Search

This review investigates the expanding influence of machine learning and deep learning methodologies within the healthcare sector, concentrating specifically on the vital challenges of interpretability and explainability inherent in black-box models. Although machine learning frameworks are increasingly deployed to assist in medical analytics and diagnostics, their intricate nature emphasizes the necessity of comprehending how these systems process and interpret data to facilitate well-informed clinical choices. This paper offers a thorough examination of the obstacles and potential solutions documented in existing scholarship, delivering a synthesis of contemporary techniques in this domain. Furthermore, it establishes precise conceptual boundaries for interpretability and explainability, seeking to untangle the differences between these notions and outline their consequences for clinical decision-making. Utilizing a dataset of 448 publications to address seven distinct research questions, our investigation demonstrates that this research area has experienced exponential growth over the past ten years. Additionally, the psychological factors governing public opinion highlight the vital need for transparent communication regarding the capabilities and constraints of artificial intelligence. To mitigate opacity, investigators are actively engineering strategies to lower model complexity and implement visual explanation tools. Nevertheless, maintaining a delicate equilibrium between high predictive performance and adequate model interpretability remains an ongoing challenge. Given the expanding role of artificial intelligence in supporting clinical diagnostics and therapeutics, the development of inherently interpretable artificial intelligence systems is critical. Within this rapidly changing paradigm, a steadfast dedication to transparency, ethical standards, and cross-disciplinary partnerships is essential to guarantee the conscientious deployment of artificial intelligence. This shared dedication is foundational to cementing long-term trust between medical professionals and patients, resolving novel problems, and promoting the educated integration of these sophisticated technologies into medical practices.

The printed circuit board (PCB) serves as a fundamental component across all electronic devices, and the assurance of its fabrication quality exerts a major influence on the final pricing of the product. Consequently, research and development (R&D) focused on optimizing inspection techniques has emerged as a expanding area of global interest. Among the various paradigms utilized for PCB evaluation, visual analysis constitutes the preponderance of contemporary methodologies. To that end, this survey aggregates the most influential investigations conducted over the past quarter-century, outlining their operational frameworks and historical progression up to the present day, with a particular emphasis on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) methodologies to enhance functional efficacy and minimize operational expenditures. Additionally, this study underscores the vital role that open-access PCB datasets play in facilitating the advancement of these techniques and establishing baseline metrics for benchmarking. Lastly, the current difficulties and obstacles confronting the discipline are delineated and analyzed.

The growing demand for automation within the financial sector creates an ideal environment for utilizing artificial intelligence. However, stringent and intricate regulatory mandates alongside rapid technical progress present substantial hurdles for the creation and deployment of AI-driven financial services. To foster comprehension, safeguard consumers, and maintain service quality in this sector, the regulatory guidelines established by European authorities must be organized into highly detailed components. This categorization will offer deeper insights into regulatory priorities and provide a structured approach to engineering AI-driven solutions. This study introduces a classification framework based on a taxonomy designed to demystify current European regulatory tenets for academics, supervisory bodies, and financial enterprises. By highlighting the core thematic focal points of these regulations, our research aims to facilitate the engineering of compliant AI services.

The critical nature of explainable artificial intelligence and machine learning (XAI/XML) is gaining widespread recognition. This field focuses on uncovering how input variables influence automated choices, identifying systemic algorithmic bias, and detecting vulnerability to anomalies in data. Much of the existing literature centers on creating post hoc explanations tailored for opaque, black box architectures. These secondary techniques introduce novel vulnerabilities to error without correcting the fundamental flaws of the core model. Conversely, the development of inherently transparent systems receives far less attention. This paper introduces an inherently interpretable strategy rooted in the principles of ensemble learning, designated as the League of Experts (LoE) framework. We construct the initial theoretical foundations and subsequently derive a flexible, modular meta-algorithm. Although our presentation focuses primarily on classification tasks, the LoE framework adapts identically to regression scenarios. For classification specifically, we deploy traditional decision trees to form classifier ensembles as a concrete implementation. This paradigm simplifies the extraction of human-comprehensible decision rules for the underlying classification task, yielding an independent rule-induction system called RuleLoE. Beyond evaluating 12 KEEL classification datasets, we validate the LoE framework using two benchmarks from highly critical domains—healthcare and finance—to demonstrate its utility. The predictive capability of LoE matches contemporary state-of-the-art classification algorithms regarding both accuracy and rule coverage. Furthermore, LoE outputs a highly transparent group of decision rules featuring customizable complexity to map out the target classification problem. LoE provides a dependable approach for handling classification and regression problems. Its predictive precision is highly suited for environments where discovering root causal mechanisms is the primary objective, rather than merely maximizing predictive or classification performance.

