A conceptual framework for Zero-Error AI agents using Digital AI Passport approach

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, particularly those based on deep learning, have achieved extraordinary success in pattern recognition and predictive tasks. However, their reliance on correlation-based learning has raised serious concerns regarding explainability, robustness, fairness, and generalization. These limitations are especially problematic in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, autonomous systems, finance, and governance, where AI decisions must be transparent, reliable, and adaptable to changing environments. Causal reasoning offers a promising paradigm to address these challenges by enabling AI systems to move beyond surface-level correlations toward an understanding of underlying cause–effect relationships. This paper explores causal reasoning as a foundational pathway to explainable and generalizable artificial intelligence. It examines the theoretical underpinnings of causal inference, contrasts causal and correlational learning, and analyzes how causal models enhance explainability and out-of-distribution generalization. The paper further reviews emerging approaches for integrating causal reasoning into modern AI systems, including structural causal models, counterfactual learning, invariant representations, and hybrid neuro-symbolic architectures. Key applications, challenges, and future research directions are discussed. The study argues that causal reasoning is not merely an auxiliary feature but a necessary component for building trustworthy, human-aligned, and generalizable AI systems.

The Zero Defect Manufacturing (ZDM) concept combined with Artificial Intelligence (AI), a key enabling technology, opens up new opportunities for improved quality management and advanced problem-solving. However, there is a lack of applied research in industrial plants that would allow for the widespread deployment of this framework. Thus, the purpose of this article was to apply AI in an industrial application in order to develop application insights and identify the necessary prerequisites for achieving ZDM. A case study was done at a Swedish manufacturing plant to evaluate the implementation of a defect-detection strategy on products prone to misclassification and on an imbalanced data set with very few defects. A semi-supervised learning approach was used to learn which vibration properties differentiate confirmed defects from approved products. This method enabled the calculation of a defect similarity ratio that was used to predict how similar newly manufactured products are to defective products. This study identified four prerequisites and four insights critical for the development of an AI solution supporting ZDM. The key finding demonstrates how well traditional and innovative quality methods complement one another. The results highlight the importance of starting data science projects quickly to ensure data quality and allow a ZDM detection strategy to build knowledge to allow for the development of more proactive strategies, such as the prediction and prevention of defects.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being used in consumer as well and business applications. Companies are using them, Governments are using them, public security, medical researchers, you and I – everybody seems to be somehow touched. As it becomes more advanced and ubiquitous in our lives, it is critical that AI developers and users understand the ethical implications and challenges posed by this powerful technology. This paper explores the key ethical skills and considerations that are essential for navigating the new world of AI. Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents significant ethical dimensions across various sectors, including research, business, and daily life. It is important to appreciate the major ethical dimensions of AI and how they impact AI systems. Policies and guidelines needs to be laid out for development and usage of such systems. Automated Decisions/Responsibility: No matter how intelligent a AI system might perceived to be, it is always prone to making errors. So, AI system that make automated decisions will always be dangerous. Therefore, it is important to ensure that there is always "human intervention" or "human review" for outcomes/decisions made by AI systems. Determining accountability for AI-generated actions or content remains a significant challenge, emphasizing the need for ethical governance frameworks. There has to be human accountability.Fairness/Bias: AI systems can perpetuate existing biases present in training data, leading to discriminatory outcomes.Transparency: The opaque nature of many AI algorithms complicates accountability, making it difficult to understand decision-making processes.Privacy: AI's capability to process vast datasets can infringe on individual privacy rights, necessitating stringent data protection measuresHuman Dignity: The risk of AI-generated content resembling existing works raises ethical issues regarding originality and authorship.

