ai
Explainable AI for the EU Right to Explanation: A Systematic Review of the Law-XAI Translation Gap
- Source
- arXiv — Computers and Society
- Published
- Last verified
- 6 Aug 2026
- Confidence
- High
- Evidence
- Original document retained
- Reading time
- 1 min
- Country
- International
Executive summary
What happened, and why should leadership care?
A recent systematic review from arXiv explores the gap between Explainable AI (XAI) capabilities and the requirements of the EU Right to Explanation, particularly under Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR and Art. 86 AI Act. The research highlights an incomplete understanding of how XAI can practically satisfy legal obligations for explaining algorithmic decisions, impacting individuals' ability to contest outcomes in areas like loan eligibility, hiring, and healthcare. The review focuses on literature published from 2024 onwards, reflecting the finalization of the AI Act.
Why this matters
Why is this strategically important?
This research is strategically important because it identifies a critical gap between technological capabilities (XAI) and evolving regulatory requirements (EU Right to Explanation). Organizations relying on algorithmic decision-making must understand and address this gap to ensure compliance, mitigate legal risks, and maintain public trust, especially as regulations like the AI Act become enforceable.
Key insights
What should be noted from the evidence?
- The practical application of Explainable AI (XAI) in fulfilling the EU Right to Explanation is not well understood.
- There is a 'Law-XAI translation gap' regarding how technical explanations align with legal requirements for algorithmic transparency.
- The ability of individuals to contest automated decisions is directly influenced by the efficacy of XAI in providing satisfactory explanations.
- The analysis specifically references EU legal instruments including Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR and Art. 86 AI Act.
- Research published from 2024 onwards is considered, coinciding with the finalization and late inclusion of Art. 86 in the AI Act.
Evidence and confidence
How far can this assessment be trusted?
High confidence. Named institution, original document retained and analysis corroborated.
Analysis is prepared by the AZIZ OS Intelligence Engine. The original publication remains the authoritative record, and executive judgement remains entirely human.
Source
Where does this originate?
Reported by arXiv — Computers and Society · International. This briefing summarises the publication for executive use; the document itself is not reproduced here.
Read the original publication