A Workflow for Full Traceability of AI Decisions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11275v2
• Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 10:24:15 GMT
• Title: A Workflow for Full Traceability of AI Decisions
• Abstract summary: State-of-the-art in AI systems makes little effort with respect to appropriate documentation of the decision process.<n>This paper takes a radical, yet practical, approach to this problem, by enforcing the documentation of each and every component that goes into the training or inference of an automated decision.<n>It presents the first running workflow supporting the generation of tamper-proof, verifiable and exhaustive traces of AI decisions.
• Score: 1.3369766219454542
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: An ever increasing number of high-stake decisions are made or assisted by automated systems employing brittle artificial intelligence technology. There is a substantial risk that some of these decision induce harm to people, by infringing their well-being or their fundamental human rights. The state-of-the-art in AI systems makes little effort with respect to appropriate documentation of the decision process. This obstructs the ability to trace what went into a decision, which in turn is a prerequisite to any attempt of reconstructing a responsibility chain. Specifically, such traceability is linked to a documentation that will stand up in court when determining the cause of some AI-based decision that inadvertently or intentionally violates the law. This paper takes a radical, yet practical, approach to this problem, by enforcing the documentation of each and every component that goes into the training or inference of an automated decision. As such, it presents the first running workflow supporting the generation of tamper-proof, verifiable and exhaustive traces of AI decisions. In doing so, we expand the DBOM concept into an effective running workflow leveraging confidential computing technology. We demonstrate the inner workings of the workflow in the development of an app to tell poisonous and edible mushrooms apart, meant as a playful example of high-stake decision support.

Related papers

• Characterizing initial human-AI proof formalization workflows [66.06866890889131]
  Advances in AI systems' ability to generate code and engage in increasingly high-level mathematical reasoning promise to transform people's ability to formalize and thereby verify proofs.<n>We conduct a mixed-methods analysis into the initial impact of AI on people's formalization.<n>A qualitative survey shows that people's preferences are diverse, but with a general desire for AI assistance in formalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T22:58:19Z)
• Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability [3.135152720206845]
  We propose an operational definition of contestability as a natural complement to recourse.<n>We identify three types of evidence warranting reversal according to the decision maker's own ethical standards.<n>We argue that these render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T15:14:13Z)
• Barbarians at the Gate: How AI is Upending Systems Research [58.95406995634148]
  We argue that systems research, long focused on designing and evaluating new performance-oriented algorithms, is particularly well-suited for AI-driven solution discovery.<n>We term this approach as AI-Driven Research for Systems ( ADRS), which iteratively generates, evaluates, and refines solutions.<n>Our results highlight both the disruptive potential and the urgent need to adapt systems research practices in the age of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T17:49:24Z)
• ClearFairy: Capturing Creative Workflows through Decision Structuring, In-Situ Questioning, and Rationale Inference [59.65947911667229]
  We present CLEAR framework that structures reasoning into cognitive decision steps-linked units of actions, artifacts, and self-explanations.<n>We introduce ClearFairy, a think-aloud AI assistant for UI design that detects weak explanations, asks lightweight clarifying questions, and infers missing rationales to ease the knowledge-sharing burden.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T02:11:34Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• A Path Towards Legal Autonomy: An interoperable and explainable approach to extracting, transforming, loading and computing legal information using large language models, expert systems and Bayesian networks [2.2192488799070444]
  Legal autonomy can be achieved either by imposing constraints on AI actors such as developers, deployers and users, or by imposing constraints on the range and scope of the impact that AI agents can have on the environment. The latter approach involves encoding extant rules concerning AI driven devices into the software of AI agents controlling those devices. This is a challenge since the effectivity of such an approach requires a method of extracting, loading, transforming and computing legal information that would be both explainable and legally interoperable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T13:12:57Z)
• Pangu-Agent: A Fine-Tunable Generalist Agent with Structured Reasoning [50.47568731994238]
  Key method for creating Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents is Reinforcement Learning (RL) This paper presents a general framework model for integrating and learning structured reasoning into AI agents' policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T17:57:57Z)
• Towards Reconciling Usability and Usefulness of Explainable AI Methodologies [2.715884199292287]
  Black-box AI systems can lead to liability and accountability issues when they produce an incorrect decision. Explainable AI (XAI) seeks to bridge the knowledge gap, between developers and end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-13T01:08:49Z)
• Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
  Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z)
• Unfooling Perturbation-Based Post Hoc Explainers [12.599362066650842]
  Recent work demonstrates that perturbation-based post hoc explainers can be fooled adversarially. This discovery has adverse implications for auditors, regulators, and other sentinels. In this work, we rigorously formalize this problem and devise a defense against adversarial attacks on perturbation-based explainers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-29T21:28:12Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• Exploring the Nuances of Designing (with/for) Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  We explore the construct of infrastructure as a means to simultaneously address algorithmic and societal issues when designing AI. Neither algorithmic solutions, nor purely humanistic ones will be enough to fully undesirable outcomes in the narrow state of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-22T20:34:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.