{"slug": "explainable-ai-for-the-eu-right-to-explanation-a-systematic-review-of-the-law", "title": "Explainable AI for the EU Right to Explanation: A Systematic Review of the Law-XAI Translation Gap", "summary": "A systematic review of 2,643 records found that only 19 of 57 full texts substantively integrate both legal and technical perspectives on Explainable AI (XAI) and the EU Right to Explanation, revealing a significant gap between law and XAI. The study, published on arXiv (2608.02699v1), focuses on Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR and Art. 86 AI Act, and identifies three problematic patterns: misidentification of the GDPR legal basis, lack of engagement with the CJEU's Dun & Bradstreet judgment, and conflation of explanation form and content. The authors propose an Addressee/Purpose Framework and a four-phase blueprint to operationalize the right, warning that without progress, the Right to Explanation risks remaining a formal obligation without a technically realizable path to compliance.", "body_md": "arXiv:2608.02699v1 Announce Type: new\nAbstract: 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.", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/explainable-ai-for-the-eu-right-to-explanation-a-systematic-review-of-the-law", "canonical_source": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02699", "published_at": "2026-08-05 04:00:00+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-08-05 04:09:21.205461+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["artificial-intelligence", "ai-policy", "ai-ethics", "ai-research"], "entities": ["arXiv", "EU", "GDPR", "AI Act", "CJEU", "Dun & Bradstreet"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/explainable-ai-for-the-eu-right-to-explanation-a-systematic-review-of-the-law", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/explainable-ai-for-the-eu-right-to-explanation-a-systematic-review-of-the-law.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/explainable-ai-for-the-eu-right-to-explanation-a-systematic-review-of-the-law.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/explainable-ai-for-the-eu-right-to-explanation-a-systematic-review-of-the-law.jsonld"}}