Systematic review demonstrates trade-offs across formal logical systems for explainable AI, highlighting neuro-symbolic architectures as verifiable alternatives to post-hoc approximations.
Modern AI often works as a “black box”: it gives an answer, but cannot show why. In high-stakes fields like law, medicine, and government—and under emerging rules such as the EU AI Act—that is a serious problem. Today’s most popular explainability tools, such as SHAP and LIME, only approximate a model’s reasoning after the fact, and their explanations can be unstable. This review explores a different, often overlooked path: logical systems. We first explain in plain terms what they are and where they come from, then compare the main families—propositional, deontic, and first-order logic paired with modern solvers—by what each can express and guarantee. Our main contribution is a comparative taxonomy organized by explanatory guarantees, which reveals that no existing class simultaneously offers natural-language input, formal verifiability, and reproducibility. We then examine neuro-symbolic systems, illustrated by a representative engine (Causal Logic Engine, CLE), where a language model reads the text but a transparent logical layer makes the decision, checked by a human; the engine is described end to end, down to a worked example traced from raw text to the final decision. The key idea: instead of opening the black box, we move the decision outside it—so the reason behind every answer becomes clear and reproducible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gulyamov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: