilized in contemporary benchmarks fail to assess every dimension of the issue, particularly regarding the variety and validity of the generated paths.The authors intend to progress the creation of dependable trajectory forecasting systems by aligning with specific tenets established for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. The primary emphasis is directed toward assessment benchmarks, structural resilience, and the explainability of model outputs. Initially, existing appraisal metrics undergo a detailed examination to pinpoint the major deficiencies in current benchmarks, leading to the introduction of a new, comprehensive assessment framework. Following this, a methodology to evaluate spatial and temporal resilience is developed by replicating sensor noise within the perception pipeline. To improve output interpretability and produce more equitable outcomes across the proposed evaluation metrics, an intention forecasting layer is introduced that can be integrated into existing multi-modal trajectory models. The utility of this configuration is analyzed via a user study that investigates distinct graphical representations of multi-modal paths and driver intents. The introduced methodology and subsequent insights offer a meaningful advancement toward constructing dependable trajectory forecasting frameworks for automated vehicles, shifting the discipline toward elevated levels of safety and operational dependability.

The intricate and heterogeneous nature introduced by the decentralized architecture of the modern electric information collection system has increased the difficulty of establishing verification index systems and quality appraisal frameworks. Furthermore, discrepancies between distinct components complicate the realization of impartial and scientifically sound validation. To address these challenges, an integrated construction quality evaluation framework grounded in multi-scenario comprehensive weighted assessments was developed by exploiting graph neural networks and siamese networks. Initially, a graph neural network was formulated utilizing terminal data from the regional branches' electricity utilization information collection system alongside its link topological framework. This network was subsequently implemented at the headquarters level to directly capture terminal information and produce mirrored network inputs from the regional branch data, facilitating the real-time acquisition of diverse system performance metrics. Ultimately, the degree of correspondence between the headquarters and regional branch datasets was computed via siamese networks to derive precision compensation weights for validating and analyzing various parameters, thereby yielding comprehensive weighted quality appraisal indicators for the next-generation electric information collection systems at the branch level. Three distinct service types—namely, power data acquisition, load forecasting, and task scheduling—served as the experimental environments. The empirical findings demonstrated that the multidimensional comprehensive weighted quality appraisal, augmented by the accuracy compensation derived from the siamese network, achieved business construction quality evaluation ratings of 97.92%, 95.95%, and 99.96% within the branch system. These metrics closely approximate the quality ratings obtained through manual assessment, confirming that this methodology can reliably validate the construction quality of modern systems implemented across branches.

Deep learning (DL) architectures have established state-of-the-art capabilities across numerous fields. Unpacking their internal operations and reasoning paths is critical due to their high architectural complexity and opaque, black-box character, particularly in high-stakes fields like healthcare. Visual analytics (VA) integrated with DL methodologies are frequently employed to extract data insights, yet they regularly face challenges related to visual clutter (VC). This research introduces a streamlined neural network (NN) view design engineered to mitigate visual clutter while clarifying DL model elements for field specialists and everyday users. We applied clustering techniques to aggregate hidden neurons according to similarities in their activation profiles. This framework accommodates both macroscopic and micro-level perspectives of the generated neuron groups. Utilizing a tabular medical dataset as a practical case study, this clustered visualization strategy successfully decreased visual clutter by 54% for neuron graphics and by 88.7% for their interconnections, while successfully exposing correlated neuron activations developed throughout model training.

The reliability and security of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have attracted growing attention, particularly in domains where safety is paramount, such as clinical medicine. Even though CNNs demonstrate high competency in categorizing images, their outcomes frequently exhibit vulnerability to minor image adjustments that remain imperceptible to human observers. Consequently, an altered, degraded image can appear identical to the authentic image to a person, yet mislead the CNN into making an incorrect classification. Throughout this study, these altered images are termed adversarial images. A widespread approach for producing adversarial images involves propagating the loss gradient backward to alter the source image. Typically, perturbations have been established using solely the gradient direction and a fixed step size (referred to as the fast gradient sign method, or FGSM), or by executing the FGSM iteratively to craft more potent perturbations capable of altering the model's categorization (i-FGSM). Conversely, if the step size is excessively large, the smallest possible image perturbation might be overlooked during the gradient exploration. To discover precise and minimal input image variations necessary to prompt a classification shift, this paper proposes initiating the FGSM with a small step size and dynamically tuning it across iterations. For evaluation, several decay algorithms from existing literature were assessed against a novel method driven by an index monitoring the state of the loss. Ultimately, three separate tracking functions were implemented for comparative analysis. The empirical findings demonstrate that our loss-adaptive decay algorithms successfully identified adversarial examples with a success rate exceeding 90% while introducing fewer distortions to mislead the CNNs.

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) systems across numerous sectors in recent years has drawn significant attention to the ethical, legal, and societal aspects (ELSA) of these technologies, along with the specific difficulties they introduce. This paper outlines an ELSA curriculum tailored for data scientists. The framework is designed to heighten awareness of ELSA dilemmas in professional practice, establish a shared vocabulary with domain experts to facilitate collaborative problem-solving, and ultimately imbed ELSA principles directly into data science workflows. Rather than being treated as an obstacle or an auxiliary requirement, ELSA ought to be viewed as an essential component of the Data Science Project Lifecycle. The proposed educational model utilizes the CRISP-DM (CRoss-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining) framework as its structural foundation, creating a vertical division composed of modules that align with each CRISP-DM stage. Vertically intersecting these phases is a horizontal division comprising three distinct thematic strands: ethical and societal, legal, and technical rendering knowledge units (KUs). Alongside an exhaustive breakdown of these KUs, this paper examines practical implementation factors, including course duration, delivery formats, assessment methods, and strategies for managing the diverse baseline knowledge and varying requirements of the target student body.

Artificial intelligence decisions are often described as explainable when a system can produce reasons, feature contributions, counterfactuals, or other interpretive outputs. Such outputs, however, do not by themselves make an institutional decision answerable. This article develops a conceptual explainable AI governance framework that treats explainability as an organizational obligation connected to transparency duties, system documentation, evidence preservation, auditability, responsibility allocation, contestability, human review, and redress. The framework distinguishes technical explanation from the governance capacities required to identify who must justify a decision, what information must be recorded, how evidence can be examined, how affected stakeholders may challenge an outcome, and whether an organization can correct errors or remediate consequences. Transparency and documentation are organized around system, model, data, dataset, and decision records, together with data, model, and decision provenance. Auditability is connected to traceability, lifecycle records, risk documentation, monitoring, incident response, and clearly allocated organizational responsibility. Contestability is connected to decision justification, appeal and complaint pathways, competent and sufficiently independent human review, escalation, correction, recourse, and redress capacity. The framework also identifies governance gaps that arise when these functions are separated across the AI lifecycle, including documentation, evidence-trail, accountability, human-review, monitoring, and remediation gaps. Its principal contribution is an answerability-oriented governance architecture that links explanation to institutional evidence and response mechanisms while preserving explicit boundaries: transparency does not independently establish accountability, auditability does not prove responsibility, human involvement does not guarantee meaningful review, and a conceptual governance framework does not establish legal compliance, procedural fairness, ethical sufficiency, or deployment readiness.

Trustworthiness is frequently treated as a label attached to an intelligent system once selected technical, ethical, or governance requirements have been addressed. Such a binary interpretation is inadequate because system properties, operating conditions, organizational responsibilities, stakeholder expectations, and available assurance evidence change throughout the lifecycle. This article proposes a conceptual trustworthiness maturity model that interprets trustworthiness as an evolutionary system capability rather than a fixed attribute, certification outcome, or deployment decision. The model organizes progression across six levels: unstructured or ad hoc practices; foundational transparency and documentation; managed reliability, explainability, and human oversight; defined governance integration and accountability; continuous assurance and lifecycle monitoring; and adaptive trustworthiness learning and system updating. Foundational maturity requires accessible system, model, data, dataset, and decision documentation together with provenance, traceability, auditability, and maintained evidence trails. Higher capability requires context-sensitive evidence of reliability, validity, robustness, uncertainty, calibration, explanation quality, and meaningful human intervention. Advanced maturity additionally depends on responsibility mapping, organizational and institutional accountability, lifecycle governance, continuous monitoring, drift review, incident learning, assurance review, and controlled feedback updating. The principal contribution is an integrated maturity structure that connects technical, human, organizational, and lifecycle capabilities while retaining explicit boundaries against overclaiming. Maturity levels may help structure assessment planning, identify capability gaps, and clarify development priorities, but they do not independently prove trustworthiness, safety, ethical sufficiency, legal compliance, certification eligibility, or deployment readiness. The proposed model therefore supports conceptual maturity assessment and future empirical validation rather than operational prescription.

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.

