AI-Mediated Explainable Regulation for Justice

The rapid proliferation of AI applications has intensified debate on effective regulation of these black-box services. Effective regulation must balance two competing goals: (1) deterring non-compliant providers from entering the market, while (2) retaining compliant ones. We call this ideal the perfect market outcome (PMO). Regulators face two compounding obstacles that make PMO difficult to achieve: providers hold private information and can act strategically to evade compliance, while any evidence drawn or derived from a finite sample carries statistical uncertainty in proving non-compliance. As this information asymmetry and statistical uncertainty is inherent to any effective regulation, we formalise them through a mechanism design framework that explicitly accounts for such statistical uncertainty. This yields a sharp characterisation: a mechanism achieves PMO if and only if the set of non-compliant evidence distributions forms a closed, convex set of probability measures, known in imprecise probability as a credal set. This result serves as a diagnostic tool to determine whether PMO is achievable under a given regulation. We further show that PMO-achieving mechanisms can be constructed from a collection of hypothesis tests, and validate our theoretical contributions through experiments on spurious-feature and fairness-based regulations.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) seeks to explain how an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system arrived at a particular decision. We propose ''Rule of Thumb'' (RoT) explanations, a new approach to XAI based upon a novel formulation that identifies the most relevant features for predicting the behaviour of an AI system, for a particular datapoint. We show how RoT is well-suited to enable XAI in: (a) zero-shot classification using large language models (LLMs), (b) auditing of opaque AI systems without model access, and (c) the use of AI in scientific discovery. Additionally, RoT meets specific requirements from leading AI regulations, provides a familiar interface and visualisations for XAI practitioners, is model-agnostic, and is substantially faster than alternatives. Code available at: https://github.com/KaiRawal/Rule-of-Thumb-Explaining-Artificial-Intelligence-Systems-using-Partial-Information

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.