Although the categorization of ultrasound using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) has become widespread worldwide, the problem of inter-observer variability remains. To maintain uniformity in diagnostic accuracy, we have developed a novel artificial intelligence (AI) system in which AI can distinguish whether a static image obtained using a breast ultrasound represents BI-RADS3 or lower, or BI-RADS4a or higher, to determine the medical management that should be performed on a patient whose breast ultrasound shows abnormalities. To establish and validate the AI system, a training dataset consisting of 4,028 images containing 5,014 lesions and a test dataset consisting of 3,166 images containing 3,656 lesions were collected and annotated. We selected a setting that maximized the area under the curve (AUC) and minimized the difference in sensitivity and specificity by adjusting the internal parameters of the AI system, achieving an AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.95, 90.0%, and 88.5%, respectively. Furthermore, based on 30 images extracted from the test data, the diagnostic accuracy of 20 clinicians and the AI system was compared, and the AI system was found to be significantly superior to the clinicians (McNemar test, p < 0.001). Then, we conducted a trial to introduce the system for use in clinical practice. Physicians reviewed the images and determined whether they were BI-RADS3 or lower, or BI-RADS4a or higher. Next, the classification was performed again for the same images concerning the AI diagnosis. At this time, the initial judgment was allowed to be overturned. We checked whether there was any difference in the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity before and after reviewing to the AI diagnosis. Reviews by 24 physicians were evaluated: 4 Japanese Breast Cancer Society breast specialists, 5 non-specialists and physicians with experience treating more than 40 cases of breast cancer, and 15 non-specialists and physicians with no experience treating more than 40 cases of breast cancer. The average rate of accuracy before confirming the AI diagnosis increased to 73.1% after confirming the AI diagnosis (p=0.00548), compared to 69.3% on average before the AI diagnosis. Compared to practice experience, the accuracy increased from an average of 77.1% to 79.6% for the 9 physicians who were breast specialists or who had treated 40 or more cases of breast cancer. For the 15 physicians with less than 40 breast cancer cases, the average rate of accuracy increased from 64.7% to 69.2%. Furthermore, sensitivity increased significantly to an average of 99.7% after reviewing of the AI diagnosis from an average of 88.8% prior to reviewing the AI-diagnosis.(p< 0.01). Specificity increased from an average of 62.4% to 63.8% (p=0.433) after reviewing AI diagnosis. We showed that our AI system, when applied to clinical practice and used by physicians, contributes to the improvement of diagnostic accuracy. Our results indicated that our AI diagnostic system was sufficiently accurate to be used in the clinical practice. Citation Format: Erina Odani, Tetsu Hayashida, masayuki kikuchi, Aiko Nagayama, tomoko seki, maiko takahashi, Akiko Matsumoto, Takeshi Murata, Rurina Watanuki, Takamichi Yokoe, Ayako Nakashoji, Hinako Maeda, Tatsuya Onishi, Sota Asaga, Takashi Hojo, Hiromitsu Jinno, Keiichi Sotome, Akira Matsui, Akihiko Suto, Shigeru Imoto, Yuko Kitagawa. Establishment of the breast ultrasound support system using deep-learning system [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-05-06.

We discuss how over the last 30 to 50 years, Artificial Intelligence (AI)\nsystems that focused only on data have been handicapped, and how knowledge has\nbeen critical in developing smarter, intelligent, and more effective systems.\nIn fact, the vast progress in AI can be viewed in terms of the three waves of\nAI as identified by DARPA. During the first wave, handcrafted knowledge has\nbeen at the center-piece, while during the second wave, the data-driven\napproaches supplanted knowledge. Now we see a strong role and resurgence of\nknowledge fueling major breakthroughs in the third wave of AI underpinning\nfuture intelligent systems as they attempt human-like decision making, and seek\nto become trusted assistants and companions for humans. We find a wider\navailability of knowledge created from diverse sources, using manual to\nautomated means both by repurposing as well as by extraction. Using knowledge\nwith statistical learning is becoming increasingly indispensable to help make\nAI systems more transparent and auditable. We will draw a parallel with the\nrole of knowledge and experience in human intelligence based on cognitive\nscience, and discuss emerging neuro-symbolic or hybrid AI systems in which\nknowledge is the critical enabler for combining capabilities of the\ndata-intensive statistical AI systems with those of symbolic AI systems,\nresulting in more capable AI systems that support more human-like intelligence.\n

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have shown significant potential in supporting decision-making in high-stakes domains such as medical diagnostics, where accuracy and reliability are crucial. In this context, presenting AI-generated confidence levels has been proposed as a strategy to promote appropriate reliance on AI systems, assuming both perfect confidence calibration of the AI and optimally calibrated trust of human decision-makers. However, the impact of providing users with indications of AI confidence on decision-making remains underexplored when these ideal conditions are not met. This study examines how different ways of presenting AI support—through recommendations alone, recommendations with calibrated confidence scores, and recommendations with explicit correctness feedback (as an ideally extreme baseline condition)—influence diagnostic accuracy, reliance, and cognitive biases in medical students. A total of 222 participants completed an image-based diagnostic task with a misaligned mental model of AI behavior (a kind of ‘theory of mind’), reflecting a knowledge mismatch induced by instructing the participants to consider two diagnostic criteria while ignoring a third one that the AI system correctly applied. Results showed that, unsurprisingly, providing correctness feedback led to the most significant improvement in appropriate reliance, outperforming both the confidence and advice-only conditions, and proving to be an optimal strategy to reduce knowledge mismatches between humans and machines. More interestingly, we found that providing confidence levels can result in significantly worse reliance and more conservatism bias than not providing them when such a knowledge mismatch exists. Therefore, when human and AI knowledge cannot be assumed to be aligned, confidence levels should be presented with caution, even if their calibration is assured. This study provides insights into the design of hybrid intelligence systems that enhance diagnostic decision-making and supports the integration of AI into critical domains such as healthcare.

Ensuring the trustworthiness of artificial intelligence (AI) systems is critical as they become increasingly integrated into domains like healthcare, finance, and public administration. This paper explores frameworks and metrics for evaluating AI trustworthiness, focusing on key principles such as fairness, transparency, privacy, and security. This study is guided by two central questions: how can trust in AI systems be systematically measured across the AI lifecycle, and what are the trade-offs involved when optimizing for different trustworthiness dimensions? By examining frameworks such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF), the AI Trust Framework and Maturity Model (AI-TMM), and ISO/IEC standards, this study bridges theoretical insights with practical applications. We identify major risks across the AI lifecycle stages and outline various metrics to address challenges in system reliability, bias mitigation, and model explainability. This study includes a comparative analysis of existing standards and their application across industries to illustrate their effectiveness. Real-world case studies, including applications in healthcare, financial services, and autonomous systems, demonstrate approaches to applying trust metrics. The findings reveal that achieving trustworthiness involves navigating trade-offs between competing metrics, such as fairness versus efficiency or privacy versus transparency, and emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration for robust AI governance. Emerging trends suggest the need for adaptive frameworks for AI trustworthiness that evolve alongside advancements in AI technologies. This paper contributes to the field by proposing a comprehensive review of existing frameworks with guidelines for building resilient, ethical, and transparent AI systems, ensuring their alignment with regulatory requirements and societal expectations.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems continue to be developed, humans will increasingly participate in human-AI interactions. Humans interact with AI systems to achieve particular goals. To ensure that AI systems contribute positively to human-AI interactions, it is important to examine human-AI tasks with an emphasis on human goals and outcomes. The AI Use Taxonomy aims to provide a flexible means of classifying how an AI system contributes to an outcome. The taxonomy sets forward 16 AI use “activities” which are independent of AI techniques and domains. Tasks are combinations of one or more AI use activities. Future research includes applying the taxonomy to better understand measurement challenges for each activity. The taxonomy can contribute to an improved understanding of the architecture of human-AI tasks and help to foster positive, human-centered interactions with AI systems and optimal outcomes in the following ways: • Provides common terminology for describing outcome-based human-AI activities independent of AI techniques and domains • Enables cross-domain insights based on shared human-AI activities • Highlights commonalities in measurement and evaluation needs across disparate AI techniques • Facilitates the development of use cases • Facilitates the evaluation of trustworthiness characteristics and usability.

