Executive Guide
Research Summary: Against Explainable Artificial Intelligence In Law: Why Justifiable Ai Matters. A Credit Scoring Example
- Original authors
- Attribution requires verification
- Original source
- arXiv — Computers and Society
- Summary & Analysis prepared by
- Aziz Shuaib Ausi
- Resource type
- Research Summary / Knowledge Resource
- Resource published on AZIZ OS
- 10 August 2026
- Last updated
- 21 September 2026
- Reading time
- 1 min
- Publication type
- Executive Guide
- Availability
- Open access
About this Summary & Analysis
AZIZ OS provides independently prepared summaries and analytical interpretations of externally published research and knowledge sources. The underlying works remain attributable to their original authors and rights holders. This resource is intended to improve accessibility and understanding and does not replace the original publication.
Research from arXiv highlights that the increasing complexity of AI in applications such as credit scoring raises concerns about explainability. The paper reviews EU legal frameworks and technical capabilities to argue that a broad interpretation of the 'right to explanation' is necessary. This interpretation should encompass not only technical explanations but also legal justification to effectively safeguard credit applicants' rights, challenging narrow views on explainable AI in law.
Why it matters
This analysis is strategically important for entities deploying AI systems, particularly in regulated financial sectors like credit scoring, as it underscores the evolving regulatory expectations for AI explainability. Understanding the distinction between technical explanation and legal justification is critical for compliance and maintaining public trust in AI-driven decision-making.
Key insights
- AI solutions, including those in credit scoring, offer significant efficiency gains.
- The growing sophistication of machine learning models in use is a source of concern regarding various aspects, including explainability.
- A review of relevant EU legal backgrounds integrated with technical insights is necessary to interpret legal provisions in light of technological possibilities.
- The concept of 'explainable AI' (XAI) should be interpreted broadly to include both technical explanations and legal justifications.
- A broad interpretation of the right to explanation is essential to operatively safeguard creditors' rights.
- The paper argues against narrow interpretations of the right to explanation in law, advocating for 'justifiable AI'.
Source
arXiv — Computers and Society — https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07452
Related intelligence and resources
Previous
Data Annotation as Measurement
Next
From Forensics to Ecosystems: Rethinking Watermarks for Generative AI Oversight
Transformative play: integrating outdoor adventure education and the NPI-cycle to facilitate transformative experience
Executive Guide
Cybersecurity Threat Delays Start of Classes at UT San Antonio
Executive Guide
Towards the determination of competencies of the commercial engineer in Chile
Executive Guide
From Atari to EVE Online: Building on 15 Years of AI Research in Games
Executive Guide
Bankrupt Saint Augustine’s Will Not Offer Fall Classes
Executive Guide
Cornell Hopes to Turn Cheating Into Teachable Moment
Executive Guide
Citation
Cite the original work (APA 7)
The original source is authoritative for this citation. Cite the source publication directly — this attribution is pending verification. Open the original source.
Verification
This is an authenticated AZIZ OS resource record.
- Verification ID
- ASA-EXG-2026-00057
- Version
- v1.0 · r0
- Issued
- 10 August 2026
- Resource prepared by
- Aziz Shuaib Ausi
- Resource status
- Research Summary / Knowledge Resource
- Underlying work
- Against Explainable Artificial Intelligence In Law: Why Justifiable Ai Matters. A Credit Scoring Example
- Original authors
- Attribution requires verification
- Original source
- arXiv — Computers and Society
- Provenance status
- Attribution requires verification
- Rights
- Underlying publication rights remain with the respective copyright holder(s). Refer to the original source for authoritative publication and licensing information.
This verification confirms the AZIZ OS resource record and its documented provenance. It does not establish authorship of the underlying external work.