Research Papers

One of the core envisions of the sixth-generation (6G) wireless networks is to accumulate artificial intelligence (AI) for autonomous controlling of the Internet of Everything (IoE). Particularly, the quality of IoE services delivery must be maintained by analyzing contextual metrics of IoE such as people, data, process, and things. However, the challenges incorporate when the AI model conceives a lake of interpretation and intuition to the network service provider. Therefore, this paper provides an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) framework for quality-aware IoE service delivery that enables both intelligence and interpretation. First, a problem of quality-aware IoE service delivery is formulated by taking into account network dynamics and contextual metrics of IoE, where the objective is to maximize the channel quality index (CQI) of each IoE service user. Second, a regression problem is devised to solve the formulated problem, where explainable coefficients of the contextual matrices are estimated by Shapley value interpretation. Third, the XAI-enabled quality-aware IoE service delivery algorithm is implemented by employing ensemble-based regression models for ensuring the interpretation of contextual relationships among the matrices to reconfigure network parameters. Finally, the experiment results show that the uplink improvement rate becomes 42.43% and 16.32% for the AdaBoost and Extra Trees, respectively, while the downlink improvement rate reaches up to 28.57% and 14.29%. However, the AdaBoost-based approach cannot maintain the CQI of IoE service users. Therefore, the proposed Extra Trees-based regression model shows significant performance gain for mitigating the trade-off between accuracy and interpretability than other baselines.

Regulators have signalled an interest in adopting explainable AI(XAI) techniques to handle the diverse needs for model governance, operational servicing, and compliance in the financial services industry. In this short overview, we review the recent technical literature in XAI and argue that based on our current understanding of the field, the use of XAI techniques in practice necessitate a highly contextualized approach considering the specific needs of stakeholders for particular business applications.

A Checklist for Explainable AI in the Insurance Domain

Olivier Koster, Ruud Kosman, Joost Visser

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a powerful tool to accomplish a great many tasks. This exciting branch of technology is being adopted increasingly across varying sectors, including the insurance domain. With that power arise several complications. One of which is a lack of transparency and explainability of an algorithm for experts and non-experts alike. This brings into question both the usefulness as well as the accuracy of the algorithm, coupled with an added difficulty to assess potential biases within the data or the model. In this paper, we investigate the current usage of AI algorithms in the Dutch insurance industry and the adoption of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques. Armed with this knowledge we design a checklist for insurance companies that should help assure quality standards regarding XAI and a solid foundation for cooperation between organisations. This checklist extends an existing checklist of SIVI, the standardisation institute for digital cooperation and innovation in Dutch insurance.

Typical state of the art flow cytometry data samples consists of measures of more than 100.000 cells in 10 or more features. AI systems are able to diagnose such data with almost the same accuracy as human experts. However, there is one central challenge in such systems: their decisions have far-reaching consequences for the health and life of people, and therefore, the decisions of AI systems need to be understandable and justifiable by humans. In this work, we present a novel explainable AI method, called ALPODS, which is able to classify (diagnose) cases based on clusters, i.e., subpopulations, in the high-dimensional data. ALPODS is able to explain its decisions in a form that is understandable for human experts. For the identified subpopulations, fuzzy reasoning rules expressed in the typical language of domain experts are generated. A visualization method based on these rules allows human experts to understand the reasoning used by the AI system. A comparison to a selection of state of the art explainable AI systems shows that ALPODS operates efficiently on known benchmark data and also on everyday routine case data.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods are currently evaluated with approaches mostly originated in interpretable machine learning (IML) research that focus on understanding models such as comparison against existing attribution approaches, sensitivity analyses, gold set of features, axioms, or through demonstration of images. There are problems with these methods such as that they do not indicate where current XAI approaches fail to guide investigations towards consistent progress of the field. They do not measure accuracy in support of accountable decisions, and it is practically impossible to determine whether one XAI method is better than the other or what the weaknesses of existing models are, leaving researchers without guidance on which research questions will advance the field. Other fields usually utilize ground-truth data and create benchmarks. Data representing ground-truth explanations is not typically used in XAI or IML. One reason is that explanations are subjective, in the sense that an explanation that satisfies one user may not satisfy another. To overcome these problems, we propose to represent explanations with canonical equations that can be used to evaluate the accuracy of XAI methods. The contributions of this paper include a methodology to create synthetic data representing ground-truth explanations, three data sets, an evaluation of LIME using these data sets, and a preliminary analysis of the challenges and potential benefits in using these data to evaluate existing XAI approaches. Evaluation methods based on human-centric studies are outside the scope of this paper.

