AI 中文总结
本文针对欧盟解释权开展XAI系统综述，发现法律与技术视角整合不足，提出收件人/目的框架与四阶段操作蓝图，指出需解决相关研究问题以保障解释权落地。
AI 中文摘要
当算法做出或影响贷款资格、招聘或医疗保健等具有重大影响的决策时，欧盟法律赋予受影响个人解释权。然而，可解释人工智能（XAI）能否以及如何在实践中满足这一权利，目前仍知之甚少，这直接影响个人对影响其生活的自动化决策提出异议的能力。本文针对欧盟解释权背景下的XAI开展系统文献综述，特别关注《通用数据保护条例》（GDPR）第15(1)(h)条、《人工智能法案》（AIA）第86条及相关文书。由于《人工智能法案》最终版本于2024年7月发布，其中第86条是后期加入的，因此我们选取2024年及之后发表的论文。在通过广泛检索确定的2643条初始记录中，我们评审了57篇全文，其中仅有19篇论文实现了法律与技术视角的实质性整合，表明当前监管框架的跨学科综合存在差距。我们在文献中记录了三种问题模式：多数论文错误识别了GDPR的法律依据；少数论文涉及欧盟法院（CJEU）的邓白氏判决（可能由于发布时间原因）；且解释形式（由收件人决定）与内容（由法律目的决定）之间的区别常被混淆。我们将此概念化为收件人/目的框架，提出了一个四阶段操作蓝图，并确定了六个具体的开放研究问题。若不进一步推进，解释权可能仍只是一项正式义务，缺乏技术上可实现的合规路径。
英文摘要
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.
CommentsAccepted at the 9th AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society (AIES-26)
