Cited by 2Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Nomological Deductive Reasoning for Trustworthy, Human-Readable, and Actionable AI Outputs

Open access
Hakizimana, Gedeon, Ledezma Espino, Agapito·2025·Algorithms

Abstract

The lack of transparency in many AI systems continues to hinder their adoption in critical domains such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems. While recent explainable AI (XAI) methods—particularly those leveraging large language models—have enhanced output readability, they often lack traceable and verifiable reasoning that is aligned with domain-specific logic. This paper presents Nomological Deductive Reasoning (NDR), supported by Nomological Deductive Knowledge Representation (NDKR), as a framework aimed at improving the transparency and auditability of AI decisions through the integration of formal logic and structured domain knowledge. NDR enables the generation of causal, rule-based explanations by validating statistical predictions against symbolic domain constraints. The framework is evaluated on a credit-risk classification task using the Statlog (German Credit Data) dataset, demonstrating that NDR can produce coherent and interpretable explanations consistent with expert-defined logic. While primarily focused on technical integration and deductive validation, the approach lays a foundation for more transparent and norm-compliant AI systems. This work contributes to the growing formalization of XAI by aligning statistical inference with symbolic reasoning, offering a pathway toward more interpretable and verifiable AI decision-making processes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/a18060306

Cites

110 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The impact of Generative AI cannot be understood merely by measuring performance differences but must also be framed as part of broader algorithmic design questions about how AI affords or limits different modes of human reasoning.

    “These perspectives underscore that the impact of Generative AI cannot be understood merely by measuring performance differences but must also be framed as part of broader algorithmic design questions about how AI affords or limits different modes of human reasoning.”

    From Exploring the Impact of AI Tools on Cognitive Skills: A Comparative Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Introduction and §4 argue that AI should be assessed for transparency and human interpretability, not performance alone; §2.5 evaluates both accuracy and interpretability. But the paper addresses explainable AI and the accessibility of AI explanations, not the impact of generative AI on different modes of human reasoning. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Chen, J.; Song, L.; Wang, S.; Xie, L.; Wang, X.; Zhang, M. Towards Prototype-Based Explanations of Deep Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2019), 2019. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.11742 (accessed on 14 November 2024). · arXiv
  2. Vilone, G.; Longo, L. Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2006.00093. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.00093 (accessed on 25 January 2025). · arXiv
  3. Miller, T. Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1706.07222. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07222 (accessed on 25 January 2025). · arXiv
  4. De Graaf, M.M.; Malle, B.F. How People Explain Action (and Autonomous Intelligent Systems Should Too). In Proceedings of the 2017 AAAI Fall Symposium Series, Arlington, VA, USA, October 2017.
  5. Erhan, D.; Bengio, Y.; Courville, A.; Vincent, P. Visualizing Higher-Layer Features of a Deep Network. Univ. Montr. 2009, 1341, 1.
  6. Precup, D., Teh, Y.W., Eds.; PMLR: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 3319-3328.
  7. Ribeiro, M.T.; Singh, S.; Guestrin, C. Why Should I Trust You? Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proceedings of the SIGKDD, 2016.
  8. Lundberg, S. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1705.07874. · arXiv
  9. Ribeiro, M.T.; Singh, S.; Guestrin, C. Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, the Thirtieth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, and the Eighth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'18/IAAI'18/EAAI'18), New Orleans, LA, USA, 2-7 February 2018; AAAI Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2018; pp. 1527-1535.
  10. Yang, H.; Rudin, C.; Seltzer, M. Scalable Bayesian Rule Lists. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2017), Sydney, Australia, 6-11 August 2017;
  11. Precup, D., Teh, Y.W., Eds.; PMLR: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 3921- 3930.
  12. Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Eds.; PMLR: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 2668-2677.
  13. Främling, K. Explaining Results of Neural Networks by Contextual Importance and Utility. In Proceedings of the AISB, 1996; Volume 96.
  14. Juscafresa, A.N. An Introduction to Explainable Artificial Intelligence with LIME and SHAP; Bachelor's Thesis, Degree in Computer Engineering, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 29 June 2022;
  15. Bach, F., Blei, D., Eds.; PMLR: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 2048-2057.
  16. Yang, S.C.H.; Shafto, P. Explainable Artificial Intelligence via Bayesian Teaching. In Proceedings of the NIPS 2017 Workshop on Teaching Machines, Robots, and Humans, 2017; Volume 2.
  17. Chaudhuri, K., Sugiyama, M., Eds.; PMLR: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 3382-3390.
  18. Dvorak, J.; Kopp, T.; Kinkel, S.; Lanza, G. Explainable AI: A Key Driver for AI Adoption, a Mistaken Concept, or a Practically Irrelevant Feature? In Applications in Medicine and Manufacturing, Proceedings of the 4th UR-AI Symposium, Villingen-Schwen- ningen, Germany, 14-16 September 2022; pp. 88-101 103.
  19. Chaudhuri, K., Salakhutdinov, R., Eds.; PMLR: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; Volume 97, pp. 2242-2251. Available online: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/ghorbani19c.html (accessed on 27 January 2025). 107.
  20. Carter, S.; Kim, B.; Brown, R.; Doshi-Velez, F. Visualizing and Understanding High-Dimensional Models in Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), 2019; pp. 230-239. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSAA.2019.00045. 109. Molnar, C. Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide for Making Black Box Models Explainable; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 173-174. 110. Van der Laan, M.J.; Woutersen, D. Ethics of Explainability: The Social and Psychological Implications of Algorithmic Decisions. J. Ethics 2021, 25, 121-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-021-09301-5. 111. Dastin, J. AI Ethics and the Human Role in Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence; 2018; pp. 45-58. 112. Hoffman, R.R.; Mueller, S.T.; Klein, G. Explaining Explanations: A Taxonomy of AI Interpretability and Its Implications for Trust and User Behavior. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2018, 8, 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194237. 113. Anderson, J.R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 6th ed.; · DOI
  21. Jowett, B. The Republic; Dover Publications: Mineola, NY, USA, 1999. 116. Descartes, R. Meditations on First Philosophy; Cottingham, J., Trans.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996. 117. Piaget, J. The Psychology of the Child; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1972. 118. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes;
  22. Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., Souber- man, E., Eds.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. 119. Minsky, M. A Framework for Representing Knowledge; Technical Report; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. 120.
  23. Merton, R.K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1967. 135. Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery; Routledge: London, UK, 2002. 136.
  24. Chaudhuri, K., Salakhutdinov, R., Eds.; PMLR: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; Volume 162, pp. 25007-25021. 138
  25. Johnson-Laird, P.N. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language and reasoning; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1983. 139. Chater, N.; Oaksford, M. The Rational Analysis of Deductive Reasoning. Psychol. Rev. 1999, 106, 443-467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.3.443. 140. Baron, J. Thinking and Deciding, 4th ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008. 141. · DOI
  26. Hempel, C.G. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1965. 144. Mitchell, T.M. Machine Learning; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1997. 145. Goodfellow, I.; Bengio, Y.; Courville, A. Deep Learning; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.deeplearningbook.org (accessed on 20 February 2025). 146. Bhattacharjee, A.; Moraffah, R.; Garland, J.; Liu, H. Towards LLM-Guided Causal Explainability for Black-Box Text Classifiers. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2309.13340. 147. · arXiv
  27. Kroeger, N.; Ley, D.; Krishna, S.; Agarwal, C.; Lakkaraju, H. In-context explainers: Harnessing LLMs for explaining black box models. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2310.05797. 148. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hakizimana, G., & Ledezma Espino, A.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (ES)
  • Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28911 Leganes, Spain
Venue
Algorithms
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-05-23
Volume
18
Issue
6
Pages
306
ISSN
1999-4893 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410643594
Cited by
2
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Algorithms (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
MCIN/AEI 10.13039/501100011033 and the European Union (PID2021-124335OB-C22)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
explainable AI, formal logic, knowledge representation, causal explanation, rule-based explanations, auditability, AI transparency, credit risk classification, large language models, symbolic reasoning, trustworthy AI

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