arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2512.11984

Evidence-Driven Decision Support for AI Model Selection in Research Software Engineering

Abstract

The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) models and methods presents growing challenges for research software engineers and researchers who must select, integrate, and maintain appropriate models within complex research workflows. Model selection is often performed in an ad hoc manner, relying on fragmented metadata and individual expertise, which can undermine reproducibility, transparency, and overall research software quality. This work proposes a structured and evidence-driven approach to support AI model selection that aligns with both technical and contextual requirements. We conceptualize AI model selection as a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) problem and introduce an evidence-based decision-support framework that integrates automated data collection pipelines, a structured knowledge graph, and MCDM principles. Following the Design Science Research methodology, the proposed framework (ModelSelect) is empirically validated through 50 real-world case studies and comparative experiments against leading generative AI systems. The evaluation results show that ModelSelect produces reliable, interpretable, and reproducible recommendations that closely align with expert reasoning. Across the case studies, the framework achieved high coverage and strong rationale alignment in both model and library recommendation tasks, performing comparably to generative AI assistants while offering superior traceability and consistency. By framing AI model selection as an MCDM problem, this work establishes a rigorous foundation for transparent and reproducible decision support in research software engineering. The proposed framework provides a scalable and explainable pathway for integrating empirical evidence into AI model recommendation processes, ultimately improving the quality and robustness of research software decision-making.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alireza Joonbakhsh, Alireza Rostami, AmirMohammad Kamalinia, Ali Nazeri, Farshad Khunjush, Bedir Tekinerdogan, Siamak Farshidi. 2025-12-12. Evidence-Driven Decision Support for AI Model Selection in Research Software Engineering. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.11984

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE