Artificial intelligence (AI) models are increasingly finding applications in the field of medicine. Concerns have been raised about the explainability of the decisions that are made by these AI models. In this article, we give a systematic analysis of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), with a primary focus on models that are currently being used in the field of healthcare. The literature search is conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards for relevant work published from 1 January 2012 to 02 February 2022. The review analyzes the prevailing trends in XAI and lays out the major directions in which research is headed. We investigate the why, how, and when of the uses of these XAI models and their implications. We present a comprehensive examination of XAI methodologies as well as an explanation of how a trustworthy AI can be derived from describing AI models for healthcare fields. The discussion of this work will contribute to the formalization of the XAI field.

In the modern healthcare system, rapidly expanding costs/complexity, the growing myriad of treatment options, and exploding information streams that often do not effectively reach the front lines hinder the ability to choose optimal treatment decisions over time. The goal in this paper is to develop a general purpose (non-disease-specific) computational/artificial intelligence (AI) framework to address these challenges. This serves two potential functions: 1) a simulation environment for exploring various healthcare policies, payment methodologies, etc., and 2) the basis for clinical artificial intelligence - an AI that can think like a doctor. This approach combines Markov decision processes and dynamic decision networks to learn from clinical data and develop complex plans via simulation of alternative sequential decision paths while capturing the sometimes conflicting, sometimes synergistic interactions of various components in the healthcare system. It can operate in partially observable environments (in the case of missing observations or data) by maintaining belief states about patient health status and functions as an online agent that plans and re-plans. This framework was evaluated using real patient data from an electronic health record. Such an AI framework easily outperforms the current treatment-as-usual (TAU) case-rate/fee-for-service models of healthcare (Cost per Unit Change: $189 vs. $497) while obtaining a 30-35% increase in patient outcomes. Tweaking certain model parameters further enhances this advantage, obtaining roughly 50% more improvement for roughly half the costs. Given careful design and problem formulation, an AI simulation framework can approximate optimal decisions even in complex and uncertain environments. Future work is described that outlines potential lines of research and integration of machine learning algorithms for personalized medicine.

Artificial Intelligence principles define social and ethical considerations to develop future AI. They come from research institutes, government organizations and industries. All versions of AI principles are with different considerations covering different perspectives and making different emphasis. None of them can be considered as complete and can cover the rest AI principle proposals. Here we introduce LAIP, an effort and platform for linking and analyzing different Artificial Intelligence Principles. We want to explicitly establish the common topics and links among AI Principles proposed by different organizations and investigate on their uniqueness. Based on these efforts, for the long-term future of AI, instead of directly adopting any of the AI principles, we argue for the necessity of incorporating various AI Principles into a comprehensive framework and focusing on how they can interact and complete each other.

Over the last decade, there has been growing interest in the use or measures or change in belief for reasoning with uncertainty in artificial intelligence research. An important characteristic of several methodologies that reason with changes in belief or belief updates, is a property that we term modularity. We call updates that satisfy this property modular updates. Whereas probabilistic measures of belief update - which satisfy the modularity property were first discovered in the nineteenth century, knowledge and discussion of these quantities remains obscure in artificial intelligence research. We define modular updates and discuss their inappropriate use in two influential expert systems.

This chapter presents methodological reflections on the necessity and utility of artificial intelligence in generative design. Specifically, the chapter discusses how generative design processes can be augmented by AI to deliver in terms of a few outcomes of interest or performance indicators while dealing with hundreds or thousands of small decisions. The core of the performance-based generative design paradigm is about making statistical or simulation-driven associations between these choices and consequences for mapping and navigating such a complex decision space. This chapter will discuss promising directions in Artificial Intelligence for augmenting decision-making processes in architectural design for mapping and navigating complex design spaces.

Artificial intelligence is observed to age not through chronological time but through structural asymmetries in memory performance. In large language models, semantic cues such as the name of the day often remain stable across sessions, while episodic details like the sequential progression of experiment numbers tend to collapse when conversational context is reset. To capture this phenomenon, the Artificial Age Score (AAS) is introduced as a log-scaled, entropy-informed metric of memory aging derived from observable recall behavior. The score is formally proven to be well-defined, bounded, and monotonic under mild and model-agnostic assumptions, making it applicable across various tasks and domains. In its Redundancy-as-Masking formulation, the score interprets redundancy as overlapping information that reduces the penalized mass. However, in the present study, redundancy is not explicitly estimated; all reported values assume a redundancy-neutral setting (R = 0), yielding conservative upper bounds. The AAS framework was tested over a 25-day bilingual study involving ChatGPT-5, structured into stateless and persistent interaction phases. During persistent sessions, the model consistently recalled both semantic and episodic details, driving the AAS toward its theoretical minimum, indicative of structural youth. In contrast, when sessions were reset, the model preserved semantic consistency but failed to maintain episodic continuity, causing a sharp increase in the AAS and signaling structural memory aging. These findings support the utility of AAS as a theoretically grounded, task-independent diagnostic tool for evaluating memory degradation in artificial systems. The study builds on foundational concepts from von Neumann's work on automata, Shannon's theories of information and redundancy, and Turing's behavioral approach to intelligence.

We describe a strategy for identifying the universe of research publications relevant to the application and development of artificial intelligence. The approach leverages the arXiv corpus of scientific preprints, in which authors choose subject tags for their papers from a set defined by editors. We compose a functional definition of AI relevance by learning these subjects from paper metadata, and then inferring the arXiv-subject labels of papers in larger corpora: Clarivate Web of Science, Digital Science Dimensions, and Microsoft Academic Graph. This yields predictive classification $F_1$ scores between .75 and .86 for Natural Language Processing (cs.CL), Computer Vision (cs.CV), and Robotics (cs.RO). For a single model that learns these and four other AI-relevant subjects (cs.AI, cs.LG, stat.ML, and cs.MA), we see precision of .83 and recall of .85. We evaluate the out-of-domain performance of our classifiers against other sources of topic information and predictions from alternative methods. We find that a supervised solution can generalize to identify publications that belong to the high-level fields of study represented on arXiv. This offers a method for identifying AI-relevant publications that updates at the pace of research output, without reliance on subject-matter experts for query development or labeling.

This volume represents the accepted submissions from the AAAI-2019 Workshop on Games and Simulations for Artificial Intelligence held on January 29, 2019 in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. https://www.gamesim.ai

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is essential for building advanced machine learning-powered applications, especially in critical domains such as medical diagnostics or autonomous driving. Legal, business, and ethical requirements motivate using effective XAI, but the increasing number of different methods makes it challenging to pick the right ones. Further, as explanations are highly context-dependent, measuring the effectiveness of XAI methods without users can only reveal a limited amount of information, excluding human factors such as the ability to understand it. We propose to evaluate XAI methods via the user's ability to successfully perform a proxy task, designed such that a good performance is an indicator for the explanation to provide helpful information. In other words, we address the helpfulness of XAI for human decision-making. Further, a user study on state-of-the-art methods was conducted, showing differences in their ability to generate trust and skepticism and the ability to judge the rightfulness of an AI decision correctly. Based on the results, we highly recommend using and extending this approach for more objective-based human-centered user studies to measure XAI performance in an end-to-end fashion.

This paper is concerned with two theories of probability judgment: the Bayesian theory and the theory of belief functions. It illustrates these theories with some simple examples and discusses some of the issues that arise when we try to implement them in expert systems. The Bayesian theory is well known; its main ideas go back to the work of Thomas Bayes (1702-1761). The theory of belief functions, often called the Dempster-Shafer theory in the artificial intelligence community, is less well known, but it has even older antecedents; belief-function arguments appear in the work of George Hooper (16401723) and James Bernoulli (1654-1705). For elementary expositions of the theory of belief functions, see Shafer (1976, 1985).