Reasonable Machines: A Research Manifesto

Christoph Benzmüller, Bertram Lomfeld

Future intelligent autonomous systems (IAS) are inevitably deciding on moral and legal questions, e.g. in self-driving cars, health care or human-machine collaboration. As decision processes in most modern sub-symbolic IAS are hidden, the simple political plea for transparency, accountability and governance falls short. A sound ecosystem of trust requires ways for IAS to autonomously justify their actions, that is, to learn giving and taking reasons for their decisions. Building on social reasoning models in moral psychology and legal philosophy such an idea of >>Reasonable Machines<< requires novel, hybrid reasoning tools, ethico-legal ontologies and associated argumentation technology. Enabling machines to normative communication creates trust and opens new dimensions of AI application and human-machine interaction. Keywords: Trusthworthy and Explainable AI, Ethico-Legal Governors, Social Reasoning Model, Pluralistic and Expressive Normative Reasoning

With the growing complexity of deep learning methods adopted in practical applications, there is an increasing and stringent need to explain and interpret the decisions of such methods. In this work, we focus on explainable AI and propose a novel generic and model-agnostic framework for synthesizing input exemplars that maximize a desired response from a machine learning model. To this end, we use a generative model, which acts as a prior for generating data, and traverse its latent space using a novel evolutionary strategy with momentum updates. Our framework is generic because (i) it can employ any underlying generator, e.g. Variational Auto-Encoders (VAEs) or Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), and (ii) it can be applied to any input data, e.g. images, text samples or tabular data. Since we use a zero-order optimization method, our framework is model-agnostic, in the sense that the machine learning model that we aim to explain is a black-box. We stress out that our novel framework does not require access or knowledge of the internal structure or the training data of the black-box model. We conduct experiments with two generative models, VAEs and GANs, and synthesize exemplars for various data formats, image, text and tabular, demonstrating that our framework is generic. We also employ our prototype synthetization framework on various black-box models, for which we only know the input and the output formats, showing that it is model-agnostic. Moreover, we compare our framework (available at https://github.com/antoniobarbalau/exemplar) with a model-dependent approach based on gradient descent, proving that our framework obtains equally-good exemplars in a shorter computational time.

Responsible AI and Its Stakeholders

Gabriel Lima, Meeyoung Cha

Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) proposes a framework that holds all stakeholders involved in the development of AI to be responsible for their systems. It, however, fails to accommodate the possibility of holding AI responsible per se, which could close some legal and moral gaps concerning the deployment of autonomous and self-learning systems. We discuss three notions of responsibility (i.e., blameworthiness, accountability, and liability) for all stakeholders, including AI, and suggest the roles of jurisdiction and the general public in this matter.

Motivated by recent advancements in Deep Reinforcement Learning (RL), we have developed an RL agent to manage the operation of storage devices in a household and is designed to maximize demand-side cost savings. The proposed technique is data-driven, and the RL agent learns from scratch how to efficiently use the energy storage device given variable tariff structures. In most of the studies, the RL agent is considered as a black box, and how the agent has learned is often ignored. We explain the learning progression of the RL agent, and the strategies it follows based on the capacity of the storage device.

Here, I review current state-of-the-arts in many areas of AI to estimate when it's reasonable to expect human level AI development. Predictions of prominent AI researchers vary broadly from very pessimistic predictions of Andrew Ng to much more moderate predictions of Geoffrey Hinton and optimistic predictions of Shane Legg, DeepMind cofounder. Given huge rate of progress in recent years and this broad range of predictions of AI experts, AI safety questions are also discussed.

Prior work on trustworthy AI emphasizes model-internal properties such as bias mitigation, adversarial robustness, and interpretability. As AI systems evolve into autonomous agents deployed in open environments and increasingly connected to payments or assets, the operational meaning of trust shifts to end-to-end outcomes: whether an agent completes tasks, follows user intent, and avoids failures that cause material or psychological harm. These risks are fundamentally product-level and cannot be eliminated by technical safeguards alone because agent behavior is inherently stochastic. To address this gap between model-level reliability and user-facing assurance, we propose a complementary framework based on risk management. Drawing inspiration from financial underwriting, we introduce the \textbf{Agentic Risk Standard (ARS)}, a payment settlement standard for AI-mediated transactions. ARS integrates risk assessment, underwriting, and compensation into a single transaction framework that protects users when interacting with agents. Under ARS, users receive predefined and contractually enforceable compensation in cases of execution failure, misalignment, or unintended outcomes. This shifts trust from an implicit expectation about model behavior to an explicit, measurable, and enforceable product guarantee. We also present a simulation study analyzing the social benefits of applying ARS to agentic transactions. ARS's implementation can be found at https://github.com/t54-labs/AgenticRiskStandard.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on complex tasks by engaging in extended reasoning before producing final answers. Beyond improving abilities, these detailed reasoning traces also create a new opportunity for AI safety, CoT Monitorability: monitoring potential model misbehavior, such as the use of shortcuts or sycophancy, through their chain-of-thought (CoT) during decision-making. However, two key fundamental challenges arise when attempting to build more effective monitors through CoT analysis. First, as prior research on CoT faithfulness has pointed out, models do not always truthfully represent their internal decision-making in the generated reasoning. Second, monitors themselves may be either overly sensitive or insufficiently sensitive, and can potentially be deceived by models' long, elaborate reasoning traces. In this paper, we present the first systematic investigation of the challenges and potential of CoT monitorability. Motivated by two fundamental challenges we mentioned before, we structure our study around two central perspectives: (i) verbalization: to what extent do LRMs faithfully verbalize the true factors guiding their decisions in the CoT, and (ii) monitor reliability: to what extent can misbehavior be reliably detected by a CoT-based monitor? Specifically, we provide empirical evidence and correlation analyses between verbalization quality, monitor reliability, and LLM performance across mathematical, scientific, and ethical domains. Then we further investigate how different CoT intervention methods, designed to improve reasoning efficiency or performance, will affect monitoring effectiveness. Finally, we propose MoME, a new paradigm in which LLMs monitor other models' misbehavior through their CoT and provide structured judgments along with supporting evidence.