Scientific Explanations in Health Sciences: Causality, Trust, and Epistemic Adequacy

Martina Mattioli; Marcello Pelillo

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2606.31616

Scientific Explanations in Health Sciences: Causality, Trust, and Epistemic Adequacy

Martina Mattioli·Marcello Pelillo

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Medical Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely expected to transform clinical practice, yet the decision-making processes of many Machine Learning (ML) models remain opaque. Explainability has been advanced as a partial remedy to clarify why AI generates predictions, particularly in high-stakes contexts. Despite ongoing efforts, debates on what constitutes an adequate medical explanation remain unsettled. Yet, explanation has long been a central topic of inquiry in the philosophy of science and medicine. The insights developed in these fields, however, have been largely overlooked in contemporary explainable AI (XAI) research, leaving its foundational assumptions insufficiently examined. To address this gap, this paper develops a critical review at the intersection of philosophy of science and XAI. It examines prevailing accounts of what counts as an explanation in the health sciences and assesses their adequacy for informing XAI in medicine, arguing that they provide necessary conditions for a philosophically grounded approach to explainability in this domain. Building on this foundational philosophical literature, the discussion identifies three central axes of analysis: the role of causality in medical reasoning, the epistemic and relational dimensions of medical trust, and the criteria of explanatory adequacy as shaped by the pragmatic needs of diverse stakeholders. By integrating philosophical analysis with current developments in medical AI, the paper outlines principles for designing XAI systems that offer explanations that are not only epistemically robust but also aligned with the epistemic and practical requirements of clinical decision-making, shaping ongoing debates in medical XAI toward underexplored conceptual foundations.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Martina Mattioli, Marcello Pelillo. 2026-06-30. Scientific Explanations in Health Sciences: Causality, Trust, and Epistemic Adequacy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.31616

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

InterPol: De-anonymizing LM Arena via Interpolated Preference Learning

Strict anonymity of model responses is a key for the reliability of voting-based leaderboards, such as LM Arena. While prior studies have attempted to compromise this assumption using simple statistical features like TF-IDF or bag-ofwords, these methods often lack the discriminative power to distinguish between stylistically similar or within-family models. To overcome these limitations and expose the severity of vulnerability, we introduce INTERPOL, a model-driven identification framework that learns to distinguish target models from others using interpolated preference data. Specifically, INTERPOL captures deep stylistic patterns that superficial statistical features miss by synthesizing hard negative samples through model interpolation and employing an adaptive curriculum learning strategy. Extensive experiments demonstrate that INTERPOL significantly outperforms existing baselines in identification accuracy. Furthermore, we quantify the real-world threat of our findings through ranking manipulation simulations on Arena battle data.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts

Deliberative multi-agent systems allow agents to exchange messages and revise beliefs over time. While this interaction is meant to improve performance, it can also create dangerous conformity effects: agreement, confidence, prestige, or majority size may be treated as if they were evidence, producing high-confidence convergence to false conclusions. To address this, we introduce PBRC (Preregistered Belief Revision Contracts), a protocol-level mechanism that strictly separates open communication from admissible epistemic change. A PBRC contract publicly fixes first-order evidence triggers, admissible revision operators, a priority rule, and a fallback policy. A non-fallback step is accepted only when it cites a preregistered trigger and provides a nonempty witness set of externally validated evidence tokens. This ensures that every substantive belief change is both enforceable by a router and auditable after the fact. In this paper, (a) we prove that under evidential contracts with conservative fallback, social-only rounds cannot increase confidence and cannot generate purely conformity-driven wrong-but-sure cascades. (b) We show that auditable trigger protocols admit evidential PBRC normal forms that preserve belief trajectories and canonicalized audit traces. (c) We demonstrate that sound enforcement yields epistemic accountability: any change of top hypothesis is attributable to a concrete validated witness set. For token-invariant contracts, (d) we prove that enforced trajectories depend only on token-exposure traces; under flooding dissemination, these traces are characterized exactly by truncated reachability, giving tight diameter bounds for universal evidence closure. Finally, we introduce a companion contractual dynamic doxastic logic to specify trace invariants, and provide simulations illustrating cascade suppression, auditability, and robustness-liveness trade-offs.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Anon: Extrapolating Adaptivity Beyond SGD and Adam

Adaptive optimizers such as Adam and non-adaptive methods like SGD exhibit distinct generalization capabilities across different architectures. Prior tunable optimizers attempt to bridge this gap by strictly interpolating between SGD and Adam, effectively confining adaptivity within the 0-to-1 bound. However, this restricted interpolation is fundamentally insufficient: we reveal that optimal adaptivity often requires extrapolation, such as negative adaptivity for classical CNNs and adaptivity of at least one ($γ\geq 1$) for Transformers. Extrapolating adaptivity theoretically violates the strict non-decreasing pre-conditioner assumption, often leading to divergence in existing methods. To break this barrier, we propose Anon, an optimizer that achieves fully continuous adaptivity extrapolation across the entire real-number spectrum. To guarantee provable stability in these out-of-bound regimes, we introduce Incremental Delay Update (IDU), a novel mechanism that bypasses hard max-tracking strategies. We theoretically establish Anon's convergence in both convex and non-convex settings. Empirically, by exploring previously unreachable adaptivity landscapes, Anon demonstrates highly competitive and scalable performance among state-of-the-art element-wise optimizers on representative image classification, diffusion, and large language modeling tasks.

cs.AI↗