Explainable artificial intelligence has generated extensive technical and human-centered evaluation research, yet substantial uncertainty remains about what explanation evaluations actually demonstrate. This umbrella review synthesizes review-level evidence concerning the evaluation of fidelity, faithfulness, stability, robustness, comprehensibility, cognitive accessibility, decision usefulness, human trust, trust calibration, and reliance. Rather than reviewing explanation algorithms as methods, the article examines the constructs, metrics, study designs, and validity assumptions through which explanation quality has been assessed. The synthesis distinguishes technical correspondence with model behavior from human judgments of plausibility, understanding, usefulness, and satisfaction. It further separates human trust from system trustworthiness and behavioral reliance from beneficial decision support. Review-level evidence indicates that technical metrics are heterogeneous, terminology is inconsistently operationalized, and stable or plausible explanations are not necessarily faithful. Human-centered evaluations frequently rely on self-reported understanding, satisfaction, or trust, while objective comprehension, cognitive load, decision quality, appropriate reliance, overreliance, and underreliance receive less consistent assessment. Evidence linking technical explanation properties to downstream human and institutional outcomes remains limited, particularly across stakeholder groups, realistic decision contexts, repeated use, and changing system conditions. The umbrella synthesis therefore rejects single-metric interpretations of explanation quality and organizes evaluation as a multidimensional evidence problem involving technical validity, cognitive accessibility, decision consequences, calibrated trust, reliance behavior, accountability, and contestability. Its principal contribution is a consolidated evaluation agenda that clarifies what existing measures may support, what they do not establish, and which methodological connections require stronger user-centered, task-specific, longitudinal, and socio-technical validation.

Explainable artificial intelligence is often presented as a means of making intelligent systems more understandable, trustworthy, and usable, yet explanation availability does not reliably produce adoption, appropriate reliance, accountability, or improved decisions. This realist review examines why explainable AI is adopted, ignored, rejected, discontinued, overused, underused, or misused across organizational, professional, technical, and decision settings. It applies context–mechanism–outcome reasoning to interpret how explanation design interacts with workflow integration, user and domain expertise, decision risk, organizational incentives, governance arrangements, and human-oversight conditions. The synthesis focuses on mechanisms including perceived transparency, cognitive accessibility, mental-model formation, perceived usefulness, trust calibration, accountability confidence, contestability awareness, algorithm aversion, algorithm appreciation, automation bias, and explanation overload. These mechanisms may support selective reliance and meaningful challenge, but they may also generate false reassurance, superficial compliance, defensive rejection, or uncritical dependence. The review distinguishes adoption from acceptance, trust from trustworthiness, reliance from appropriate reliance, and explanation usefulness from decision quality. It identifies plausible configurations in which professional expertise, uncertainty communication, traceability, feedback, and contestability support careful use, while poor workflow fit, limited accessibility, weak governance, and automation pressure suppress scrutiny or encourage misuse. The main contribution is a bounded realist synthesis and design agenda for evaluating explainable AI through context-sensitive human responses and decision outcomes rather than explanation availability alone. The configurations are explanatory propositions requiring human-centered, organizational, and decision-context validation; they are not universal causal laws, implementation protocols, or evidence of deployment readiness.

Explainable artificial intelligence increasingly seeks to provide more than visualisations of feature importance or simplified descriptions of model outputs. For intelligent systems used in consequential settings, machine reasoning should be open to questioning, inspection, contextualisation, correction, and evaluation under uncertainty. This integrative review examines emerging approaches that may support this broader objective. It connects causal explainability and counterfactual reasoning with neuro-symbolic intelligence, knowledge-grounded inference, uncertainty-aware explanation, reliability evaluation, and human-centred interpretability. The review uses a structured integrative approach to compare how these paradigms represent causes, alternatives, rules, concepts, knowledge sources, inferential steps, confidence, and limitations. Causal and counterfactual approaches can support questions about mechanisms, contrasts, interventions, actionability, and recourse, but their conclusions depend on explicit assumptions, feasible alternatives, and appropriate causal evidence. Neuro-symbolic and knowledge-grounded approaches can make concepts, relations, rules, provenance, and intermediate reasoning more traceable, although symbolic structure or retrieved knowledge does not automatically ensure faithful, valid, or truthful explanation. Uncertainty-aware approaches can qualify predictions and explanations through uncertainty characterisation, calibration, confidence communication, robustness assessment, and human interpretation, but uncertainty estimates alone do not establish reliability. The synthesis indicates that no individual paradigm is sufficient. More defensible machine reasoning requires complementary evaluation of explanation fidelity, causal plausibility, knowledge validity, reasoning traceability, uncertainty communication, cognitive accessibility, contestability, and lifecycle accountability. Important research opportunities concern causal validation, feasible recourse, provenance governance, explanation uncertainty, hybrid-system evaluation, human-centred testing, and cross-paradigm assessment. The review contributes an integrated account of how machine reasoning may become not merely visible, but meaningfully open to question.

Foundation models are increasingly embedded in information access, content production, analysis, communication, and decision-support processes. Their broad capabilities have intensified interest in alignment, yet alignment alone cannot establish responsible use. A model may appear responsive to instructions or preferences while remaining opaque, weakly grounded, unreliable under changing conditions, overconfident, difficult to contest, or insufficiently governed. This article proposes a conceptual governance and technical safeguard framework for responsible foundation models. The framework treats foundation models as components of decision infrastructure situated within socio-technical and institutional environments rather than as isolated predictive tools. It integrates eight interdependent areas: model and alignment safeguards; explainability and interpretability; knowledge grounding and provenance; reliability, uncertainty, and hallucination containment; human control and escalation; institutional accountability; auditability and documentation; and lifecycle monitoring and governance updating. Explainability requirements are differentiated from interpretability, transparency, explanation usefulness, and human understanding, while knowledge grounding is separated from factuality, truthfulness, source quality, and provenance. Reliability is addressed through calibration, robustness assessment, boundary testing, uncertainty communication, failure containment, and continuing monitoring. Human oversight is defined through authority, competence, review capacity, escalation pathways, contestability, and recourse rather than nominal human presence. Institutional responsibility is connected to role allocation, evidence trails, documentation, review authority, and consequences. The principal contribution is an integrated framework that clarifies how technical and governance safeguards may support responsible foundation-model assessment without treating alignment, explanation, grounding, testing, oversight, or auditing as independently sufficient. The framework requires empirical validation, domain-specific evaluation, human-centred assessment, institutional governance, and residual-risk management before it can inform consequential operational decisions.

Generative artificial intelligence can produce fluent, context-sensitive, and apparently authoritative responses even when relevant knowledge is incomplete, evidence is unavailable, or generated claims are false. This creates an epistemic safety problem concerning not only what a system produces, but also what it appears to know, how its claims are supported, how uncertainty is expressed, and when answering should be limited. This article develops a conceptual safety framework organized around four operational principles: ground, qualify, verify, and abstain. The framework treats hallucination as a multidimensional risk involving fabrication, factuality failure, groundedness failure, unsupported claims, false confidence, source and context errors, reasoning errors, citation errors, overgeneralization, confabulation, speculative output, and incomplete evidence. Grounding links material claims to relevant and sufficiently reliable evidence; qualification communicates uncertainty, assumptions, scope, and evidential limitations; verification examines claims, sources, citations, and inferential consistency; and abstention enables refusal, deferral, escalation, or constrained output when evidence or system competence is insufficient. Human review, meaningful oversight, decision boundaries, failure containment, incident monitoring, and lifecycle updating operate across these principles rather than functioning as final guarantees. The main contribution is an integrated generative AI safety framework that connects output-level hallucination control with source quality, knowledge verification, uncertainty communication, review quality, response limitation, and downstream risk containment. The framework is intended to structure domain-specific assessment and future research. It does not independently establish factual reliability, ethical sufficiency, legal compliance, operational safety, certification, or deployment readiness.

Agentic artificial intelligence extends beyond conventional model-output generation by interpreting objectives, decomposing tasks, maintaining contextual information, selecting tools, interacting with external environments, and executing sequences of actions that may create downstream consequences. These capabilities complicate the question of who controls an agent and expose limitations in governance approaches based only on alignment, instruction following, output review, or nominal human supervision. This article develops a conceptual governance architecture for trustworthy agentic AI. The approach treats agentic AI as an autonomous decision system embedded within a wider socio-technical environment and organizes governance around explicit control points rather than a single supervisory mechanism. It distinguishes governance requirements for goal formation, goal interpretation, instruction hierarchy, task boundaries, tool access, memory retention, environmental interaction, action verification, failure containment, human approval, override capacity, responsibility allocation, auditability, and lifecycle review. The architecture proposes that consequential actions should be connected to authorized goals, bounded permissions, traceable memory and data inputs, pre-action checks, post-action evaluation, escalation pathways, and accountable human or institutional actors. It also establishes explicit sufficiency boundaries: goal alignment does not guarantee appropriate behavior; tool restrictions do not eliminate harmful use; memory controls do not guarantee reliable context; verification does not certify safe action; and human override does not independently establish meaningful control. The principal contribution is an integrated architecture-level account of how technical, human, and organizational controls may be connected across the agent lifecycle. The architecture supports conceptual analysis, governance planning, and future empirical evaluation, but does not establish legal compliance, operational safety, ethical sufficiency, institutional accountability, or deployment readiness.

Multimodal intelligent systems combine evidence from text, vision, audio, sensors, and structured data, but their explanations often remain fragmented into separate saliency maps, feature scores, textual rationales, attention visualisations, or confidence indicators. Such outputs may describe isolated aspects of a model while obscuring how modality-specific evidence was represented, transformed, fused, and communicated. This article develops a conceptual multimodal explainability architecture organised around the principle of following evidence across modalities. The approach begins by distinguishing the evidential and representational characteristics of textual, visual, acoustic, temporal-sensor, and structured inputs. It then identifies attribution difficulties created by early, intermediate, late, and hybrid fusion, including modality dominance, missing evidence, conflicting inputs, representation alignment, and uncertainty about joint contributions. Evidence traceability is treated as an end-to-end requirement connecting input provenance, modality-specific representation, fusion operations, attribution processes, consistency assessment, uncertainty communication, and decision explanation. The architecture further incorporates human interpretation because technically detailed multimodal explanations may remain cognitively inaccessible, visually persuasive, incomplete, or poorly calibrated to user expertise and decision context. Its central contribution is a layered framework linking modality inventory, evidence classification, representation mapping, fusion attribution, provenance, consistency review, human-centred presentation, evaluation, and feedback updating. The architecture is intended to structure research and design reasoning rather than prescribe a particular model, explanation technique, evaluation metric, or deployment procedure. It does not establish that an explanation is faithful, that users understand it, that reliance is appropriate, or that the underlying intelligent system is trustworthy or ready for operational use.

Explainable artificial intelligence increasingly supports decisions whose consequences extend beyond prediction, yet many explanations remain grounded in associations, feature contributions, saliency, or local perturbations. Such outputs may clarify model behaviour without establishing what would happen under intervention, why an outcome arose through a particular mechanism, or whether a proposed change is feasible and decision-valid. This article develops a conceptual causal explainability framework for moving from prediction-oriented explanation toward intervention-aware reasoning. The framework begins by separating predictive, associative, and model-behaviour claims from causal questions. It then connects explicit causal assumptions with causal structures, mechanistic reasoning, interventional explanation, counterfactual reasoning, confounding assessment, identifiability, sensitivity, external validity, uncertainty communication, and human interpretation. Particular attention is given to the distinction between model counterfactuals and real-world recourse, the risks created by unmeasured confounding, selection and collider bias, and the need to define decision boundaries before explanations inform action. Human users are treated as active interpreters whose causal literacy, expertise, cognitive constraints, and susceptibility to false causal confidence affect explanation usefulness. The main contribution is an integrated framework that organizes the evidential transition from prediction to intervention while preserving explicit no-guarantee boundaries concerning causal truth, intervention validity, recourse, identifiability, human understanding, decision validity, and deployment readiness. The framework is intended to support disciplined conceptual development and evaluation planning, not to prescribe a universal causal model, intervention procedure, or operational decision system.

Intelligent systems increasingly provide predictions, recommendations, and explanations in decisions where uncertainty can materially affect interpretation and action. Yet many explainable systems foreground predicted outcomes or feature contributions while inadequately communicating what the model does not know. This article proposes a conceptual uncertainty-aware explainable decision-intelligence framework organized around four connected responsibilities: calibrating confidence, disclosing ambiguity, communicating decision-relevant risk, and supporting selective prediction or abstention when available evidence is insufficient. The framework treats uncertainty as a trustworthiness requirement rather than a secondary technical output. It distinguishes aleatoric uncertainty arising from irreducible variability, epistemic uncertainty associated with limited knowledge or evidence, and distributional uncertainty arising when operating conditions depart from those represented during development. It further connects confidence calibration and miscalibration review with prediction qualification, rejection, abstention, deferral, and human review. Ambiguity disclosure and risk communication are positioned as interpretive functions that should clarify scope limitations, competing interpretations, possible consequences, and appropriate next actions without implying that communication alone guarantees understanding. Human decision support is addressed through escalation pathways, oversight, trust calibration, and evaluation of overreliance, underreliance, automation bias, and cognitive burden. The principal contribution is an integrated framework that links uncertainty identification, calibrated interpretation, selective system behavior, human review, monitoring, and feedback updating. The framework supports conceptual development and domain-specific evaluation but does not independently establish correctness, safety, decision validity, ethical sufficiency, legal compliance, or deployment readiness.