Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 140 references

Explainable AI the Latest Advancements and New Trends

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that the path to explainable AI runs through reward-space reasoning rather than through decoding internal computations.

desk verdict Broad XAI survey with a genuinely useful taxonomy, but the reward-space 'new trend' is an unsupported sketch and the manuscript's citation hygiene is poor. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07005 v1 pith:LFJTXRLQ submitted 2025-05-11 cs.AI

Bowen Long , Enjie Liu , Renxi Qiu , Yanqing Duan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords explainableAItrustworthymeta-reasoningreward-drivenexplainabilityethicalprinciplesinterpretabilitysurveyglobalandlocalexplanationslargelanguagemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a survey of trustworthy and explainable AI that ends with a proposal: instead of trying to crack open the opaque model, explain an AI system by projecting its behavior into reward space and reasoning logically about objectives and expected utility. The authors review ethical guidelines from various countries and regions, then organize interpretability methods by scope (global versus local) and by stage (pre-modelling, in-modelling, post-modelling), finding that interactions between learning and reasoning make explanations hard to extract. Their central thesis is that meta-reasoning—'reason the reasoning'—coincides with the goal of explainable AI, and that explaining decisions through reward patterns reduces complexity and improves observability. If correct, this points toward a new class of explainability methods that verify whether a system's behavior matches its intended design rather than tracing its internal computations.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the reward-space projection paired with meta-reasoning. Meta-reasoning is defined as 'reason the reasoning'—meta-level control of computational activity plus introspective monitoring of reasoning—and the paper proposes using logical reasoning at the reward level to explain an AI system's decisions. This projection is what is supposed to reduce complexity and improve observability: instead of tracing causal relationships through learned representations, an explainer examines patterns of reward and expected utility from deliberation, treating trustworthy autonomous systems as directly exposed to reward space so their behavior can be checked against design. Bayesian networks are suggested as a bridge between ground-level and object-level information, and meta-reasoning prompting is presented as a way to give large language models adaptive explaining capabilities.

What would settle it

Take two models trained to maximize the same reward function on the same task, one of which has a known hidden bias; if reward-driven explanations attribute the same reasons to both models and cannot expose the biased model's different failure behavior on the same inputs, the claim that reward-space reasoning captures why decisions are made is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that reward-driven explainability, coupled with meta-reasoning, can make AI systems interpretable without opening the black box. After surveying existing range-based and sequence-based approaches, the authors argue that explainability is obscured by complex interactions between learning and reasoning, and they advocate projecting the problem into a reward space in which logical reasoning alone explains the potential impact of an AI system's decisions. At this level, they say, complexity is significantly reduced and observability is improved, because the system's behavior is characterized by the rewards it pursues rather than by its internal representations. The paper equates this with meta-reasoning, understood as reasoning about reasoning, and takes the integration of meta-reasoning with trustworthy autonomous systems, domain randomization, and large language models as the route to future interpretable AI.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that projecting an AI system's behavior into reward space preserves enough information that explanations derived from rewards match the true reasons for its decisions, and that such a reward space can be defined for any system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Explanations would no longer need to expose hidden layers or learned features; a decision can be explained by showing which rewards or objectives it serves.
  • Explainability becomes a design-time property: a system's behavior can be verified against its intended design at the meta-level, rather than reconstructed after the fact.
  • Meta-reasoning can be layered on top of large language models to select explanation strategies adaptively, addressing the inconsistency of chain-of-thought and tree-of-thought methods across tasks.
  • Domain randomization and trustworthy autonomous systems become tools for explainability: by reducing the reality gap and exposing the agent to reward space, they let explanations focus on actual rewards generated by ground-level information.
  • The survey's classification of explainability by scope and stage gives practitioners a map for choosing where to intervene: before, during, or after modelling, and at global or local granularity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, this position makes reward specification itself an explainability target: if a system's explanation says it acted to maximize a reward and that reward is misspecified, the failure becomes visible as an explanation failure, not a hidden bug.
  • A natural testable extension is to compare reward-space explanations with human explanations on the same decision tasks; a mismatch would show that reward projections alone do not capture the reasons people treat as authoritative.
  • For supervised classifiers with no explicit reward signal, the projection needs an inferred reward or loss-derived objective; the survey does not say how that reward is constructed, and different constructions could yield different explanations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a survey-style manuscript on trustworthy and explainable AI. It first reviews ethical principles and requirements from the United States, the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and China, then organizes explainability techniques into range-based (global/local) and sequence-based (pre-modelling, in-modelling, post-modelling) categories. The paper's forward-looking contribution appears in Section VI.A, where the authors propose that explainability can be achieved by projecting an AI system's behavior into a reward space and using meta-reasoning as the mechanism for generating explanations. The manuscript also discusses domain randomization and large language models as related trends, and concludes with a summary. The central new proposal is stated as an advocacy claim rather than a derived or experimentally validated framework.

Significance. The survey portion is useful as a compact overview of ethical guidelines and interpretability techniques, and the paper compiles a substantial reference list organized around a clear taxonomy. If the reward-driven explainability proposal in Section VI.A were formalized and shown to preserve the information needed for trustworthy explanations, it could offer a new organizing principle for explainable AI research. At present, however, the proposal is an unformalized assertion with no derivation, simulation, or experimental evidence, and the survey contains several citation and typographical errors that reduce its reliability as a reference. The paper's significance is therefore conditional on substantial revision and validation of the forward-looking claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI.A] The central proposal to "project the problem into the reward space for a reward-driven explainability" is undefined. The manuscript does not state what is being projected (states, policies, value functions, or trajectories), how the reward space is constructed, or how logical reasoning in that space yields a human-understandable explanation rather than a scalar value. The claim that this "significantly reduced complexity and improves observability" is presented without derivation, simulation, or experiment. This is load-bearing because the reward-space projection is the paper's only forward-looking contribution; if the projection is many-to-one with respect to the actual causes of a decision, the resulting explanations can be systematically wrong. The authors should either formalize the projection and provide supporting evidence, or explicitly reframe the proposal as an open hypothesis requiring future research.
  2. [Section VI.A] The identification of meta-reasoning with explainable AI is asserted through the phrase "reason the reasoning" and citation [136], but the referenced notion of meta-reasoning, as described later with meta-level control and introspective monitoring of computational activities [114], concerns the allocation of computational resources during reasoning, not the generation of human-understandable explanations. The manuscript does not articulate a concrete mechanism by which meta-reasoning produces explanations in reward space. The connection is therefore terminological rather than substantive, and the claimed coincidence "with the intention and goal of explainable AI" needs a precise argument to be convincing.
  3. [Section VI.B] The discussion of domain randomization undermines the coherence of the proposed trend. The manuscript states that trustworthy autonomous systems and domain randomization "are not inherently 'reward-based' by definition, but they can involve reward-based mechanism," which leaves unclear whether domain randomization is essential to the reward-driven explainability proposal or merely an auxiliary technique. If the trend is defined by working in reward space, the paper needs to explain which components of domain randomization operate on rewards and how those components contribute specifically to explainability rather than to robustness.
  4. [Tables 2-4 and Section VI headings] The survey contains reference and terminology errors that undermine its reliability as a reference source. Table 2 cites "[456" in the row for Bayes' rule based algorithms, which appears to be a malformed citation for [46]. Tables 3 and 4 describe methods for achieving "expansible AI," which should presumably be "explainable AI." Section VI is also misnumbered: after Section VI.C there is a second heading "VI. CONCLUSION." These errors require a complete citation and copyediting pass before the manuscript can serve as a dependable survey.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abbreviation for the EU High-Level Expert Group is given as "HELG" at first use in Section I, but the paper later uses "AI HLEG" in Sections II and II; the acronym should be standardized.
  2. [Section V.C] The text refers to "XAl go" in the description of interactive methods; this appears to be a typo for "XAI-go" and should be corrected.
  3. [Section V.B] The sentence "This approach is model-specific and model-independent" in Section V.B is contradictory as written; the authors likely mean that some methods are model-specific and others are model-agnostic, and this should be clarified.
  4. [Section IV.A] The statement that "global model interpretability is difficult to achieve in practice for models with a small number of parameters" appears to reverse the usual intuition; models with fewer parameters are generally easier to interpret. If this is not a typo for "large number," it needs justification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a survey plus a speculative research-direction proposal with no derivation, fitting, or self-citation chain for the output to reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript is a literature survey rather than a derivation-based contribution. Its central forward-looking claim, that explainability can be approached by projecting into reward space and linking it to meta-reasoning, is proposed as a research direction in Section VI.A and is not derived from definitions, equations, fitted data, or external uniqueness theorems. The statement that meta-reasoning is “reason the reasoning” and that this “coincides with the intention and goal of explainable AI” is a conceptual alignment claim, not a prediction obtained by construction from an input; it does not make the conclusion equal to the premise in any formal or statistical sense. The paper contains no fitted parameters, no benchmark predictions, no empirical validation to be forced, and no load-bearing self-citations: the authors do not cite their own prior work as the basis for the reward-space proposal. The undefined nature of the reward-space projection is a rigor or support limitation, but an unsupported claim is not circularity under the specified criteria. Because there is no derivation chain at all, there is also no step in which an output reduces by definition or by self-citation to an input. The honest finding is therefore no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central proposal relies on a speculative assumption that reward-space projection preserves explanatory information. The survey's organizational taxonomy is also an assumption about how to partition the field. No free parameters or data fitting are present because the paper contains no quantitative analysis.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The classification of interpretability methods into range-based and sequence-based is a useful organizing frame.
    The survey adopts this categorization without justifying why it is better than existing taxonomies, and it is used to structure the whole review.
  • domain assumption Meta-reasoning, as defined in prior work, is directly applicable to explainable AI.
    The paper assumes that the concept of meta-reasoning from general AI and cognitive science can be transferred to explainability, citing [114], [118], and [136], but does not articulate a concrete mechanism.
  • ad hoc to paper Reward-space projection can reduce complexity in explaining AI systems while preserving the information needed for trust.
    This is the paper's own speculative premise, stated in Section VI.A without formal definition or evidence. It is not derived from prior literature.
invented entities (1)
  • Reward-driven explainability
    purpose: Proposed approach to explain AI systems by projecting their behavior into the reward space rather than analyzing internal computations.
    Introduced in Section VI.A as a new research trend, but not formalized, implemented, or tested. No falsifiable handle is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explainable AI the Latest Advancements and New Trends." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LFJTXRLQ

@misc{pith2026250507005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explainable AI the Latest Advancements and New Trends},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LFJTXRLQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07005}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, Artificial Intelligence technology has excelled in various applications across all domains and fields. However, the various algorithms in neural networks make it difficult to understand the reasons behind decisions. For this reason, trustworthy AI techniques have started gaining popularity. The concept of trustworthiness is cross-disciplinary; it must meet societal standards and principles, and technology is used to fulfill these requirements. In this paper, we first surveyed developments from various countries and regions on the ethical elements that make AI algorithms trustworthy; and then focused our survey on the state of the art research into the interpretability of AI. We have conducted an intensive survey on technologies and techniques used in making AI explainable. Finally, we identified new trends in achieving explainable AI. In particular, we elaborate on the strong link between the explainability of AI and the meta-reasoning of autonomous systems. The concept of meta-reasoning is 'reason the reasoning', which coincides with the intention and goal of explainable Al. The integration of the approaches could pave the way for future interpretable AI systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07005 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Summary of the sequence-based interpretative approaches V. SEQUENCE-BASED INTERPRETIVE APPROACH Through a review of the past literature, study found that although many literatures have proposed a classification of interpretive methods [29], there is always a lack of uniformity. For the interpretive methods in Trustworthy AI, this study adopts the following two scales: (1) based on the scope, as explained in the prev… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [136]

    Doing more with less: meta -reasoning and meta -learning in humans and machines

    T. L. Griffiths, F. Callaway, M. B. Chang, E. Grant, P. M. Krueger, F. Lieder, “Doing more with less: meta -reasoning and meta -learning in humans and machines ”, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, Volume 29, 2019, Pages 24 -30,ISSN 2352 -1546, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.01.005

    doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.01.005 2019

  2. [114]

    Metareasoning: A manifesto

    M. T. Cox, and A. Raja, “ Metareasoning: A manifesto ”. Technical Report, www.mcox.org/Metareasoning/Manifesto

  3. [46]

    Bayesian Pruned Random Rule Foams for XAI

    A. K. Panda, B. Kosko, “ Bayesian Pruned Random Rule Foams for XAI”, 2021 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ- IEEE)