The quest to develop Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems that possess human-like consciousness necessitates a deep dive into both theoretical and practical aspects underpinning this ambitious goal. This article builds on initial philosophical explorations of AI consciousness by examining the intricate and often hidden structures that may facilitate conscious experiences in AI. Drawing from concepts in cognitive science and neuroscience, the article elucidates how AI systems can be designed to replicate the structural and functional aspects of human consciousness. The discussion includes the Hierarchy of Spatial Belongings proposed by Forti (2024), frameworks like the Integrated Information Theory (IIT), and models linking consciousness with metacognitive processes. Through case studies of advanced AI systems such as IBM Watson, AlphaGo, GPT-3, and Sophia the Robot, the article explores practical implementations and their alignment with theoretical models of consciousness. The potential for AI to achieve states analogous to human consciousness raises profound ethical, societal, and legal considerations. Ethical guidelines and legal frameworks are urgently needed to address the moral status and rights of conscious AI systems, ensure their ethical treatment, and delineate accountability. The societal impacts of conscious AI, including job displacement and the need for equitable access to AI technologies, are also examined. Future research directions highlight the necessity for developing sophisticated theoretical models, enhancing practical implementations, establishing comprehensive ethical frameworks, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and engaging the public. By addressing these areas, the scientific community can significantly advance the development of conscious AI, ensuring it is both technically feasible and ethically sound

The influence of China in AI governance through standardisation

To investigate how an artificial intelligence (AI) system performs at digital mammography (DM) from a screening population with ground truth defined by digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and whether AI could detect breast cancers at DM that had originally only been detected at DBT. In this secondary analysis of data from a prospective study, DM examinations from 14 768 women (mean age, 57 years), examined with both DM and DBT with independent double reading in the Malmӧ Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01091545; data collection, 2010-2015), were analyzed with an AI system. Of 136 screening-detected cancers, 95 cancers were detected at DM and 41 cancers were detected only at DBT. The system identifies suspicious areas in the image, scored 1-100, and provides a risk score of 1 to 10 for the whole examination. A cancer was defined as AI detected if the cancer lesion was correctly localized and scored at least 62 (threshold determined by the AI system developers), therefore resulting in the highest examination risk score of 10. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and detection performance was analyzed with receiver operating characteristics. The highest examination risk score was assigned to 10% (1493 of 14 786) of the examinations. With 90.8% specificity, the AI system detected 75% (71 of 95) of the DM-detected cancers and 44% (18 of 41) of cancers at DM that had originally been detected only at DBT. The majority were invasive cancers (17 of 18). Almost half of the additional DBT-only screening-detected cancers in the MBTST were detected at DM with AI. AI did not reach double reading performance; however, if combined with double reading, AI has the potential to achieve a substantial portion of the benefit of DBT screening.Keywords: Computer-aided Diagnosis, Mammography, Breast, Diagnosis, Classification, Application DomainClinical trial registration no. NCT01091545© RSNA, 2021.

