Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
logo of JHTR

Research articles

Vol. 4 (2026)

The Responsibility Gap in Explainable AI

DOI
https://doi.org/10.59490/jhtr.2026.4.8241
Submitted
June 30, 2025
Published
2026-10-13

Abstract

This paper critically examines the persistent responsibility gap in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), arguing that current approaches fail to adequately bridge it. While XAI is often promoted as a remedy for the opacity of AI systems—the so-called “black box problem”—and as a way to enable human accountability in both high- and low-stakes AI applications, I contend that these hopes are premature. The paper distinguishes between legal and moral responsibility, arguing that regulation alone cannot address the full spectrum of responsibility gaps, especially in everyday, low-stakes scenarios. Then, I argue that XAI needs to tackle two separate but interconnected problems in its attempt to bridge the responsibility gap: an epistemological problem concerning the nature of XAI explanations, and a moral attribution problem regarding the distribution of blame and praise in situations where AI is involved in decision-making. Through detailed discussion of XAI methods and their limitations, I demonstrate that existing techniques often provide only post-hoc, technically focused explanations, which are insufficient for grounding moral responsibility. The paper concludes that without fundamental advances in both the design of explanations and our practices of responsibility attribution, the responsibility gap in AI will remain an unresolved and pressing issue for the field.

References

  1. Agarwal, C., Krishna, S., Saxena, E., Pawelczyk, M., Johnson, N., Puri, I., Zitnik, M., & Lakkaraju, H. (2022). “OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanations.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 15784–15799. https://doi.org/10.52202/068431-1148
  2. Ali, S., Abuhmed, T., El-Sappagh, S., Muhammad, K., Alonso-Moral, J. M., Confalonieri, R., Guidotti, R., Del Ser, J., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., & Herrera, F. (2023). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): What we know and what is left to attain trustworthy artificial intelligence. Information Fusion, 99, 101805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805
  3. Alvarez-Melis, D., & Jaakkola., T. S. (2018). Towards robust interpretability with self-explaining neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1806.07538
  4. Angelov, P. P., Soares, E. A., R. Jiang, Arnold, N. I., & Atkinson, P. M. (2021). Explainable artificial intelligence: An analytical review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 11(5), e1424. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1424
  5. Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., & Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58, 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
  6. Baron, S. (2023). Explainable AI and causal understanding: Counterfactual approaches considered. Minds and Machines, 33(2), 347–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-023-09637-x
  7. Bathaee, Y. (2018). The artificial intelligence black box and the failure of intent and causation. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 889.
  8. Baum, D., Baum, K., Gros, T. P., & Wolf, V. (2023). XAI requirements in smart production processes: A case study. Longo (Ed.), Explainable Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1901, pp. 3–24). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44064-9_1
  9. Baum, K., Mantel, S., Schmidt, E., & Speith, T. (2022). From responsibility to reason-giving explainable artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 35, 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00510-w
  10. Beckers, S. (2022). Causal explanations and XAI. Proceedings of the First Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 177, 90–109. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v177/beckers22a.html
  11. Berber, A., & Mijić, J. (2024). Understanding moral responsibility in automated decision-making: Responsibility gaps and strategies to address them. Theoria, 67(3), 177–92. https://doi.org/10.2298/THEO2403177B
  12. Bordt, S., Finck, M., Raidl, E., & Von Luxburg, U. (2022). Post-Hoc explanations fail to achieve their purpose in adversarial contexts. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 891–905. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533153
  13. Brand, J. L. M., & Nannini, L. (2023). Does Explainable AI Have Moral Value? arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.14687
  14. Buckley, R. P., Zetzsche, D. A., Arner, D. W., & Tang, B. W. (2021). Regulating Artificial Intelligence in Finance: Putting the Human in the Loop. Sydney Law Review, 43(1), 43–81.
  15. Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 2053951715622512. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
  16. Chalmers, D. J. (2025). Propositional Interpretability in Artificial Intelligence. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.15740
  17. Chou, Y.-L., Moreira, C., Bruza, P., Ouyang, C., & Jorge, J. (2022). Counterfactuals and causability in explainable artificial intelligence: Theory, algorithms, and applications. Information Fusion, 81, 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.003
  18. Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence, responsibility attribution, and a relational justification of explainability. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2051–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00146-8
  19. Conradie, N. H. (2023). Autonomous military systems: Collective responsibility and distributed burdens. Ethics and Information Technology, 25(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09696-9
  20. Dai, X., Keane, M. T., Shalloo, L., Ruelle, E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2022). Counterfactual explanations for prediction and diagnosis in XAI. Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534144
  21. Danaher, J. (2016). Robots, law and the retribution gap. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4): 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9403-3
  22. Danaher, J. (2022). Tragic choices and the virtue of techno-responsibility gaps. Philosophy & Technology, 35(2), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00519-1
  23. Dieber, J., & Kirrane, S. (2020). Why model why? Assessing the strengths and limitations of lime. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.00093
  24. Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1702.08608
  25. Elton, D. C. (2020). Self-Explaining AI as an Alternative to Interpretable AI. In B. Goertzel, A. I. Panov, A. Potapov, & R. Yampolskiy (Eds.), Artificial General Intelligence (Vol. 12177, pp. 95–106). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52152-3_10
  26. Ferlito, B., Segers, S., De Proost, M., & Mertes, H. (2024). Responsibility gap(s) due to the introduction of AI in healthcare: An ubuntu-inspired approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 30(4), 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00501-4
  27. Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
  28. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
  29. Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Pedreschi, D., & Giannotti, F. (2021). Principles of explainable artificial intelligence. In M. Sayed-Mouchaweh (Ed.), Explainable AI Within the Digital Transformation and Cyber Physical Systems (pp. 9–31). Springer International Publishing.
  30. Haque, A. B., Islam, A. K. M. N., & Mikalef, P. (2023). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) from a user perspective: A synthesis of prior literature and problematizing avenues for future research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 186, 122120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122120
  31. Heuillet, A., Couthouis, F., & Díaz-Rodríguez, N. (2022). Collective explainable AI: Explaining cooperative strategies and agent contribution in multiagent reinforcement learning with Shapley values. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 17(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2021.3129959
  32. Hindriks, F., & Veluwenkamp, H. (2023). The risks of autonomous machines: From responsibility gaps to control gaps. Synthese, 201(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-04001-5
  33. Hulsen, T. (2023). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts and challenges in healthcare. AI, 4(3), 652–666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai4030034
  34. Hung, Y. H., & Lee, C. Y. (2024). BMB-LIME: LIME with modeling local nonlinearity and uncertainty in explainability. Knowledge-Based Systems, 294, 111732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2024.111732
  35. Keane, M. T., Kenny, E. M., Delaney, E., & Smyth, B. (2021). If only we had better counterfactual explanations: Five key deficits to rectify in the evaluation of counterfactual XAI techniques. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.01035
  36. Keane, M. T., & Smyth, B. (2020). Good counterfactuals and where to find them: A case-based technique for generating counterfactuals for explainable AI (XAI). In I. Watson & R. Weber (Eds.), Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development (Vol. 12311, pp. 163–178). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58342-2_11
  37. Kiener, M. (2022). Can we bridge AI’s responsibility gap at will? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 25(4), 575–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-022-10313-9
  38. Kiener, M. (2025). AI and responsibility: No gap, but abundance. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 42(1), 357–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12765
  39. Königs, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence and responsibility gaps: What is the problem? Ethics and Information Technology, 24(3), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09643-0
  40. Kuppa, A., & Le-Khac, N. A. (2020). Black box attacks on explainable artificial intelligence(XAI) methods in cyber security. 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN48605.2020.9206780
  41. Lang, B. H., Nyholm, S., & Blumenthal-Barby, J. (2023). Responsibility gaps and black box healthcare AI: Shared responsibilization as a solution. Digital Society, 2(3), 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-023-00073-z
  42. Leventi-Peetz, A.-M., & Weber, K. (2022). Rashomon Effect and consistency in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). In K. Arai (Ed.), Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2022, Volume 1 (Vol. 559, pp. 796–808). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18461-1_52
  43. Lima, G., Grgić-Hlača, N., Jeong, J. K., & Cha, M. (2022). The conflict between explainable and accountable decision-making algorithms. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2103–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3534628
  44. Lipton, Z. C. (2018). The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery. Queue, 16(3), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236386.3241340
  45. Mahbooba, B., Timilsina, M., Sahal, R., & Serrano, M. (2021). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to enhance trust management in intrusion detection systems using decision tree model. Complexity, 2021(1), 6634811. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6634811
  46. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6, 175–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1
  47. McGeer, V. (2015). Building a better theory of responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 172, 2635–2649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0478-1
  48. Metz, T. (2011). Ubuntu as a moral theory and human rights in South Africa. African Human Rights Law Journal, 11(2), 532–59.
  49. Miller, D. (2007). The responsibility to protect human rights. In Legitimacy, Justice and Public International Law, 48.
  50. MirzaeiGhazi, S., & Stenseke, J. (2025). Responsibility before freedom: Closing the Responsibility gaps for autonomous machines. AI and Ethics, 5(2), 1601–1613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00503-9
  51. Mohale, V. Z., & Obagbuwa, I. C. (2025). A systematic review on the integration of explainable artificial intelligence in intrusion detection systems to enhancing transparency and interpretability in cybersecurity. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8, 1526221. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1526221
  52. Munch, L., Mainz, J., & Bjerring, J. C. (2023). The value of responsibility gaps in algorithmic decision-making. Ethics and Information Technology, 25(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09699-6
  53. Nauta, M., Van Bree, R., & Seifert, C. (2021). Neural prototype trees for interpretable fine-grained image recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14928–14938. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.01469
  54. Nyholm, S. (2018). Attributing agency to automated systems: Reflections on human–robot collaborations and responsibility-loci. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(4), 1201–1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9943-x
  55. Nyholm, S. (2023). Responsibility gaps, value alignment, and meaningful human control over artificial intelligence. In A. Placani & S. Broadhead (Eds.), Risk and Responsibility in Context (1st ed., pp. 191–213). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003276029-14
  56. Oimann, A. K. (2023). The Responsibility gap and LAWS: A Critical mapping of the debate. Philosophy & Technology, 36(1),3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00602-7
  57. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
  58. Phillips, P. J., Hahn, C. A., Fontana, P. C., Yates, A. N., Greene, K., Broniatowski, D. A., & Przybocki, M. A. (2021). Four principles of explainable artificial intelligence (NISTIR 8312). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8312
  59. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
  60. Retzlaff, C. O., Angerschmid, A., Saranti, A., Schneeberger, D., Röttger, R., Müller, H., & Holzinger, A. (2024). Post-hoc vs ante-hoc explanations: XAI design guidelines for data scientists. Cognitive Systems Research, 86, 101243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2024.101243
  61. Ridzuan, N. N., Masri, M., Anshari, M., Fitriyani, N. L., & Syafrudin, M. (2024). AI in the financial sector: The line between innovation, regulation and ethical responsibility. Information, 15(8), 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15080432
  62. Robbins, S. (2019). A misdirected principle with a catch: Explicability for AI. Minds and Machines, 29(4), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-019-09509-3
  63. Rudin, C., & Radin, J. (2019). Why are we using black box models in AI when we don’t need to? A lesson from an explainable AI competition. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.5a8a3a3d
