In defence of post-hoc explanations in medical AI

April 29, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› The Hastings center report

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Joshua Hatherley, Lauritz Munch, Jens Christian Bjerring arXiv ID 2504.20741 Category cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction Cross-listed cs.AI, cs.CY, cs.LG Citations 1 Venue The Hastings center report Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Since the early days of the Explainable AI movement, post-hoc explanations have been praised for their potential to improve user understanding, promote trust, and reduce patient safety risks in black box medical AI systems. Recently, however, critics have argued that the benefits of post-hoc explanations are greatly exaggerated since they merely approximate, rather than replicate, the actual reasoning processes that black box systems take to arrive at their outputs. In this article, we aim to defend the value of post-hoc explanations against this recent critique. We argue that even if post-hoc explanations do not replicate the exact reasoning processes of black box systems, they can still improve users' functional understanding of black box systems, increase the accuracy of clinician-AI teams, and assist clinicians in justifying their AI-informed decisions. While post-hoc explanations are not a "silver bullet" solution to the black box problem in medical AI, we conclude that they remain a useful strategy for addressing the black box problem in medical AI.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Human-Computer Interaction

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted