Research Papers

Aiming to advance research in the field of interpretability of deep learning models for tree species classification using TLS 3D point clouds we present insights in the classification abilities of YOLOv8 through a new framework which enables systematic analysis of saliency maps derived from CAM (Class Activation Mapping). To investigate the contribution of structural tree features to the classification decisions of the models, we link regions with high saliency derived from the application of Finer-CAM to segments of 2D side-view images that correspond to structural tree features. Using TLS 3D point clouds from 2445 trees across seven European tree species, we trained five YOLOv8 models with cross-validation, reaching a mean accuracy of 96% (SD = 0.24%) when applied to the test data. Our results demonstrate that Finer-CAM can be considered faithful in identifying discriminative regions that discriminate target tree species. This renders Finer-CAM suitable for enhancing the interpretability of the tree species classification models. Analysis of 630 saliency maps indicate that the models primarily rely on image regions associated with tree crowns for species classification. While this result is pronounced in Silver Birch, European Beech, English oak, and Norway Spruce, image regions associated with stems contribute more frequently to the differentiation of European ash, Scots pine, and Douglas-fir. We demonstrate that the visibility of detailed structural tree features in the 2D side-view images enhances the discriminative performances of the models, indicating YOLOv8`s abilities to leverage detailed point cloud representations. Our results represent a first step toward enhancing the understanding of the classification decision processes of tree species classification models, aiding in the identification of data set and model limitations, and building confidence in model predictions.

Major AI ethics guidelines and laws, including the EU AI Act, call for effective human oversight, but do not define it as a distinct and developable capacity. This paper introduces human oversight as a well-being capacity, situated within the emerging Well-being Efficacy framework. The concept integrates AI literacy, ethical discernment, and awareness of human needs, acknowledging that some needs may be conflicting or harmful. Because people inevitably project desires, fears, and interests into AI systems, oversight requires the competence to examine and, when necessary, restrain problematic demands. The authors argue that the sustainable and cost-effective development of this capacity depends on its integration into education at every level, from professional training to lifelong learning. The frame of human oversight as a well-being capacity provides a practical path from high-level regulatory goals to the continuous cultivation of human agency and responsibility essential for safe and ethical AI. The paper establishes a theoretical foundation for future research on the pedagogical implementation and empirical validation of well-being effectiveness in multiple contexts.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is increasingly required in computational economics, where machine-learning forecasters can outperform classical econometric models but remain difficult to audit and use for policy. This survey reviews and organizes the growing literature on XAI for economic time series, where autocorrelation, non-stationarity, seasonality, mixed frequencies, and regime shifts can make standard explanation techniques unreliable or economically implausible. We propose a taxonomy that classifies methods by (i) explanation mechanism: propagation-based approaches (e.g., Integrated Gradients, Layer-wise Relevance Propagation), perturbation and game-theoretic attribution (e.g., permutation importance, LIME, SHAP), and function-based global tools (e.g., Accumulated Local Effects); (ii) time-series compatibility, including preservation of temporal dependence, stability over time, and respect for data-generating constraints. We synthesize time-series-specific adaptations such as vector- and window-based formulations (e.g., Vector SHAP, WindowSHAP) that reduce lag fragmentation and computational cost while improving interpretability. We also connect explainability to causal inference and policy analysis through interventional attributions (Causal Shapley values) and constrained counterfactual reasoning. Finally, we discuss intrinsically interpretable architectures (notably attention-based transformers) and provide guidance for decision-grade applications such as nowcasting, stress testing, and regime monitoring, emphasizing attribution uncertainty and explanation dynamics as indicators of structural change.

LLM agents that use external tools can solve complex tasks, but understanding which tools actually contributed to a response remains a blind spot. No existing XAI methods address tool-level explanations. We introduce AgentSHAP, the first framework for explaining tool importance in LLM agents. AgentSHAP is model-agnostic: it treats the agent as a black box and works with any LLM (GPT, Claude, Llama, etc.) without needing access to internal weights or gradients. Using Monte Carlo Shapley values, AgentSHAP tests how an agent responds with different tool subsets and computes fair importance scores based on game theory. Our contributions are: (1) the first explainability method for agent tool attribution, grounded in Shapley values from game theory; (2) Monte Carlo sampling that reduces cost from O(2n) to practical levels; and (3) comprehensive experiments on API-Bank showing that AgentSHAP produces consistent scores across runs, correctly identifies which tools matter, and distinguishes relevant from irrelevant tools. AgentSHAP joins TokenSHAP (for tokens) and PixelSHAP (for image regions) to complete a family of Shapley-based XAI tools for modern generative AI. Code: https://github.com/GenAISHAP/TokenSHAP.

Algorithmic Criminal Liability in Greenwashing: Comparing India, United States, and European Union

Sahibpreet Singh, Manjit Singh

AI-powered greenwashing has emerged as an insidious challenge within corporate sustainability governance, exacerbating the opacity of environmental disclosures and subverting regulatory oversight. This study conducts a comparative legal analysis of criminal liability for AI-mediated greenwashing across India, the US, and the EU, exposing doctrinal lacunae in attributing culpability when deceptive claims originate from algorithmic systems. Existing statutes exhibit anthropocentric biases by predicating liability on demonstrable human intent, rendering them ill-equipped to address algorithmic deception. The research identifies a critical gap in jurisprudential adaptation, as prevailing fraud statutes remain antiquated vis-à-vis AI-generated misrepresentation. Utilising a doctrinal legal methodology, this study systematically dissects judicial precedents and statutory instruments, yielding results regarding the potential expansion of corporate criminal liability. Findings underscore the viability of strict liability models, recalibrated governance frameworks for AI accountability, and algorithmic due diligence mandates under ESG regimes. Comparative insights reveal jurisdictional disparities, with the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) offering a potential transnational model. This study contributes to AI ethics and environmental jurisprudence by advocating for a hybrid liability framework integrating algorithmic risk assessment with legal personhood constructs, ensuring algorithmic opacity does not preclude liability enforcement.

Back to the Baseline: Examining Baseline Effects on Explainability Metrics

Agustin Martin Picard, Thibaut Boissin, Varshini Subhash +2

Attribution methods are among the most prevalent techniques in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) and are usually evaluated and compared using Fidelity metrics, with Insertion and Deletion being the most popular. These metrics rely on a baseline function to alter the pixels of the input image that the attribution map deems most important. In this work, we highlight a critical problem with these metrics: the choice of a given baseline will inevitably favour certain attribution methods over others. More concerningly, even a simple linear model with commonly used baselines contradicts itself by designating different optimal methods. A question then arises: which baseline should we use? We propose to study this problem through two desirable properties of a baseline: (i) that it removes information and (ii) that it does not produce overly out-of-distribution (OOD) images. We first show that none of the tested baselines satisfy both criteria, and there appears to be a trade-off among current baselines: either they remove information or they produce a sequence of OOD images. Finally, we introduce a novel baseline by leveraging recent work in feature visualisation to artificially produce a model-dependent baseline that removes information without being overly OOD, thus improving on the trade-off when compared to other existing baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/deel-ai-papers/Back-to-the-Baseline

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are now an integral part of multiple industries. In clinical research, AI supports automated adverse event detection in clinical trials, patient eligibility screening for protocol enrollment, and data quality validation. Beyond healthcare, AI is transforming finance through real-time fraud detection, automated loan risk assessment, and algorithmic decision-making. Similarly, in manufacturing, AI enables predictive maintenance to reduce equipment downtime, enhances quality control through computer-vision inspection, and optimizes production workflows using real-time operational data. While these technologies enhance operational efficiency, they introduce new challenges regarding safety, accountability, and regulatory compliance. To address these concerns, we introduce the SMART+ Framework - a structured model built on the pillars of Safety, Monitoring, Accountability, Reliability, and Transparency, and further enhanced with Privacy & Security, Data Governance, Fairness & Bias, and Guardrails. SMART+ offers a practical, comprehensive approach to evaluating and governing AI systems across industries. This framework aligns with evolving mechanisms and regulatory guidance to integrate operational safeguards, oversight procedures, and strengthened privacy and governance controls. SMART+ demonstrates risk mitigation, trust-building, and compliance readiness. By enabling responsible AI adoption and ensuring auditability, SMART+ provides a robust foundation for effective AI governance in clinical research.

The deployment of AI systems faces three critical governance challenges that current frameworks fail to adequately address. First, organizations struggle with inadequate risk assessment at the use case level, exemplified by the Humana class action lawsuit and other high impact cases where an AI system deployed to production exhibited both significant bias and high error rates, resulting in improper healthcare claim denials. Each AI use case presents unique risk profiles requiring tailored governance, yet most frameworks provide one size fits all guidance. Second, existing frameworks like ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF remain at high conceptual levels, offering principles without actionable controls, leaving practitioners unable to translate governance requirements into specific technical implementations. Third, organizations lack mechanisms for operationalizing governance at scale, with no systematic approach to embed trustworthy AI practices throughout the development lifecycle, measure compliance quantitatively, or provide role-appropriate visibility from boards to data scientists. We present AI TIPS, Artificial Intelligence Trust-Integrated Pillars for Sustainability 2.0, update to the comprehensive operational framework developed in 2019,four years before NIST's AI Risk Management Framework, that directly addresses these challenges.

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in critical societal domains has amplified concerns about fairness, particularly regarding unequal treatment across sensitive attributes such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status. While there has been substantial work on ensuring AI fairness, navigating trade-offs between competing notions of fairness as well as predictive accuracy remains challenging, creating barriers to the practical deployment of fair AI systems. To address this, we introduce a unifying human-centered fairness framework that systematically covers eight distinct fairness metrics, formed by combining individual and group fairness, infra-marginal and intersectional assumptions, and outcome-based and equality-of-opportunity (EOO) perspectives. This structure allows stakeholders to align fairness interventions with their values and contextual considerations. The framework uses a consistent and easy-to-understand formulation for all metrics to reduce the learning curve for non-experts. Rather than privileging a single fairness notion, the framework enables stakeholders to assign weights across multiple fairness objectives, reflecting their priorities and facilitating multi-stakeholder compromises. We apply this approach to four real-world datasets: the UCI Adult census dataset for income prediction, the COMPAS dataset for criminal recidivism, the German Credit dataset for credit risk assessment, and the MEPS dataset for healthcare utilization. We show that adjusting weights reveals nuanced trade-offs between different fairness metrics. Finally, through case studies in judicial decision-making and healthcare, we demonstrate how the framework can inform practical and value-sensitive deployment of fair AI systems.

Machine learning is an essential tool for optimizing industrial quality control processes. However, the complexity of machine learning models often limits their practical applicability due to a lack of interpretability. Additionally, many industrial machines lack comprehensive sensor technology, making data acquisition incomplete and challenging. Explainable Artificial Intelligence offers a solution by providing insights into model decision-making and identifying the most relevant features for classification. In this paper, we investigate the impact of feature reduction using XAI techniques on the quality classification of injection-molded parts. We apply SHAP, Grad-CAM, and LIME to analyze feature importance in a Long Short-Term Memory model trained on real production data. By reducing the original 19 input features to 9 and 6, we evaluate the trade-off between model accuracy, inference speed, and interpretability. Our results show that reducing features can improve generalization while maintaining high classification performance, with an small increase in inference speed. This approach enhances the feasibility of AI-driven quality control, particularly for industrial settings with limited sensor capabilities, and paves the way for more efficient and interpretable machine learning applications in manufacturing.

As Multi Agent Reinforcement Learning systems are used in safety critical applications. Understanding why agents make decisions and how they achieve collective behavior is crucial. Existing explainable AI methods struggle in multi agent settings. They fail to attribute collective outcomes to individuals, quantify emergent behaviors, or capture complex interactions. We present MACIE Multi Agent Causal Intelligence Explainer, a framework combining structural causal models, interventional counterfactuals, and Shapley values to provide comprehensive explanations. MACIE addresses three questions. First, each agent's causal contribution using interventional attribution scores. Second, system level emergent intelligence through synergy metrics separating collective effects from individual contributions. Third, actionable explanations using natural language narratives synthesizing causal insights. We evaluate MACIE across four MARL scenarios: cooperative, competitive, and mixed motive. Results show accurate outcome attribution, mean phi_i equals 5.07, standard deviation less than 0.05, detection of positive emergence in cooperative tasks, synergy index up to 0.461, and efficient computation, 0.79 seconds per dataset on CPU. MACIE uniquely combines causal rigor, emergence quantification, and multi agent support while remaining practical for real time use. This represents a step toward interpretable, trustworthy, and accountable multi agent AI.

This paper introduces an approach to increasing the explainability of artificial intelligence (AI) systems by embedding Large Language Models (LLMs) within standardized analytical processes. While traditional explainable AI (XAI) methods focus on feature attribution or post-hoc interpretation, the proposed framework integrates LLMs into defined decision models such as Question-Option-Criteria (QOC), Sensitivity Analysis, Game Theory, and Risk Management. By situating LLM reasoning within these formal structures, the approach transforms opaque inference into transparent and auditable decision traces. A layered architecture is presented that separates the reasoning space of the LLM from the explainable process space above it. Empirical evaluations show that the system can reproduce human-level decision logic in decentralized governance, systems analysis, and strategic reasoning contexts. The results suggest that LLM-driven standard processes provide a foundation for reliable, interpretable, and verifiable AI-supported decision making.