Among the most critical and fatal medical conditions are brain malignancies, making early identification vital for enhancing survival rates. Currently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) stands as the premier diagnostic tool for early detection because of its exceptional capability to capture soft tissue details. Nevertheless, relying solely on human interpretation of brain MRI scans introduces risks of oversight, which are frequently exacerbated by the fatigue and varying expertise of radiologists. To mitigate these limitations, computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have taken on an increasingly vital role. Leveraging state-of-the-art computer vision methodologies like deep learning, these systems generate highly precise diagnoses from clinical imagery, thereby boosting both precision and consistency in clinical settings. This study introduces an innovative CAD architecture designed for multi-class classification of brain malignancies. The system evaluates six pre-trained deep learning networks as its foundational architecture, integrating robust data preprocessing and augmentation protocols to optimize computational throughput. To counter the opaque "black box" nature of deep learning architectures and improve interpretability, Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) is integrated to illuminate the network's deductive steps when identifying anomalies in MRI data. Furthermore, an accessible, web-based Brain Tumor Detection System was constructed using the Streamlit framework, highlighting its utility for clinical environments and offering meaningful support to medical professionals. All experimental simulations were carried out using an open benchmark repository, proving that the introduced system delivers state-of-the-art diagnostic capabilities, achieving accuracy levels near 99% with the ResNet-50, Xception, and InceptionV3 architectures.

While large language models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional predictive capabilities, their internal reasoning mechanisms remain obscure, creating an urgent demand for enhanced interpretability in artificial intelligence. In this paper, we suggest addressing this explanatory deficit by incorporating principles from topological quantum computing (TQC), specifically the anyonic structures derived from S(2)k theories. Anyons serve as an interpolation between fermions and bosons, offering a formal mathematical paradigm that could clarify the latent configurations and decision-making pathways within LLMs. By investigating the relationships between these topological models, token interactions, and contextual dependencies within neural systems, we seek to offer an alternative viewpoint on the emergence of meaning and coherence. Drawing upon insights obtained from ChatGPT alongside an examination of low-level instances of S(2)k models, we propose that the formal machinery of modular tensor categories and topological phases could guide the development of clearer, more stable, and more resilient AI frameworks. This cross-disciplinary approach indicates that quantum-theoretic concepts may provide the foundation for a novel paradigm in explainable AI.

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have been successfully deployed across numerous practical domains, yet the precise mechanisms underlying their operations remain largely opaque. In response to this lack of clarity and to encourage the deployment of reliable AI systems, a variety of GNN explanation tools have been developed. Nonetheless, current interpretation techniques frequently encounter severe bottlenecks, including: (1) explanations that are restricted to localized individual instances; (2) poor generalizability when applied to unfamiliar graph structures; (3) the risk of creating structurally invalid graphs; and (4) confinement to specific task domains (such as only node or only graph classification). To resolve these deficiencies, we introduce a novel interpretation framework, GAN-GNNExplainer, which integrates a generator to construct explanations alongside a discriminator to supervise the production stage, thereby enhancing output dependability. Although advantageous, GAN-GNNExplainer still exhibits limitations in producing highly faithful explanations and shows suboptimal performance when tested on empirical datasets. To rectify these weaknesses, we present ACGAN-GNNExplainer, an advanced iteration that enhances GAN-GNNExplainer by utilizing a more robust discriminator to continuously monitor the generation phase, which yields explanatory outputs that are both dependable and faithful. Comprehensive empirical evaluations conducted on both artificial and empirical graph datasets confirm that our proposed methodologies outperform conventional GNN explanation frameworks.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) represents an active discipline dedicated to clarifying the internal mechanisms of AI systems, thereby fostering stakeholder confidence and advancing the deployment of accountable technology. A primary theoretical hurdle within XAI involves engineering techniques capable of producing clear, accessible interpretations without sacrificing scalability or operational performance in intricate domains. While rule-based methodologies offer a framework for decoding AI-driven conclusions, they are prone to becoming overly complex in dense environments, which diminishes both their comprehensibility and computational scalability. Furthermore, these approaches frequently overlook contrastive logic, which leaves observers unable to discern why a specific outcome was prioritized over alternatives. To resolve this underlying scientific problem, this research investigates the fusion of computational argumentation—a specialized domain of AI that replicates cognitive processes through defeasible reasoning—with rule-based XAI architectures. Computational argumentation provides a mechanism whereby arguments derived from structured rules can be invalidated or withdrawn when confronted with conflicting evidence. Consequently, this framework offers a compelling avenue for refining rule-based systems to yield more transparent AI models. Despite the synergistic benefits of combining rule-based structures with computational argumentation, academic inquiry into their synthesis remains sparse. Accordingly, this paper also targets the practical engineering challenge of realizing this conceptual integration within functional AI software. This investigation utilizes the Logic Learning Machine (LLM)—a specialized rule-extraction methodology—and introduces a modular framework designed to map input rules directly into a structured argumentation network via state-of-the-art argumentation techniques. Empirical evaluations performed on various binary classification problems from the UCI Machine Learning Repository validate the utility of this combined model. The LLM strategy proved highly proficient at extracting a compact, interpretable collection of if-then rules characterized by minimal antecedent premises, all while sustaining strong predictive accuracy across all evaluated datasets. Concurrently, the argumentation-based models delivered classification performance comparable to the native if-then rule configurations, achieving this through a streamlined rule set while offering vastly superior explainability. Ultimately, this work delivers an innovative framework for the automated and streamlined generation of arguments and their internal conflicts directly from raw data, simultaneously addressing fundamental theoretical and practical barriers to propagate argumentation frameworks within the XAI landscape.

At present, the majority of healthcare spending is driven by chronic patients who experience multiple readmissions due to their underlying conditions. Implementing individualized prevention frameworks could optimize the clinical management of this demographic. This study aimed to generate localized predictive models utilizing interpretable machine learning approaches to provide early identification of individual unscheduled hospital readmissions. To achieve this, a retrospective case-control investigation was performed, utilizing patient readmission data spanning 2018–2019. Following the cleaning and curation of the initial data repository (n = 76,210), the final sample size comprised n = 29,026 participants. A machine learning analysis evaluated multiple algorithms, employing unscheduled hospital readmission as the dependent variable, alongside local model-agnostic interpretability techniques.The results demonstrated a 13% rate of unscheduled hospital readmissions. Statistically significant variations were identified regarding patient age and length of hospital stay (p < 0.001 in both instances). A logistic regression framework highlighted chronic therapy (odds ratio: 3.75), a history of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio: 1.14), and length of stay (odds ratio: 1.02) as statistically meaningful predictors. Machine learning algorithms demonstrated superior performance concerning sensitivity and complementary evaluation metrics. Within this analytical framework, length of stay and patient age emerged as the primary determinants for forecasting unscheduled readmissions. Notably, other clinical indicators, such as documented allergies and histories of adverse drug reactions, also demonstrated predictive relevance. Individualized prognostic models exhibited high sensitivity. In conclusion, this investigation identified critical determinants governing unscheduled hospital readmissions, highlighting the prominence of age and hospitalization duration. A personalized risk assessment framework capable of predicting readmissions with high accuracy was established. Future investigations should incorporate a broader array of clinical parameters to further optimize the predictive capacity of this model.

Recent investigations have demonstrated that deep neural networks are susceptible to subtly modified input data. This paper introduces a novel untargeted white-box adversarial attack termed the dynamic programming-based sub-pixel score method (SPSM) attack (DPSPSM). This technique modifies conventional gradient-based white-box adversarial methods, which are typically restricted by a predetermined Hamming distance, by incorporating a dynamic programming framework. The method is driven by a pixel score metric approach, the SPSM, which is developed herein. Unlike traditional gradient-based adversarial attacks that introduce nearly imperceptible modifications across the entire image, DPSPSM operates rapidly and maintains robustness by altering only a restricted number of input pixels. The introduced algorithm quantizes the gradient updates using a score computed for every pixel, which aggregates the contributions across all channels. Experimental outcomes indicate that the DPSPSM successfully misleads the model, achieving a success rate of 30.45% on the CIFAR-10 test set and 29.30% on the CIFAR-100 test set.

Within a student learning community, the generation of new knowledge represents a vital mechanism for expanding collective understanding and driving original synthesis. Students assume critical responsibilities when they target knowledge deficiencies and engage in cooperative efforts to refine communal concepts emerging from dialogue. Nonetheless, the standard of these concepts can frequently be constrained by resource deficits or a narrow spectrum of viewpoints. The introduction of generative Artificial Intelligence and large language models (LLMs) into educational settings has unlocked new opportunities for analyzing and enriching idea-focused debates that were formerly unachievable. Maximizing the utility of LLMs necessitates specialized competencies in prompt engineering, particularly regarding the in-context methodology termed Chain-of-Thought (CoT) to formulate and scaffold progressive concepts within student conversations. This investigation gathered a dataset of 721 conversational entries—encompassing 272 applicable question–answer dynamics and 149 distinct discussion tracks—produced by 31 participants during a 2-day student Knowledge Building Design Studio (sKBDS). The researchers augmented student inputs utilizing the CoT technique and subsequently evaluated the AI-generated outputs against the original student assertions. The outcomes are demonstrated through two explicit conversational tracks, confirming that CoT-configured prompts enable LLMs to output responses that actively advance malleable concepts during knowledge construction. This inquiry examines data from genuine classroom discourse and offers actionable insights for both educational research and instructional implementation.

