Saumendu Roy

Saumendu Roy, Banani Roy, Chanchal Roy et al.

Machine learning (ML)-based defect prediction models can improve software quality. However, their opaque reasoning creates an HCI challenge because developers struggle to trust models they cannot interpret. Explainable AI (XAI) methods such as LIME, SHAP, and BreakDown aim to provide transparency, but when used together, they often produce conflicting explanations that increase confusion, frustration, and cognitive load. To address this usability challenge, we introduce XMENTOR, a human-centered, rank-aware aggregation method implemented as a VS Code plugin. XMENTOR unifies multiple post-hoc explanations into a single, coherent view by applying adaptive thresholding, rank and sign agreement, and fallback strategies to preserve clarity without overwhelming users. In a user study, nearly 90% of the participants preferred aggregated explanations, citing reduced confusion and stronger support for daily tasks of debugging and review of defects. Our findings show how combining explanations and embedding them into developer workflows can enhance interpretability, usability, and trust.

Saumendu Roy, Saikat Mondal, Banani Roy et al.

The lack of interpretability is a major barrier that limits the practical usage of AI models. Several eXplainable AI (XAI) techniques (e.g., SHAP, LIME) have been employed to interpret these models' performance. However, users often face challenges when leveraging these techniques in real-world scenarios and thus submit questions in technical Q&A forums like Stack Overflow (SO) to resolve these challenges. We conducted an exploratory study to expose these challenges, their severity, and features that can make XAI techniques more accessible and easier to use. Our contributions to this study are fourfold. First, we manually analyzed 663 SO questions that discussed challenges related to XAI techniques. Our careful investigation produced a catalog of seven challenges (e.g., disagreement issues). We then analyzed their prevalence and found that model integration and disagreement issues emerged as the most prevalent challenges. Second, we attempt to estimate the severity of each XAI challenge by determining the correlation between challenge types and answer metadata (e.g., the presence of accepted answers). Our analysis suggests that model integration issues is the most severe challenge. Third, we attempt to perceive the severity of these challenges based on practitioners' ability to use XAI techniques effectively in their work. Practitioners' responses suggest that disagreement issues most severely affect the use of XAI techniques. Fourth, we seek agreement from practitioners on improvements or features that could make XAI techniques more accessible and user-friendly. The majority of them suggest consistency in explanations and simplified integration. Our study findings might (a) help to enhance the accessibility and usability of XAI and (b) act as the initial benchmark that can inspire future research.