    2021

  4. [1]

    Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective

    H. Liu, Y. Wang, W. Fan, X. Liu, Y. Li, S. Jain, Y. Liu, A. Jain, and J. Tang, “Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective”, ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 14, 1, Article 4, 2023, 59 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3546872

    doi:10.1145/3546872 2023

  5. [2]

    IEEE ECPAIS: https://oecd.ai/en/catalogue/tools/ieee-ethics- certification-program-for-autonomous-and-intelligent-systems-ecpais

  6. [3]

    Interpreting Black -Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence

    V. Hassija, V. Chamola, A. Mahapatra, et al, “Interpreting Black -Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence”, Cogn Comput (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8

    doi:10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8 2023

  7. [4]

    Fairness in Deep Learning: A Computational Perspective,

    M. Du, F. Yang, N. Zou and X. Hu, "Fairness in Deep Learning: A Computational Perspective," in IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 25-34, 1 July-Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1109/MIS.2020.3000681

    arXiv 2021

  8. [5]

    DARPA: https://www.darpa.mil/program/explainable -artificial- intelligence 2850

Show all 140 references
  1. [6]

    Available at: http://www.caict.ac.cn/sytj/202209/t20220913_408839.htm (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    Text adopted - Trusted Artificial Intelligence Industry Ecology Development Report (2022) - China Academy of Information and Communications Technology. Available at: http://www.caict.ac.cn/sytj/202209/t20220913_408839.htm (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    2022

  2. [7]

    EU AI HELG: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/expert- group- ai#:~:text=The%20AI%20HLEG%20has%20worked,society%2C%20 EU%20citizens%20and%20policymakers

  3. [8]

    Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017- 0051_EN.html (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    Texts adopted - Civil Law Rules on Robotics - Thursday, 16 February 2017 europarl.europa.eu. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017- 0051_EN.html (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    2017

  4. [9]

    Europe’s Digital Decade: digital targets for 2030 European Commission. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy -and- policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/europes-digital- decade-digital-targets-2030_en (Accessed: 18 October 2023)

    2019

  5. [10]

    Department of Defense

    DOD Adopts Ethical Principles for Artificial Intelligence U.S. Department of Defense. Available at: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/release/article/2091996/dod- adopts-ethical-principles-for-artificial-intelligence/ (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    2023

  6. [11]

    Department of Defense

    DOD Adopts 5 Principles of Artificial Intelligence Ethics U.S. Department of Defense. Available at: https://www.defense.gov/News/News- Stories/article/article/2094085/dod-adopts-5-principles-of-artificial- intelligence-ethics/ (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    2023

  7. [12]

    Available at: https://www.nist.gov/trustworthy-and-responsible-ai (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    Trustworthy and Responsible AI, NIST. Available at: https://www.nist.gov/trustworthy-and-responsible-ai (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    2023

  8. [13]

    Available at: https://digital - strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    Ethics gu idelines for trustworthy AI (2019) Shaping Europe’s digital future. Available at: https://digital - strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    2019

  9. [14]

    Available at: https://www.ai -gakkai.or.jp/ai-elsi/archives/514 (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    About the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence Ethical Guidelines Ethics Committee of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence. Available at: https://www.ai -gakkai.or.jp/ai-elsi/archives/514 (Accessed: 17 October 2023)

    2023

  10. [15]

    An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations

    L. Floridi, J. Cowls, M. Beltrametti, R. Chatila, P. Chazerand, V. Dignum, C. Luetge, R. Madelin, U. Pagallo, F. Rossi, and B. Schafer, “An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations”. Ethics, Governance, and Policies in Arti...

    2021

  11. [16]

    W. R. Swartout and J. D. Moore, ‘‘Explanation in expert systems: A survey,’’ Univ. Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Tech. Rep. ISI/RR-88-228, 1988

    1988

  12. [17]

    DARPA’s Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) Program

    D. Gunning and D. Aha, “DARPA’s Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) Program”, AI Magazine, 40(2), pp. 44 -58. doi: 10.1609/aimag.v40i2.2850, 2019

    2019 doi

  13. [18]

    van Lent, W

    M. van Lent, W. Fisher, and M. Mancuso, “An explainable artificial intelligence system for small-unit tactical behavior,’’ in Proc. 16th Conf. Innov. Appl. Artif. Intell., 2004, pp. 900–907

    2004

  14. [19]

    Explainable AI: A Review of Machine Learning Interpretability Methods

    P. Linardatos, V. Papastefanopoulos, and S. Kotsiantis, “Explainable AI: A Review of Machine Learning Interpretability Methods”, MDPI Entropy 2021, 23(1), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/e23010018, Special issue: Theory and Applications of Information Theoretic Machine Learning 4

    2021 doi

  15. [20]

    C. Yang, A. Rangarajan, and S. Ranka. (2018). ‘‘Global model interpretation via recursive partitioning.’’ [Online]. Available: https://arxiv. org/abs/1802.04253

    2018 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Nguyen, A

    A. Nguyen, A. Dosovitskiy, J. Yosinski, T. Brox, and J. Clune, ‘‘Synthesizing the preferred inputs for neurons in neural networks via deep generator networks,’’ in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NIPS), 2016, pp. 3387–3395

    2016

  17. [22]

    Erhan, A

    D. Erhan, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, ‘‘Understanding representations learned in deep architectures,’’ Dept. d’Informatique Recherche Operationnelle, Univ. Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada, Tech. Rep. 1355, 2010

    2010

  18. [23]

    M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, ‘‘‘Why should i trust you?’: Explaining the predictions of any classifier,’’ in Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discovery Data Mining, 2016, pp. 1135 – 1144

    2016

  19. [24]

    S. M. Lundberg and S. I. Lee, ‘‘A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,’’ in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 2017, pp. 4768 – 4777

    2017

  20. [25]

    Fong and A

    R. Fong and A. Vedaldi, ‘‘Interpretable explanations of black boxes by meaningful perturbation.’’ [Online]. 2017, Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.03296

    2017 arXiv

  21. [26]

    Kindermans et al., ‘‘Learning how to explain neural networks: PatternNet and patternAttribution,’’ in Proc

    P.-J. Kindermans et al., ‘‘Learning how to explain neural networks: PatternNet and patternAttribution,’’ in Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent., 2018, pp. 1–16. Accessed: Jun. 6, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=Hkn7CBaTW

    2018

  22. [27]

    A. Ross, M. C. Hughes, and F. Doshi-Velez, ‘‘Right for the right reasons: Training differentiable models by constraining their explanations,’’ in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell., 2017, pp. 2662–2670

    2017

  23. [28]

    Guidotti, A

    R. Guidotti, A. Monreale, S. Ruggieri, D, Pedreschi, F. Turini, and F. Giannotti. (2018). ‘‘Local rule-based explanations of black box decision systems.’’ [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10820

    2018 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible A

    A. B., Arrieta, N. Dí az-Rodrí guez, J. Del Ser, A. Bennetot, S. Tabik, A. Barbado, S. Garcia, S. Gil-Lopez, D. Molina, R. Benjamins, R. Chatila, and F. Herrera, “ Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible ...

    2020 doi

  25. [30]

    Image deformation meta-networks for one-shot learning

    Z. Chen, Y. Fu, Y. Wang, L. Ma, W. Liu, and M. Hebert, “ Image deformation meta-networks for one-shot learning”. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 8680-8689

    2019

  26. [31]

    Image block augmentation for one-shot learning

    Z. Chen, Y. Fu, K. Chen, and Y. Jiang, “Image block augmentation for one-shot learning”. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019, Vol. 33, No. 01, pp. 3379-3386

    2019

  27. [32]

    Multi-level semantic feature augmentation for one -shot learning

    Z. Chen, Y. Fu, Y. Zhang, Y. Jiang, X. Xue, and L. Sigal, “Multi-level semantic feature augmentation for one -shot learning ”. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2019, 28(9), pp.4594-4605

    2019

  28. [33]

    Prototypical networks for few-shot learning

    J. Snell, K. Swersky, and R. Zemel, “Prototypical networks for few-shot learning”. 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA

    2017

  29. [34]

    Multimodal prototypical networks for few-shot learning

    F. Pahde, M.M. Puscas, T. Klein, M. Nabi, “Multimodal prototypical networks for few-shot learning”, Proceeding of IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, WACV 2021, Waikoloa, HI, USA, January 3 –8, 2021, IEEE, 2021, pp. 2643 –2652, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/...

    2021

  30. [35]

    Self-paced adversarial training for multimodal few -shot learning

    F. Pahde, O. Ostapenko, P. Jä hnichen, T. Klein, M. Nabi, “Self-paced adversarial training for multimodal few -shot learning”, Proceeding of IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, WACV 2019, Waikoloa Village, HI, USA, January 7–11, 2019, IEEE, 2019, pp. 218...

    2019

  31. [36]

    Adaptive cross-modal few -shot learning

    C. Xing, N. Rostamzadeh, B. Oreshkin, and P. O., Pinheiro, “Adaptive cross-modal few -shot learning ”. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32. 2019

    2019

  32. [37]

    Letham, C

    B. Letham, C. Rudin, T. H. McCormick, and D. Madigan, ‘‘Interpretable classifiers using rules and Bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction model,’’ Ann. Appl. Statist., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1350 –1371, 2015

    2015

  33. [38]

    Caruana, Y

    R. Caruana, Y. Lou, J. Gehrke, P. Koch, M. Sturm, and N. Elhadad, ‘‘Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission,’’ in Proc. 21th ACMSIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discovery Data Mining, 2015, pp. 1721–1730

    2015

  34. [39]

    Show, Attend and Tell: Neural Image Caption Generation with Visual Attention

    K. Xu, J. Ba, R. Kiros, K. Cho, A. C. Courville, R. Salakhutdinov, R. S. Zemel, and Y. Bengio, “ Show, Attend and Tell: Neural Image Caption Generation with Visual Attention ”. Proceeding of 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning Research. 37:2048-2057, 2015

    2015

  35. [40]

    Ustun and C

    B. Ustun and C. Rudin, ‘‘Supersparse linear integer models for optimized medical scoring systems,’’ Mach. Learn., vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 349–391, 2015

    2015

  36. [41]

    Breiman, ‘‘Statistical modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author),’’ Stat

    L. Breiman, ‘‘Statistical modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author),’’ Stat. Sci., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 199–231, 2001

    2001

  37. [42]

    Tobias Springenberg, A

    J. Tobias Springenberg, A. Dosovitskiy, T. Brox, and M. Riedmiller, ‘Striving for simplicity: The all convolutional net,’ 2014, arXiv:1412.6806. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6806

    2014 arXiv

  38. [43]

    Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) on Hoax Detection Using Decision Tree C4.5 Method for Indonesian News Platform

    J. Imanuel, L. Kintanswari, H. Lucky, and A. Chowanda, “Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) on Hoax Detection Using Decision Tree C4.5 Method for Indonesian News Platform”, 2022 Intl Conf of Science & Technology in Smart Administration, 2022

    2022

  39. [44]

    Crime Forecasting using Interpretable Regression Techniques

    M. David, E. S. Mbabazi, J. Nakatumba-Nabende and G. Marvin, “Crime Forecasting using Interpretable Regression Techniques”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics, 2023

    2023

  40. [45]

    Application Analysis of Combining BP Neural Network and Logistic Regression in Human Resource Management System

    T. Xiang, P. Z. Wu, S. Yuan, “Application Analysis of Combining BP Neural Network and Logistic Regression in Human Resource Management System ”, Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2022, pp. 1–11. doi: 10.1155/2022/7425815

    2022 doi

  41. [47]

    Process-Monitoring-for- Quality — A Model Selection Crite rion for Support Vector Machine

    C. A. Escobar, and R. Morales -Menendez, “ Process-Monitoring-for- Quality — A Model Selection Crite rion for Support Vector Machine” , Procedia Manufacturing, 34, pp. 1010 -1017 Available at: 10.1016/j.promfg. 2019.06.094

    2019 doi

  42. [48]

    Generalised fuzzy cognitive maps: Considering the time dynamics between a cause and an effect

    A. Nair, D. Reckien, and M.F.A.M van Maarseveen, “Generalised fuzzy cognitive maps: Considering the time dynamics between a cause and an effect”, Applied Soft Computing, 92, pp. 106309 Available at: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106309

    2020

  43. [49]

