Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper conducts a systematic review of the intersection between Explainable AI (XAI) and the EU's Right to Explanation, particularly focusing on legal frameworks such as the GDPR and the AI Act. The analysis reveals significant gaps in the literature, with only 19 out of 57 reviewed papers effectively integrating legal and technical perspectives, highlighting issues such as misidentification of legal bases and conflation of explanation form and content. The authors propose an Addressee/Purpose Framework and a four-phase blueprint for operationalizing compliance, emphasizing the urgent need for actionable pathways to fulfill the Right to Explanation in practice.
The Right to Explanation risks becoming a hollow mandate unless we bridge the critical gap between legal requirements and technical capabilities in XAI.
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.