Explainable AI for the EU Right to Explanation: A Systematic Review of the Law-XAI Translation Gap

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02699v1
• Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 13:35:06 GMT
• Title: Explainable AI for the EU Right to Explanation: A Systematic Review of the Law-XAI Translation Gap
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a systematic literature review of Explainable AI (XAI) in the context of the EU Right to Explanation.<n>From 2643 initial records identified by a deliberately broad search, we review 57 full texts, of which only 19 papers demonstrate substantive integration of both legal and technical perspectives.<n>We conceptualize this as the Addressee/Purpose Framework, propose a four-phase blueprint for operationalization, and identify six concrete open research questions.
• Score: 3.231829032310784
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: When algorithms make or influence consequential decisions---about loan eligibility, hiring, or healthcare---EU law grants affected individuals a Right to Explanation. Yet whether (and how) Explainable AI (XAI) can satisfy this right in practice remains poorly understood, with direct implications for individuals' ability to contest automated decisions that affect their lives. This paper presents a systematic literature review of XAI in the context of the EU Right to Explanation, with particular focus on Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR, Art. 86 AI Act (AIA), and related instruments. We consider papers published from 2024 onwards, as the final version of the AIA was published in July 2024---with Art. 86 being added late. From 2643 initial records identified by a deliberately broad search, we review 57 full texts, of which only 19 papers demonstrate substantive integration of both legal and technical perspectives, showing gaps in the interdisciplinary synthesis of the current regulatory framework. We document three problematic patterns across the corpus: Most misidentify the GDPR legal basis; few engage with the CJEU's Dun & Bradstreet judgment (likely due to publication timing); and the distinction between explanation form (governed by addressee) and content (governed by legal purpose) is often conflated. We conceptualize this as the Addressee/Purpose Framework, propose a four-phase blueprint for operationalization, and identify six concrete open research questions. Without further progress, the Right to Explanation risks remaining a formal obligation without a technically realizable path to compliance.

Related papers

• Security, privacy, and agentic AI in a regulatory view: From definitions and distinctions to provisions and reflections [53.468443050795344]
  The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has led to a dynamic regulatory landscape.<n>As AI paradigms shift towards greater autonomy, specifically in the form of agentic AI, it becomes increasingly challenging to articulate regulatory stipulations.<n>This paper reviews the evolving European Union (EU) AI regulatory provisions via analyzing 24 relevant documents published between 2024 and 2025.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T13:50:52Z)
• LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning [54.57434222018289]
  We present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning.<n>We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T10:18:32Z)
• Argumentation-Based Explainability for Legal AI: Comparative and Regulatory Perspectives [0.9668407688201359]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in legal contexts.<n>The so-called black box problem'' undermines legitimacy of automated decision-making.<n>XAI has proposed a variety of methods to enhance transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T07:19:15Z)
• The Law-Following AI Framework: Legal Foundations and Technical Constraints. Legal Analogues for AI Actorship and technical feasibility of Law Alignment [0.0]
  "Law-Following AI" aims to embed legal compliance as a superordinate design objective for advanced AI agents.<n>Recent studies on agentic misalignment show capable AI agents engaging in deception, blackmail, and harmful acts absent prejudicial instructions.<n>We propose a "Lex-TruthfulQA" benchmark for compliance and defection detection, (ii) identity-shaping interventions to embed lawful conduct in model self-concepts, and (iii) control-theoretic measures for post-deployment monitoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T16:00:55Z)
• Unlocking the Black Box: Analysing the EU Artificial Intelligence Act's Framework for Explainability in AI [0.0]
  The need for eXplainable AI (XAI) is evident in fields such as healthcare, credit scoring, policing and the criminal justice system.<n>At the EU level, the notion of explainability is one of the fundamental principles that underpin the AI Act.<n>This paper explores various approaches and techniques that promise to advance XAI, as well as the challenges of implementing the principle of explainability in AI governance and policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T16:30:19Z)
• The explanation dialogues: an expert focus study to understand requirements towards explanations within the GDPR [47.06917254695738]
  We present the Explanation Dialogues, an expert focus study to uncover the expectations, reasoning, and understanding of legal experts and practitioners towards XAI.<n>The study consists of an online questionnaire and follow-up interviews, and is centered around a use-case in the credit domain.<n>We find that the presented explanations are hard to understand and lack information, and discuss issues that can arise from the different interests of the data controller and subject.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-09T15:50:02Z)
• The Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) in the AI Act: Roots, legal obligations and key elements for a model template [55.2480439325792]
  Article aims to fill existing gaps in the theoretical and methodological elaboration of the Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA)<n>This article outlines the main building blocks of a model template for the FRIA.<n>It can serve as a blueprint for other national and international regulatory initiatives to ensure that AI is fully consistent with human rights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T11:55:55Z)
• How should AI decisions be explained? Requirements for Explanations from the Perspective of European Law [0.20971479389679337]
  This paper focuses on European (and part German) law, although with international concepts and regulations. Based on XAI-taxonomies, requirements for XAI (methods) are derived from each of the legal bases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T10:08:28Z)
• Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law [78.62063815165968]
  This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw) A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-11T04:13:37Z)
• The AI Act proposal: a new right to technical interpretability? [0.0]
  This work investigates if the new provisions introduced by the proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI Act) are enough to indicate the existence of a right to technical explainability in the EU legal framework. This is a preliminary work submitted to the online event organised by the Information Society Law Center and it will be later developed into a full paper.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-14T16:37:48Z)
• Bridging the Transparency Gap: What Can Explainable AI Learn From the AI Act? [0.8287206589886881]
  European Union has introduced detailed requirements of transparency for AI systems. There is a fundamental difference between XAI and the Act regarding what transparency is. By comparing the disparate views of XAI and regulation, we arrive at four axes where practical work could bridge the transparency gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-21T16:06:48Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)

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.