With the emergence of novel data collection platforms driven by the Internet of Things (IoT), this study expands beyond the conventional boundaries of traditional remote sensing technologies. The deep integration of remote sensing and computer vision has transitioned into industrial applications, enabling the utilization of Artificial Intelligence to address challenges like automated information extraction and image analysis. Nonetheless, due to the intricate architecture of IoT and the absence of standardized security protocols, remote sensing instruments are highly susceptible to privacy breaches during data transmission. Because traditional cryptographic approaches depend heavily on computational complexity, it is critical to develop security frameworks tailored for resource-constrained IoT devices. Visual Cryptography (VC) serves as an image-based threshold technique that allows direct decoding by the human visual system simply by overlaying encrypted shares. This "stacking-to-see" attribute, combined with basic Boolean decryption processes, positions VC as an optimal candidate for privacy-preserving identification within extensive IoT-based remote sensing imagery. In this investigation, the secure and productive dissemination of high-resolution remote sensing imagery is accomplished via meaningful VC. By distributing the error between the encryption block and the source block to neighboring blocks, the fidelity degradation in the reconstructed images is minimized. Furthermore, by adjusting a pre-trained model using large-scale datasets, the recognition accuracy of small, encrypted remote sensing datasets is enhanced. The empirical findings demonstrate that the introduced lightweight, privacy-preserving recognition system maintains superior identification performance while strengthening data security.

Global emergency departments and urgent care facilities regularly experience prolonged waiting periods that surpass patient expectations, primarily driven by unexpected spikes in patient volumes. The resulting delays caused by insufficient staffing during these high-demand intervals have been associated with detrimental clinical consequences. Prior investigations into predicting patient volumes have predominantly relied on traditional statistical approaches. Furthermore, these efforts have mainly focused on short-range predictions, which offer minimal utility for the long-term scheduling of medical staff. This paper contributes to a growing domain of research aimed at investigating the capacity of machine learning frameworks to produce precise patient volume projections. Utilizing a decade's worth of data from two major urgent care centers, this study constructs long-range patient flow predictions extending up to one quarter in advance by evaluating a selection of modern, high-performing algorithms. A unique aspect of this research is the integration of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) frameworks, specifically LIME and Shapley, to conduct a comprehensive assessment of internal model dynamics that are typically obscured. These diagnostic instruments allowed us to examine how effectively the predictive frameworks adjusted to volatile demand shifts induced by COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, while also determining the most significant predictor variables to gain deep operational insights. The empirical findings indicate that an innovative ensemble combining gradient boosting techniques with advanced univariate frameworks like Prophet yielded the most precise and dependable performance overall. On average, this methodology produced a 16%–30% improvement over the current internal forecasting techniques utilized for predicting daily patient volumes 90 days into the future.

Unchecked discharges of untreated water from combined sewer systems pose critical hazards to public health and ecosystems. To address this, regional sanitation authorities like the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSDGC) have begun collecting massive streams of hydrological telemetry, looking toward deep learning (DL) methodologies—specifically recurrent neural networks (RNN)—to forecast these spill events. Crucially, determining whether a DL model is truly suitable for this domain requires a structured analysis of the environment in which it operates. This paper introduces a requirements engineering methodology grounded in problem frames to map out and organize stakeholder concerns. This approach systematically evaluates real-world conditions where standard assumptions of high-quality data break down, translating these insights into actionable software testing benchmarks known as metamorphic relations, which govern both data input adjustments and output validations. Deploying this methodology within MSDGC’s operational context provides a rigorous, standardized baseline to assess how effectively competing RNN designs fulfill core operational mandates.

