HugSelect: An Explainable Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Framework for foundation-model selection

Foundation models are increasingly reused as software components, making model selection a critical software-engineering decision. Current model hubs primarily support discovery through popularity metrics, often neglecting functional capabilities, operational constraints, and community-perceived quality. We argue that foundation-model selection should be treated as an explicit, auditable software-component selection task rather than as keyword search, popularity ranking, or opaque conversational advice. This paper proposes HugSelect, an explainable decision-support framework for foundation-model selection. HugSelect builds a knowledge base of 71,274 models by combining repository metadata, extracted functional capabilities, and perceived quality attributes derived from community discussions into a unified pipeline. It ranks candidate models using a weighted additive model that exposes criterion-level score decompositions. We evaluated HugSelect through pipeline validation, comparative case studies against four commercial LLM-based recommendation systems (44 scenarios), fine-grained ablation, and an exploratory user study (n = 10). Extraction pipelines achieved an F1 score of 0.801 for functional features and an accuracy of 0.84 for quality-attribute mapping. HugSelect achieved a model-level Coverage@10 of 0.61 and family-level Coverage@10 of 0.91, showing recommendation quality comparable to that of the evaluated commercial systems, with no significant overall differences in ranking quality, while providing stable, traceable, and inspectable reasoning. Ablation confirmed that functional features were the main driver of retrieval accuracy, and preliminary user feedback suggests that the framework is useful and intuitive.

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

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.