    Visual explanations from spiking neural networks using inter -spike intervals

    Y. Kim, P. Panda, “ Visual explanations from spiking neural networks using inter -spike intervals ”. Sci Rep 11, 19037 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98448-0

    2021 doi

  44. [50]

    Customer Purchase Prediction Based on Improved Gradient Boosting Decision Tree Algorithm,

    H. Wu and B. Li, "Customer Purchase Prediction Based on Improved Gradient Boosting Decision Tree Algorithm," 2nd International Conference on Consumer Electronics and Computer Engineering (ICCECE), Guangzhou, China, 2022, pp. 795 -798, doi: 10.1109/ICCECE54139.2022.9712779

    2022

  45. [51]

    Development of a protocol for environmental impact studies using causal modelling

    R. Hatami, “Development of a protocol for environmental impact studies using causal modelling”, Water research, 138, pp. 206-223 Available at: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.034

    2018 doi

  46. [52]

    Learning causal Bayesian networks based on causality analysis for classification

    L. Wang, J. Zhou, J. Wei, M. Pang, and M. Sun, M. “ Learning causal Bayesian networks based on causality analysis for classification” , Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 114, pp. 105212 Available at: 10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105212

  47. [53]

    Data augmentation for skin lesion using self -attention based progressive generative adversarial network

    I. S. A. Abdelhalim, M. F. Mohamed, Y. B. Mahdy, “Data augmentation for skin lesion using self -attention based progressive generative adversarial network” , Expert Systems with Applications, 165, pp. 113922 Available at: 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113922

  48. [54]

    Beyond Trivial Counterfactual Explanations with Diverse Valuable Explanations

    P. Rodrí guez; M. Caccia, et. al., “ Beyond Trivial Counterfactual Explanations with Diverse Valuable Explanations”, proceeding of 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021

    2021

  49. [55]

    Advanced Machine Learning for Financial Markets: A PCA-GRU-LSTM Approach

    B. Liu, M. Lai, “Advanced Machine Learning for Financial Markets: A PCA-GRU-LSTM Approach ”. J . Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02108-3

    2024 doi

  50. [56]

    Interactive Supervision with t - SNE

    F. Luus, N. Khan, and I. Akhalwaya. “ Interactive Supervision with t - SNE”. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K -CAP '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 85 –92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3360901.3364414, 2019

  51. [57]

    Enhance explainability of manifold learning

    H. Han, W. Li, J. Wang, G. Qin, and X. Qin, “Enhance explainability of manifold learning”, Neurocomputing, 500, pp. 877 -895 Available at: 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.05.119

    2022 doi

  52. [58]

    Antol, A

    S. Antol, A. Agrawal, J. Lu, M. Mitchell, D. Batra, C. L. Zitnick, and D. Parikh, ‘‘VQA: Visual question answering,’’ in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), Dec. 2015, pp. 2425–2433

    2015

  53. [59]

    Chandrasekaran and P

    A. Chandrasekaran and P. Chattopadhyay, ‘‘Do explanations make VQA models more predictable to a human?’’ in Proc. Conf. Empirical Methods Natural Lang. Process., 2018, pp. 1036–1042

    2018

  54. [60]

    D. H. Park, L. A. Hendricks, Z. Akata, A. Rohrbach, B. Schiele, T. Darrell, and M. Rohrbach, ‘‘Multimodal explanations: Justifying decisions and pointing to the evidence,’’ in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. 5 Vis. Pattern Recognit., Jun. 2018, pp. 8779 –8788. [Online]. Available: ht...

    2018 arXiv

  55. [61]

    M. Hind, D. Wei, M. Campbell, N. C. F. Codella, A. Dhurandhar, A. Mojsilović, K. N. Ramamurthy, and K. R. Varshney, ‘‘TED: Teaching AI to explain its decisions,’’ in Proc. AAAI/ACM Conf. AI, Ethics, Soc., 2019, pp. 123–129

    2019

  56. [62]

    Strout, Y

    J. Strout, Y. Zhang, and R. J. Mooney, ‘‘Do human rationales improve machine explanations?’’ 2019, arXiv:1905.13714. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.13714

    2019 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Interpreting and explaining deep neural networks for classification of audio signals

    S. Becker, M. Ackermann, S. Lapuschkin, K. R. Mü ller, and W. Samek, “Interpreting and explaining deep neural networks for classification of audio signals”. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03418, 1. 2018

    2018 arXiv

  58. [64]

    A review of visualisation- as-explanation techniques for convolutional neural n etworks and their evaluation

    E. Mohamed, K. Sirlantzis, and G. Howells, “A review of visualisation- as-explanation techniques for convolutional neural n etworks and their evaluation”, Displays, 73, pp. 102239 Available at: 10.1016/j.displa.2022.102239

    2022

  59. [65]

    Attention Mechanisms in Deep Learning : Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence

    N. Dehimi; Z. Tolba, “ Attention Mechanisms in Deep Learning : Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence ” 2024 6th International Conference on Pattern Analysis and Intelligent Systems (PAIS)

    2024

  60. [66]

    R. C. Fong and A. Vedaldi, ‘‘Interpretable explanations of black boxes by meaningful perturbation,’’ in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), Oct. 2017, pp. 3429–3437

    2017

  61. [67]

    The interpretive model pf manufacturing: a theoretical framework and research agenda for machine learning in manufacturing

    A. Sharma, R. Rai, Z. Zhang, “The interpretive model pf manufacturing: a theoretical framework and research agenda for machine learning in manufacturing”, Intl J. of Production Research, June 2021, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2021.1930234

    2021

  62. [68]

    Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI),

    A. Adadi and M. Berrada, "Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)," in IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 52138-52160, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052

    2018

  63. [69]

    Interpretability via model extraction

    O. Bastani, C. Kim, and H. Bastani, “ Interpretability via model extraction.” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09773, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  64. [70]

    TreeView: Peeking into deep neural networks via feature-space partitioning

    J. J. Thiagarajan, B. Kailkhura, P. Sattigeri, and K. N. Ramamurthy. (2016). “TreeView: Peeking into deep neural networks via feature-space partitioning.” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.07429

    2016 arXiv

  65. [71]

    Efficient low -rank multimodal fusion with modalityspecific factors,

    Z. Liu, Y. Shen, V. B. Lakshminarasimhan, P. P. Liang, A. Zadeh, and L. P. Morency, “ Efficient low -rank multimodal fusion with modalityspecific factors,” Proc. 56th Annu. Meeting Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 2018, pp. 2247–2256, doi: 10.18653/v1/p18-1209

    2018 doi

  66. [72]

    Statistical procedures for forecasting criminal behavior: A comparative assessment,

    R. Berk and J. Bleich, “ Statistical procedures for forecasting criminal behavior: A comparative assessment,” Criminol. Public Policy, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 513–544, 2013

    2013

  67. [73]

    Peeking inside the black box: Visualizing statistical learning with plots of indi vidual conditional expectation

    A. Goldstein, A. Kapelner, J. Bleich, and E. Pitkin, “ Peeking inside the black box: Visualizing statistical learning with plots of indi vidual conditional expectation”, J. Comput. Graph. Statist., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 44–65, 2015, doi: 10.1080/10618600.2014.907095

    2015

  68. [75]

    One Explanation Does Not Fit All

    K. Sokol, P. Flach, “ One Explanation Does Not Fit All ”. Kü nstl Intell 34, 235–250, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-020-00637-y

    2020 doi

  69. [76]

    Let me explain!

    K. Weitz, D. Schiller, R. Schlagowski, T. Huber, and E. André, “Let me explain!”, Exploring the potential of virtual agents in explainable ai interaction design,’’ J. Multimodal User Interfaces, 2020, pp. 1–12

    2020

  70. [77]

    XAlgo: Explaining the internal states of algor ithms via question answering,

    J. Rebanal, Y. Tang, J. Combitsis, K.-W. Chang, and X. Chen, “XAlgo: Explaining the internal states of algor ithms via question answering,” 2020, arXiv:2007.07407. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.07407

    2020 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Alipour, J

    K. Alipour, J. P. Schulze, Y. Yao, A. Ziskind, and G. Burachas, ‘‘A study on multimodal and interactive explanations for visual question answering,’’ 2020, arXiv:2003.00431

    2020 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Braines and D

    D. Braines and D. Harborne, ‘‘Multimodal explanations for ai -based multisensor fusion,’’ in Proc. RSM Artif. Intell. Military Multisensor Fusion Engines, 2018, pp. 1–13

    2018

  73. [80]

    Rule extraction algorithm for deep neural networks: A review

    T. Hailesilassie, “Rule extraction algorithm for deep neural networks: A review”. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05267. 2016

    2016 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Explanation Methods in Deep Learning: Users, Values, Concerns and Challenges

    G. Ras, M. V., Gerven, and W. P., Haselager, “ Explanation Methods in Deep Learning: Users, Values, Concerns and Challenges ”. ArXiv, abs/1803.07517. 2018

    2018 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Deep learning, dark knowledge, and dark matter,

    P. Sadowski, J. Collado, D. Whiteson, and P. Baldi, “Deep learning, dark knowledge, and dark matter,” Proc. NIPSWorkshop High-Energy Phys. Mach. Learn. (PMLR), vol. 42, 2015, pp. 81–87

    2015

  76. [83]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean. “Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Interpretable approaches to detect bias in black-box models,

    S. Tan, “Interpretable approaches to detect bias in black-box models,” in Proc. AAAI/ACM Conf. AI Ethics Soc., 2017, pp. 1–2

    2017

  78. [85]

    Distilling knowledge from deep networks with applications to healthcare domain

    Z. Che, S. Purushotham, R. Khemani, and Y. Liu, “Distilling knowledge from deep networks with applications to healthcare domain ” arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03542. 2015

    2015 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Interpreting deep classifier by visual distillation of dark knowledge

    K. Xu, D. H., Park, C. Yi, C. and C. Sutton, “Interpreting deep classifier by visual distillation of dark knowledge ”. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.04042. 2018

    2018 arXiv

  80. [87]

    December. Distill-and- compare: Auditing black -box models using transparent model distillation

    S. Tan, R. Caruana, G. Hooker, and Y. Lou, “ December. Distill-and- compare: Auditing black -box models using transparent model distillation”. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 303-310)

    2018

  81. [88]

    A sensitivity analysis of (and practitioners’ Guide to) convolutional neural network s for sentence classification

    Y. Zhang and B. Wallace. “A sensitivity analysis of (and practitioners’ Guide to) convolutional neural network s for sentence classification.” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03820. 2016

    2016 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Using sensitivity analysis and visualization techniques to open black box data mining models,

    P. Cortez and M. J. Embrechts, “Using sensitivity analysis and visualization techniques to open black box data mining models,” Inf. Sci., vol. 225, pp. 1–17, Mar. 2013

    2013

  83. [90]

    Opening black box data mining models using sensitivity analysis,

    P. Cortez and M. J. Embrechts, “Opening black box data mining models using sensitivity analysis,” in Proc. IEEE Symp. Comput. Intell. Data Mining (CIDM), Apr. 2011, pp. 341–348

    2011

  84. [91]

    On pixel-wise explanations for non -linear classifier decisions by lay er-wise relevance propagation,

    S. Bach, A. Binder, G. Montavon, F. Klauschen , K.-R. Mü ller, and W. Samek, “On pixel-wise explanations for non -linear classifier decisions by lay er-wise relevance propagation,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 7, p. e0130140, 2015

    2015

  85. [92]

    Ebbe-text: Explaining neural networks by exploring text classification decision boundaries

    A. Delaforge, J. Azé , S. Bringay, C. Mollevi, A. Sallaberry, and M. Servajean, “Ebbe-text: Explaining neural networks by exploring text classification decision boundaries”. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. Vol. 29, Issue 10, pp 4154 – 4171, 2022

    2022

  86. [93]

    Model class reliance: Variable importance measures for any machine learning model class, fr om the ‘rashomon’ perspective

    A. Fisher, C. Rudin, and F. Dominici. “ Model class reliance: Variable importance measures for any machine learning model class, fr om the ‘rashomon’ perspective.” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01489. 2018

    2018 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Visualizing the feature importance for black box models

    G. Casalicchio, C. M olnar, and B. Bischl. “ Visualizing the feature importance for black box models.” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.06620, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  88. [95]

    Explainable AI: from black box to glass box

    A. Rai, “Explainable AI: from black box to glass box ”. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 48, 137 –141 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747 -019- 00710-5

    2020 doi

  89. [96]

    Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR

    S. Wachter, B. D. Mittelstadt, and C. Russell, “ Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR”. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 2017

    2017

  90. [97]

    Algorithmic recourse: from counterfactual explanations to interventions

    A. H. Karimi, B. Schö lkopf, and I. Valera, “Algorithmic recourse: from counterfactual explanations to interventions”. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp. 353- 362

    2021

  91. [98]

    G-LIME: Statistical learning for local interpretations of deep neural networks using global priors

    X. Li, H. Xiong, X. Li, X. Zhang, J. Liu, H. Jiang, Z. Chen, Z. and D. Dou, “ G-LIME: Statistical learning for local interpretations of deep neural networks using global priors ”, Artificial Intelligence, 314, pp. 103823 Available at: 10.1016/j.artint.2022.103823

  92. [99]

    X. Xin, G. Hooker, and F. Huang, “ Why You Should Not Trust Interpretations in Machine Learning: Adversarial Attacks on Partial Dependence Plots, arXiv.org. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18702 (Accessed: 6 July 2024)

    2024 arXiv

  93. [100]

    An interpretable framework for modeling global solar radiation using tree -based ensemble machine learning and Shapley additive explanations methods

    Z. Song, S. Cao, and H. Yang, “An interpretable framework for modeling global solar radiation using tree -based ensemble machine learning and Shapley additive explanations methods ”, Applied Energy, 364, pp. 123238 Available at: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123238. 2024

  94. [101]

    XAIR: A Systematic Metareview of Explainable AI (XAI) Aligned to the Software Development Process

    T. Clement, N. Kemmerzell, M. Abdelaal, and M. Amberg, M. (2023) “XAIR: A Systematic Metareview of Explainable AI (XAI) Aligned to the Software Development Process ”, MDPI. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2504- 4990/5/1/6, 202...

    2023

  95. [102]

    Feasibility analysis of machine learning for performance -related attributional statements

    A. Berkin, W. Aerts, W. and T. Van Caneghem, “Feasibility analysis of machine learning for performance -related attributional statements ”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 48, pp. 100597 Available at: 10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100597. 2023

  96. [103]

    Improving the invisibility of adversarial examples with perceptually adaptive perturbation

    Y. Zhang, Y., Tan, H. Sun, Y. Zhao, Q. Zhang, and Y. Li, “Improving the invisibility of adversarial examples with perceptually adaptive perturbation”, Information Sciences, 635, pp. 126 -137 Available at: 10.1016/j.ins.2023.03.139. 2023

    2023 doi

  97. [104]

    On the sensitivity and stability of model interpretations in NLP

    F. Yin, Z. Shi, C. J. Hsieh, and K. W. Chang, “On the sensitivity and stability of model interpretations in NLP ”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08782. 2021

    2021 arXiv

  98. [105]

    Generating Explanations for Conceptual Validation of Graph Neural Networks: An Investigation of Symbolic Predicates Learned on Relevance -Ranked Sub -Graphs

    B. Finzel, A. Saranti, A. Angerschmid, et al. “Generating Explanations for Conceptual Validation of Graph Neural Networks: An Investigation of Symbolic Predicates Learned on Relevance -Ranked Sub -Graphs”. 6 Kü nstl Intell 36, 271–285 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218 -02...

    2022 doi

  99. [106]

    Anomaly Detection in Surveillance Videos

    S. Bhakat and G. Ramakrishnan. “ Anomaly Detection in Surveillance Videos”. In Proceedings of the ACM India Joint International Conference on Data Science and Management of Data (CODS-COMAD '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 252–

  100. [107]

    A Real Estate Valuation Model Using Boosted Feature Selection,

    K. Chanasit, E. Chuangsuwanich, A. Suchato and P. Punyabukkana, “A Real Estate Valuation Model Using Boosted Feature Selection,” in IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 86938 -86953, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3089198

    2021

  101. [108]

    Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps

    K. Simonyan, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps ”. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6034. 2013

    2013 arXiv

  102. [109]

    Head Network Distillation: Splitting Distilled Deep Neural Networks for Resource-Constrained Edge Computing Systems,

    Y. Matsubara, D. Callegaro, S. Baidya, M. Levorato and S. Singh, "Head Network Distillation: Splitting Distilled Deep Neural Networks for Resource-Constrained Edge Computing Systems," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 212177-212193, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3039714

    2020

  103. [110]

    A Bayesian Inference Based Hybrid Recommender System,

    A. N. Ngaffo, W. E. Ayeb and Z. Choukair, "A Bayesian Inference Based Hybrid Recommender System," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 101682 - 101701, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2998824

    2020

  104. [111]

    Resilience assessment of process industry facilities using dynamic Bayesian networks

    Q. Tong, T. Gernay, “Resilience assessment of process industry facilities using dynamic Bayesian networks” , Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 169, pp. 547 -563 Available at: 10.1016/j.psep.2022.11.048. 2023

    2022 doi

  105. [112]

    How much do we see? On the explainability of partial dependence plots for credit risk scoring

    G. Szepannek, K. Lü bke, “How much do we see? On the explainability of partial dependence plots for credit risk scoring ”, Argumenta Oeconomica. No 1 (50) 2023. Available at: https://journals.ue.wroc.pl/aoe/article/view/1047 (Accessed: 6 July 2024)

    2023

  106. [113]

    Explainable Deep Learning Methods in Medical Image Classification: A Survey

    C. Patrí cio, J. C. Neves, and F. L. Teixeira. “Explainable Deep Learning Methods in Medical Image Classification: A Survey ”. ACM Comput. Surv. 2023, 56, 4, Article 85 (April 2024), 41 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3625287

    2023 doi

  107. [115]

    Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S. et al. Meta -analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature 555, 175 –182 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753

    2018 doi

  108. [116]

    grandmother cell

    Gross C. G. (2002). The genealogy of the “grandmother cell.” Neuroscientist 8, 512–518 10.1177/107385802237175

    2002 doi

  109. [117]

    An extension of the localist representation theory: grandmother cells are also widely used in the brain

    Roy A. An extension of the localist representation theory: grandmother cells are also widely used in the brain. Front Psychol. 2013 May 24;4:300. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00300. PMID: 23745119; PMCID: PMC3662881

    2013

  110. [118]

    Conitzer, ‘Metareasoning as a Formal Computational Problem’, AAAI Workshop Papers 2008

    V. Conitzer, ‘Metareasoning as a Formal Computational Problem’, AAAI Workshop Papers 2008

    2008

  111. [119]

    The UKRI Trustworthy Autonomous Systems (TAS) Hub (last accessed

  112. [120]

    Data-Efficient Domain Randomization With Bayesian Optimization

    F. Muratore, C. Eilers, M. Gienger, and J. Peters, “ Data-Efficient Domain Randomization With Bayesian Optimization” , IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, Vol. 6, No. 2, April 2021

    2021

  113. [121]

    Efficient Sim -to-Real Transfer in Reinforcement Learning Through Domain Rand omization and Domain Adaptation

    A. Shakerimov , T. Alizadeh, H. A. Varol, “ Efficient Sim -to-Real Transfer in Reinforcement Learning Through Domain Rand omization and Domain Adaptation” , IEEE Access, Dec., 2023, Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3339568

    2023

  114. [122]

    Feature-Based Style Randomization for Domain Generalization

    Y. Wang, L. Qi, Y. Shi, Y. Gao, “ Feature-Based Style Randomization for Domain Generalization” , IEEE Trans on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 32, No. 8, August 2022

    2022

  115. [123]

    Robotic Manipulations of Cylinders and Ellipsoids by Ellipse Detectio n w ith Domain Randomization

    H. Dong, J. Zhou, C. Qiu, D. K. Prasad, I. Chen, “Robotic Manipulations of Cylinders and Ellipsoids by Ellipse Detectio n w ith Domain Randomization”, IEEE/ASME Trans on Mechatronics, Vol. 28, No. 1, February 2023

    2023

  116. [124]

    Domain Randomization for Transferring Deep Neural Networks from Simulation to the Real World

    J. Tobin, R. Fong, A. Ray, J . Schneider, W. Zaremba, P. Abbeel, “Domain Randomization for Transferring Deep Neural Networks from Simulation to the Real World”, 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), September 2017, Canada

    2017

  117. [125]

    FSDR: Frequency Space Domain Randomization for Domain Generalization

    J. Huang, D. Guan, A. Xiao, S. Lu, “ FSDR: Frequency Space Domain Randomization for Domain Generalization” , 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2021

  118. [126]

    A Comprehensive Study on Robustness of Image Classification Models: Benchmarking and Rethinking

    C. Liu, Y. Dong, W. Xiang, W. et al. “A Comprehensive Study on Robustness of Image Classification Models: Benchmarking and Rethinking”. Int J Comput Vis (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-024-02196-3

    2024 doi

  119. [127]

    Robust Text Image Recognition via Adversarial Sequence -to-Sequence Domain Adaptation,

    Y. Zhang, S. Nie, S. Liang and W. Liu, "Robust Text Image Recognition via Adversarial Sequence -to-Sequence Domain Adaptation," in IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 30, pp. 3922 -3933, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TIP.2021.3066903

    2021

  120. [128]

    Improving Style Randomization via Domain specific Feature Reweighting for Domain Generalization

    J. Lee, K. Kim, T. Kim, D. Kim, “Improving Style Randomization via Domain specific Feature Reweighting for Domain Generalization”, Proceeding of 2022 30th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO)

    2022

  121. [129]

    Variance Reduced Domain Randomization for Reinforcement Learning With Policy Gradient

    Y. Jiang, C. Li, W. Dai, J. Zou, H. Xiong, “Variance Reduced Domain Randomization for Reinforcement Learning With Policy Gradient”, IEEE Trans on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 46, No. 2, February, 2024

    2024

  122. [130]

    Single Domain Generalization Method for Remote Sensing Image Segmentation via Category Consistency on Domain Randomization

    C. Liang , W. Li , Y. Dong , W. Fu, “Single Domain Generalization Method for Remote Sensing Image Segmentation via Category Consistency on Domain Randomization”, IEEE Trans on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 62, 2024

    2024

  123. [131]

    Unsupervised Cross -domain Object Detection via Multiple Domain Randomization

    F. Luo, J. Liu, G. T. Ho, K. Yan, “Unsupervised Cross -domain Object Detection via Multiple Domain Randomization”, Proceedings of the 2024 27th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design

    2024

  124. [132]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V. Le, D. Zhou, et al. “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models”. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  125. [133]

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models

    S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. Griffiths, Y. Cao, and K. Narasimhan. “Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models”. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  126. [134]

    Large language models as analogical reasoners

    M. Yasunaga, X. Chen, Y. Li, P. Pasupat, J. Leskovec, P. Liang, E. H. Chi, and D. Zhou. “Large language models as analogical reasoners ”. arXiv doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.01714 , 2023

    2023 doi arXiv

  127. [135]

    Meta Reasoning for Large Language Models

    P. Gao, A. Xie, S. Mao, W. Wu, Y. Xia, H. Mi, F. Wei, “Meta Reasoning for Large Language Models”, doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.11698, 2024

    2024 doi arXiv

  128. [137]

    Enhancing Machine Learning Model Interpretability in Intrusion Detection Systems through SHAP Explanations and LLM - Generated Descriptions

    A. Khediri, H. Slimi, A. Yahiaoui, M. Derdour, H. Bendjenna, C. E. Ghenai, “Enhancing Machine Learning Model Interpretability in Intrusion Detection Systems through SHAP Explanations and LLM - Generated Descriptions”, 2024 6th International Conference on Pat tern Analysis and ...

    2024

  129. [138]

    Integrating Automated Knowledge Extraction with Large Language Models for Explainable Medical Decision-Making

    H. Zhang, J. Li, Y. Wang, Y. Song, “Integrating Automated Knowledge Extraction with Large Language Models for Explainable Medical Decision-Making”, 2023 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM)

    2023

  130. [139]

    Knowledge Graphs as Context Sources for LLM Based Explanations of Learning Recommendations

    H. Abu-Rasheed, C. Weber, M. Fathi, “Knowledge Graphs as Context Sources for LLM Based Explanations of Learning Recommendations”, 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)S

    2024

  131. [140]

    On the Intersection of Explainable and Reliable AI for Physical Fatigue Prediction

    S. Narteni, V. Orani, E. Cambiaso, M. Rucco, M. Mongelli. “On the Intersection of Explainable and Reliable AI for Physical Fatigue Prediction”, IEEE Access, July 2022, Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3191907

    2022

  132. [255]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3297001.3297034

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.