In defence of post-hoc explanations in medical AI

Joshua Hatherley, Lauritz Munch, Jens Christian Bjerring
4/29/2025
cs.HCcs.AIcs.CY

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 5 possible matches can be shown below.

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.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 5 weaker matches are hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{hatherley2025defence,
  title  = {In defence of post-hoc explanations in medical AI},
  author = {Joshua Hatherley and Lauritz Munch and Jens Christian Bjerring},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2504.20741},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20741v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2504.20741.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2504.20741)

Discussion