COGNITIVE-INSPIRED EXPLAINABLE MACHINE LEARNING: ADVANCING HUMAN-CENTRIC, TRUSTWORTHY, AND PREDICTIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

Authors

  • M Rama Krishna Assistant Professor, Department of CSE, Adikavi Nannaya University, Rajahmanudry, India

Keywords:

Cognitive-Inspired Machine Learning, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), Human-Centric AI, Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence, Predictive Intelligence, Cognitive Computing

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have transformed decision-making, automation, and predictive analytics across domains such as healthcare, finance, cybersecurity, education, and industrial systems. However, conventional ML and deep learning models are often criticized for their “black-box” nature, lacking transparency, interpretability, and alignment with human reasoning. These limitations reduce trust, accountability, and adoption in high-stakes applications. To address these challenges, cognitive-inspired explainable machine learning has emerged as an interdisciplinary paradigm integrating principles of human cognition, reasoning, memory, perception, and adaptive learning into intelligent systems. Unlike traditional ML approaches focused primarily on predictive accuracy, cognitive-inspired explainable ML emphasizes human-aligned reasoning, contextual understanding, transparent inference, and ethical responsibility. This review critically examines the theoretical foundations, historical evolution, methodologies, and architectural frameworks of cognitive-inspired explainable machine learning. It discusses cognitive computing principles, explainability techniques, neuro-symbolic intelligence, fairness, bias mitigation, robustness, and privacy-preserving models. The review also explores applications in healthcare diagnostics, precision medicine, pharmaceutical drug discovery, psychiatric disorder prediction, financial forecasting, cybersecurity, intelligent transportation, and smart governance. Comparative analyses of explainability methods and cognitive architectures are presented to identify strengths, limitations, and implementation challenges. Furthermore, the review highlights barriers to adoption, including computational complexity, interpretability-performance trade-offs, legal constraints, model uncertainty, data heterogeneity, and ethical concerns in autonomous decision-making. Future directions involving adaptive cognition, emotionally intelligent AI, continual learning, personalized intelligence, and collaborative human-machine ecosystems are also discussed, positioning cognitive-inspired explainable ML as a key pathway toward transparent, trustworthy, and socially responsible AI systems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Russell SJ, Norvig P. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson; 2021.

2. Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A. Deep learning. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2016.

3. Molnar C. Interpretable machine learning. 2nd ed. 2022.

4. Samek W, Müller KR. Towards explainable artificial intelligence. Proc IEEE. 2019;107(12):2475-9.

5. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56.

6. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521:436-44.

7. Adadi A, Berrada M. Peeking inside the black-box: a survey on explainable AI. IEEE Access. 2018;6:52138-60.

8. Lake BM, Ullman TD, Tenenbaum JB. Building machines that learn and think like people. Behav Brain Sci. 2017;40:e253.

9. Sun R. Cognitive architectures and artificial intelligence. AI Mag. 2007;28(2):25-39.

10. Langley P, Laird JE, Rogers S. Cognitive architectures: research issues and challenges. Cogn Syst Res. 2009;10(2):141-60.

11. Sun R. The importance of cognitive architectures: an analysis based on CLARION. J Exp Theor Artif Intell. 2007;19(2):159-93.

12. Laird JE. Introduction to soar. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03854. 2022 May 8.

13. Gunning D, Aha DW. DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) program. AI Mag. 2019;40(2):44-58.

14. Floridi L, Cowls J. A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harv Data Sci Rev. 2019;1(1):1-15.

15. Shneiderman B. Human-centered artificial intelligence: reliable, safe & trustworthy. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2020;36(6):495-504.

16. Amershi S, Weld D, Vorvoreanu M, Fourney A, Nushi B, Collisson P, et al. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2019. p. 1-13.

17. Topol EJ. Deep medicine: how artificial intelligence can make healthcare human again. New York (NY): Basic Books; 2019.

18. Barocas S, Selbst AD. Big data’s disparate impact. Calif Law Rev. 2016;104(3):671-732.

19. Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1(9):389-99.

20. Garcez AD, Lamb LC, Gabbay DM. Neural-symbolic cognitive reasoning. Berlin: Springer; 2009.

21. Besold TR, d’Avila Garcez AS, Bader S, Bowman H, Domingos P, Hitzler P, et al. Neural-symbolic learning and reasoning: a survey and interpretation. arXiv [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2026 May 24];1705.08412. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08412

22. Holzinger A, Langs G, Denk H, Zatloukal K, Müller H. Causability and explainability of artificial intelligence in medicine. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Data Min Knowl Discov. 2019;9(4):e1312.

23. Doshi-Velez F, Kim B. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2026 May 24];1702.08608. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08608

24. Rudin C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1(5):206-15.

25. Guidotti R, Monreale A, Ruggieri S, Turini F, Giannotti F, Pedreschi D. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Comput Surv. 2018;51(5):1-42.

26. Schürmann T, Beckerle P. Personalizing human-agent interaction through cognitive models. Front Psychol. 2020;11:561510.

27. Lipton ZC. The mythos of model interpretability. Commun ACM. 2018;61(10):36-43.

28. Miller T. Explanation in artificial intelligence: insights from the social sciences. Artif Intell. 2019;267:1-38.

29. Arrieta AB, Díaz-Rodríguez N, Del Ser J, Bennetot A, Tabik S, Barbado A, et al. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf Fusion. 2020;58:82-115.

30. Siau K, Wang W. Building trust in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics. Cutting Edge Bus Technol. 2018;2(2):1-5.

31. Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Ismagilova E, Aarts G, Coombs C, Crick T, et al. Artificial intelligence (AI): multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manage. 2021;57:101994.

32. Mitchell TM. Machine learning. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 1997.

33. Jordan MI, Mitchell TM. Machine learning: trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science. 2015;349(6245):255-60.

34. McCarthy J. Programs with common sense. Stanford AI Lab Memo. 1959.

35. Nilsson NJ. Artificial intelligence: a new synthesis. San Francisco (CA): Morgan Kaufmann; 1998.

36. Turing AM. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind. 1950;59:433-60.

37. Haugeland J. Artificial intelligence: the very idea. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1985.

38. Rosenblatt F. The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage. Psychol Rev. 1958;65:386-408.

39. Russell SJ, Norvig P. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson; 2021.

40. Jackson P. Introduction to expert systems. Harlow: Addison-Wesley; 1998.

41. Buchanan BG, Shortliffe EH. Rule-based expert systems. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley; 1984.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-04

How to Cite

M, R. K. (2026). COGNITIVE-INSPIRED EXPLAINABLE MACHINE LEARNING: ADVANCING HUMAN-CENTRIC, TRUSTWORTHY, AND PREDICTIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW. Integrations in Engineering and Technology, 1(1), 14–20. Retrieved from https://cognixpress.in/index.php/iet/article/view/18