A Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Approach to Explainable AI for regulatory compliance, fair customer outcomes and market stability in the Global Financial Sector
Abstract
The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is enjoying unprecedented success and is dramatically transforming the landscape of the financial services industry. However, there is a strong need to develop an accountability and explainability framework for AI in financial services, based on a risk-based assessment of appropriate explainability levels and techniques by use case and domain. This paper proposes a risk management framework for the implementation of AI in banking with consideration of explainability and outlines the implementation requirements to enable AI to achieve positive outcomes for financial institutions and the customers, markets and societies they serve. The work presents the evaluation of three algorithmic approaches (Neural Networks, Logistic Regression and Type 2 Fuzzy Logic with evolutionary optimisation) for nine banking use cases. We review the emerging regulatory and industry guidance on ethical and safe adoption of AI from key markets worldwide and compare leading AI explainability techniques. We will show that the Type-2 Fuzzy Logic models deliver very good performance which is comparable to or lagging marginally behind the Neural Network models in terms of accuracy, but outperform all models for explainability, thus they are recommended as a suitable machine learning approach for use cases in financial services from an explainability perspective. This research is important for several reasons: (i) there is limited knowledge and understanding of the…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Regulators and supervisors require banks to illuminate their activities when using AI, hence requiring the deployment of XAI models in specific application scenarios.
“Regulators and supervisors require banks to illuminate their activities when using AI (Burgt 2020; Weber etal. 2020; Adams and Hagras 2020), hence requiring the deployment of XAI models in specific application scenarios.”
From Applications of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Finance—a systematic review of Finance, Information Systems, and Computer Science literature (2024) · cites this paper as Adams and Hagras 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 21 · Cited by 35
- Authors
- Adams, J., & Hagras, H.
- Affiliations
- Lloyds Banking Group (United Kingdom) (GB)
- University of Essex (GB)
- ORCID
- Hagras, Hani
- Venue
- 2020 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2020-07
- Pages
- 1-8
- ISSN
- 1098-7584 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3082690842
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.34
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Fuzzy Logic and Control Systems
- Keywords
- type-2 fuzzy logic, explainable AI, banking sector, financial services, regulatory compliance, AI risk management, market stability, consumer trust, artificial neural networks, logistic regression, evolutionary optimization, AI ethics, AI regulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review