The reliability and safety of an entire hydraulic system are compromised by the occurrence of cavitation in axial piston pumps. Because vibration signals can indicate cavitation states within these pumps, they have been increasingly coupled with machine learning techniques for detection purposes. Nevertheless, raw vibration signals captured under actual operating conditions are frequently corrupted by noise, complicating the precise identification of cavitation within noisy environments. To address this issue, this study introduces an intelligent methodology designed to identify cavitation in axial piston pumps under high-noise conditions. Initially, a convolutional neural network (CNN) is trained utilizing spectrogram images that are converted from raw, unstructured vibration datasets across varying cavitation states. Subsequently, the gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) technique is applied to highlight and visualize the class-discriminative zones within these spectrogram images. Ultimately, a novel image processing approach leveraging the Grad-CAM heatmap is introduced to automatically filter out background noise and amplify the key class features in the spectrograms. The empirical outcomes demonstrate that this strategy substantially boosts the diagnostic efficacy of the CNN framework under noisy conditions. Specifically, the accuracy of cavitation condition classification is elevated from 0.50 to 0.89 at a signal-to-noise ratio of 4 dB, and from 0.80 to 0.92 at 6 dB.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has swiftly emerged as a core technology for securing a competitive advantage. Nonetheless, there are escalating anxieties regarding bias within AI models, given that AI developers are susceptible to introducing bias both inadvertently and intentionally. Utilizing a qualitative methodology, this study explored how AI developers can actively foster the creation of equitable AI models. The primary results indicate that the danger of bias stems predominantly from a deficiency in social and gender diversity within AI development teams, alongside pressure from AI managers to rapidly deliver highly anticipated outcomes. Furthermore, the integrity of AI developers is critical, as they possess the ability to hide biases from management and other relevant AI stakeholders. The testing phase preceding model deployment is also prone to bias because it seldom reflects the diverse social demographics that could be impacted.This research offers actionable recommendations across four core dimensions: governance, social, technical, and training and development procedures. Responsible organizations must implement deliberate measures to guarantee that their AI developers follow equitable protocols during AI creation; AI developers need to put ethical considerations first and evaluate the societal impacts of their models; collaborative partnerships ought to be formed among AI developers, AI stakeholders, and the communities likely to be affected by these models; and AI developers must emphasize transparency and explainability within their models while ensuring robust bias testing and remediation prior to deployment. Lastly, providing emotional intelligence training to AI developers is recommended to equip them for constructive dialogue with stakeholders outside the immediate development team.

A multitude of studies demonstrate that robust predictive models for identifying microorganisms can be successfully developed by combining Raman micro-spectroscopy with chemometric techniques, frequently yielding highly accurate outcomes. Progress in machine learning alongside increased software availability has simplified the process for researchers to construct predictive frameworks from intricate data arrays. Conversely, the underlying reasons for the high accuracy of these classifications remain under-investigated. This study analyzes Raman spectroscopic datasets from fungal spores and carotenoid-producing microorganisms to demonstrate that successful differentiation is frequently independent of peak positions or subtle variations in spectral band ratios caused by minor biochemical differences among the organisms. Instead, distinctive baseline variations in biochemically related microorganisms, which may be amplified by specific data preprocessing routines, play a critical role; furthermore, seemingly neutral spectral intervals can significantly influence a convolutional neural network. By applying a technique known as Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping, we investigate the internal mechanics of convolutional neural networks within microbiological domains to determine the precise Raman spectral bands driving successful classification.

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.

Artificial intelligence increasingly contributes to decisions that shape access, opportunity, services, evaluation, and institutional treatment. Although explainability is widely treated as a foundation of trustworthy AI, an explanation does not by itself enable an affected person to question a decision, introduce corrective evidence, request reconsideration, or obtain an appropriate response. This article develops a conceptual Human Contestability Framework for connecting explanation to actionable decision challenge. The framework treats contestability as a socio-technical requirement involving affected-person access, reason-giving, explanation quality, procedural accessibility, evidence submission, meaningful human review, override capacity, escalation, appeal, redress, correction, organizational accountability, documentation, auditability, monitoring, and feedback updating. It distinguishes interpretability and transparency from contestability, and separates human review from meaningful reconsideration, appeal from recourse, and correction from broader redress. The framework proposes that contestable decision design should begin with decision-context and stakeholder mapping, define explanation and evidence requirements, establish challenge and review pathways, assign organizational responsibilities, preserve traceable records, and use contestation outcomes to identify recurring system or governance failures. Its contribution is not a validated procedure or universal institutional model, but an integrated structure for analyzing whether people can move from receiving an AI-supported decision to questioning its basis and seeking a reasoned institutional response. Contestability may strengthen trustworthy-AI planning, but it does not independently establish fairness, legality, ethical sufficiency, accountability, operational safety, or deployment readiness. Domain-specific validation, accessible procedures, competent human review, organizational governance, and continuing evaluation remain necessary.