  64. Salih, A. M., Raisi‐Estabragh, Z., Galazzo, I. B., Radeva, P., Petersen, S. E., Lekadir, K., & Menegaz, G. (2025). A perspective on explainable artificial intelligence methods: SHAP and LIME. Advanced Intelligent Systems, 7(1), 2400304. https://doi.org/10.1002/aisy.202400304
  65. Selbst, A. D., & Barocas, S. (2018). The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines. Fordham Law Review, 87(3), 1085-1139.
  66. Slack, D., Hilgard, S., Singh, S., & Lakkaraju, H. (2021). Reliable post hoc explanations: Modeling uncertainty in explainability. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 9391–9404.
  67. Slota, S. C., Fleischmann, K. R., Greenberg, S., Verma, N., Cummings, B., Li, L., & Shenefiel, C. (2023). Many hands make many fingers to point: Challenges in creating accountable AI. AI & Society, 38(4), 1287–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01302-0
  68. Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x
  69. Srivastava, G., Jhaveri, R. H., Bhattacharya, S., Pandya, S., Rajeswari, Maddikunta, P. K. R., Yenduri, G., Hall, J. G., Alazab, M., & Gadekallu, T. R. (2022). XAI for cybersecurity: State of the art, challenges, open issues and future directions. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.03585
  70. Stamatiou, F., & Karakonstantis, X. (2024). Should you trust your voice assistant? It’s complicated, but no. Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.3384/ecp208015
  71. Stepin, I., J. M. Alonso, A. Catala, & M. Pereira-Fariña. (2021). A survey of contrastive and counterfactual explanation generation methods for explainable artificial intelligence. IEEE Access, 9, 11974–12001. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3051315
  72. Strawson, P. F. (1962). Freedom and resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy, 48, 187–211.
  73. Tahir, H. A., Alayed, W., Hassan, W. U., & Haider, A. (2024). A novel hybrid XAI solution for autonomous vehicles: Real-Time interpretability through LIME–SHAP integration. Sensors, 24(21), 6776. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24216776
  74. Taylor, I. (2024). Is explainable AI responsible AI? AI & Society, 40(3), 1695–1704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01939-7
  75. Templeton, A., Conerly, T., Marcus, J., Lindsey, J., Bricken, T., Chen, B., Pearce, A., Citro, C., Ameisen, E., Jones, A., Cunningham, H., Turner, N. L., McDougall, C., MacDiarmid, M., Tamkin, A., Durmus, E., Hume, T., Mosconi, F., Freeman, C. D., … Henighan, T. (2024). Scaling monosemanticity: Extracting interpretable features from Claude 3 Sonnet [Research Report]. Anthropic. https://transformer-circuits.pub/2024/scaling-monosemanticity/index.html
  76. Thompson, D. F. (1980). Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. American Political Science Review, 74(4), 905–916. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954312
  77. Tigard, D. W. (2021). There is no techno-responsibility gap. Philosophy & Technology, 34(3), 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00414-7
  78. Vale, D., El-Sharif, A., & Ali, M. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) post-hoc explainability methods: Risks and limitations in non-discrimination law. AI and Ethics, 2(4), 815–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00142-y
  79. Vallor, S., & Vierkant, T. (2024). Find the gap: AI, responsible agency and vulnerability. Minds and Machines, 34(3), 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09674-0
  80. Van de Poel, I. (2015). The problem of many hands. In Moral Responsibility and the Problem of Many Hands (pp. 50–92). Routledge.
  81. Van der Waa, J., E. Nieuwburg, A. Cremers, & M. Neerincx. (2021). Evaluating XAI: A comparison of rule-based and example-based explanations. Artificial Intelligence, 291, 103404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103404
  82. Vargas, M. (2013). Building better beings: A theory of moral responsibility. Oxford University Press.
  83. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31, 841.
  84. Williams, I., Oldenburg, N., Dhar, R., Hatherley, J., Fierro, C., Rajcic, N., Schiller, S. R., Stamatiou, F., & Søgaard, A. (2025). Mechanistic interpretability needs philosophy. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.18852
  85. Winner, L. (1978). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. MIT Press.
  86. Yadav, B. R. (2024). The ethics of understanding: Exploring moral implications of explainable AI. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 13(6), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21275/SR24529122811
  87. Zednik, C. (2021). Solving the black box problem: A normative framework for explainable artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 34(2), 265–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00382-7
  88. Zetzsche, D. A., Arner, D. W., Buckley, R. P., & Tang, B. (2020). Artificial Intelligence in Finance: Putting the Human in the Loop. Centre for Finance, Technology and Entrepreneurship. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3531711
  89. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
Update cookies preferences