Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Systematic Literature Review of Explainable AI for Software Engineering

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.06065 v1 pith:CELFJ3CZ submitted 2023-02-13 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords studiesmethodsbeenexplainableidentifiedliteratureml4semodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Context: In recent years, leveraging machine learning (ML) techniques has become one of the main solutions to tackle many software engineering (SE) tasks, in research studies (ML4SE). This has been achieved by utilizing state-of-the-art models that tend to be more complex and black-box, which is led to less explainable solutions that reduce trust and uptake of ML4SE solutions by professionals in the industry. Objective: One potential remedy is to offer explainable AI (XAI) methods to provide the missing explainability. In this paper, we aim to explore to what extent XAI has been studied in the SE community (XAI4SE) and provide a comprehensive view of the current state-of-the-art as well as challenge and roadmap for future work. Method: We conduct a systematic literature review on 24 (out of 869 primary studies that were selected by keyword search) most relevant published studies in XAI4SE. We have three research questions that were answered by meta-analysis of the collected data per paper. Results: Our study reveals that among the identified studies, software maintenance (\%68) and particularly defect prediction has the highest share on the SE stages and tasks being studied. Additionally, we found that XAI methods were mainly applied to classic ML models rather than more complex models. We also noticed a clear lack of standard evaluation metrics for XAI methods in the literature which has caused confusion among researchers and a lack of benchmarks for comparisons. Conclusions: XAI has been identified as a helpful tool by most studies, which we cover in the systematic review. However, XAI4SE is a relatively new domain with a lot of untouched potentials, including the SE tasks to help with, the ML4SE methods to explain, and the types of explanations to offer. This study encourages the researchers to work on the identified challenges and roadmap reported in the paper.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Preliminary Study on Explaining Risk of Code Changes using LLM-Based Prediction Models

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Top-2 attention-highlighted hunks cover expert-labeled outage root causes 53.85% of the time while requiring review of 26.28% of changed lines.

Pith tools