This essay discusses the intricate and multifaceted problem of algorithmic bias in artificial intelligence (AI) systems, and emphasizes its human rights, social, and ethical implications. As AI technologies become increasingly embedded in high-stakes areas of medicine, finance, employment, law enforcement, and social services, risks of discriminatory decision-making remain on the rise. Algorithmic bias may perpetuate existing social biases, adversely affect disadvantaged populations disproportionately, and perpetuate institutional discrimination, and thereby pose serious ethical issues. The research endeavors to present an extensive comprehension of algorithmic bias through exploration of its cause, mechanism, and societal aspects. It exhaustively analyzes the presence of bias in AI systems, its cause-running from biased input data to defective algorithmic development, as well as the ethical aspects brought by having AI-based decisions influence real-world repercussions. In addition, the study analyzes material and immaterial effects of AI bias on persons and groups and aims at fairness, transparency, and accountability of AI in particular. In its attempt to deal with these issues, this paper analyzes some measures to mitigate against bias, for instance, technical measures such as bias-aware algorithms, fairness-aware machine learning algorithms, and explainable AI methodologies. Furthermore, it speaks to normative and regulatory regimes that enable responsible AI deployment, as well as grass-roots strategies that enable affected communities to participate in AI stewardship. Through the use of the best of an interdisciplinary approach, the study integrates findings from peer-reviewed literature, international case studies, government policy, and industry standards to provide a comprehensive perspective on the issue. Finally, the paper emphasizes the need for active, multi-stakeholder responses that make sure AI technologies conform to basic human rights and moral principles. In incorporating technical, ethical, legal, and social considerations into AI, the research demands more inclusive and accountable AI system that maximizes fairness, minimizes disparities, and secures human dignity in the modern fast-changing world of artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI-CAI): an international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the accounting profession, offering transformative capabilities for automating tasks, enhancing decision-making, and improving financial accuracy. As AI becomes integral to accounting practices, it brings both significant opportunities and notable ethical challenges. This review examines the intersection of AI and ethical accounting, providing insights into how professionals can navigate the evolving landscape. The adoption of AI in accounting introduces opportunities for increased efficiency and accuracy. AI systems can handle repetitive tasks such as data entry, reconciliation, and transaction categorization, freeing accountants to focus on strategic activities. Advanced AI algorithms can analyze large volumes of financial data to identify patterns, detect anomalies, and provide real-time insights, enhancing decision-making and forecasting accuracy. Moreover, AI-driven predictive analytics can aid in risk assessment and management, helping organizations to anticipate and mitigate potential financial threats. However, the integration of AI in accounting also raises significant ethical concerns. One of the primary challenges is ensuring transparency and accountability in AI decision-making processes. As AI systems often operate as "black boxes," understanding and explaining their outputs can be difficult, potentially leading to issues of trust and compliance. Ethical accounting necessitates that AI systems be designed with transparency in mind, providing clear explanations for their decisions and actions. Data privacy and security represent another critical ethical consideration. The extensive use of financial data by AI systems necessitates robust measures to protect sensitive information from breaches and unauthorized access. Accountants must ensure that AI systems comply with data protection regulations and ethical standards, safeguarding the confidentiality and integrity of financial data. Bias and fairness in AI algorithms are also pressing ethical issues. If not properly addressed, biases in AI systems can lead to unfair outcomes, such as biased financial recommendations or discriminatory practices. Ensuring fairness requires ongoing monitoring and evaluation of AI systems to identify and mitigate biases. In conclusion, while AI offers substantial benefits for the accounting profession, it also presents ethical challenges that must be carefully managed. Accountants must navigate these challenges by promoting transparency, ensuring data privacy and security, and addressing biases in AI systems. By doing so, the accounting profession can harness the potential of AI while upholding ethical standards and maintaining public trust. Keywords: AI, Ethical Accounting, Navigating, Challenges, Opportunities.

This scoping study explores the role of Human-in-the-Loop Artificial Intelligence (HITL AI) in precision agriculture and evaluates the benefits of using human expertise in combination with Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in decision-making within modern smart agricultural environments. The development of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Internet of Things, and robotics has significantly impacted modern agriculture by providing automated crop monitoring, disease detection, yield prediction, and smart farm management systems. However, Artificial Intelligence systems also face challenges in terms of understanding, interpretability, flexibility, and trustworthiness in modern smart agricultural environments. This study is based on the literature regarding human-in-the-loop systems, human-centric Artificial Intelligence systems, and collaborative robotics systems in the context of smart agriculture. The structured scoping study methodology has been followed to identify and evaluate studies regarding Artificial Intelligence systems in smart agricultural environments, with a focus on automation-centric Artificial Intelligence systems and human-centric Artificial Intelligence systems within the context of Agriculture 5.0 concepts. The study concludes that although automation-centric AI systems show high accuracy in simulated smart agricultural environments, Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) AI systems show higher robustness in smart agricultural environments. Explainability in AI has shown significant potential in supporting the effectiveness of HITL AI systems in decision-making within smart agricultural environments. The study also identifies some important gaps in the literature regarding HITL AI systems in smart agriculture. The study concludes that for the development of modern smart precision agriculture, collaborative intelligence within smart agricultural environments is necessary to create sustainable smart agriculture systems.