Assessing Model-Agnostic XAI Methods against EU AI Act Explainability Requirements

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.

Developing and certifying safe - or so-called trustworthy - AI has become an increasingly salient issue, especially in light of upcoming regulation such as the EU AI Act. In this context, the black-box nature of machine learning models limits the use of conventional avenues of approach towards certifying complex technical systems. As a potential solution, methods to give insights into this black-box - devised in the field of eXplainable AI (XAI) - could be used. In this study, the potential and shortcomings of such methods for the purpose of safe AI development and certification are discussed in 15 qualitative interviews with experts out of the areas of (X)AI and certification. We find that XAI methods can be a helpful asset for safe AI development, as they can show biases and failures of ML-models, but since certification relies on comprehensive and correct information about technical systems, their impact is expected to be limited.

The EU AI Act introduces extensive compliance requirements for organizations that develop, deploy, or integrate AI systems. Many of these requirements are directly relevant to security and privacy, while also addressing closely related issues such as data governance, transparency, accuracy, and robustness. However, stakeholders such as small-to-medium businesses and individual developers often lack the legal expertise required to interpret these obligations and translate them into engineering and governance practices. This disconnect creates challenges for implementing the EU AI Act and may lead to missing safeguards or misdirected development and deployment efforts. To address this, various automated EU AI Act compliance checkers (AIACCs) have emerged, claiming to streamline compliance assessments and provide practical guidance. In this paper, we present the first empirical study and assessment of AIACCs. We characterize 12 mainstream AIACCs across multiple dimensions, evaluate their legal coverage and alignment, and analyze checker-generated compliance reports for structure, determinacy, and actionability. We find that the quality of AIACCs varies significantly and that they currently can only serve as early-stage orientation tools. Specifically, we observe inconsistent interaction modes and user-friendliness, a tendency to overly simplify or omit key obligations, and a failure to provide determinate, actionable guidance. As a result, reliance on the current generation of AIACCs may foster a false sense of compliance. With our study, we provide a critical baseline of the current AIACC landscape. We further offer design principles for the implementation of more reliable compliance-support tools.