From Questions to Insights: Exploring XAI Challenges Reported on Stack Overflow Questions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.265 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".