Artificial Intelligence is increasingly introduced into systems engineering activities, particularly within requirements engineering, where quality assessment and validation remain heavily dependent on expert judgment. While recent AI tools demonstrate promising capabilities in analyzing and generating requirements, their role within formal systems engineering processes-and their alignment with established INCOSE criteria-remains insufficiently understood. This paper investigates the extent to which AI-based tools can support systems engineers in evaluating requirement quality, without replacing professional expertise. The research adopts a structured systems engineering methodology to compare AI-assisted requirement evaluation with human expert assessment. A controlled study was conducted in which system requirements were evaluated against established INCOSE ``good requirement'' criteria by both experienced systems engineers and an AI-based assessment tool. The evaluation focused on consistency, completeness, clarity, and testability, examining not only accuracy but also the decision logic underlying each assessment. Results indicate that AI tools can provide consistent and rapid preliminary assessments, particularly for syntactic and structural quality attributes. However, expert judgment remains essential for contextual interpretation, ambiguity resolution, and trade-off reasoning. Rather than positioning AI as a replacement for systems engineers, the findings support its role as a decision-support mechanism within the RE lifecycle. From a systems engineering perspective, this study contributes empirical evidence on how AI can be integrated into RE workflows while preserving traceability, accountability, and engineering consistency.
The rapid adoption of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in software engineering (SE) practice creates a need for pedagogically grounded approaches to AI integration in SE education, especially in conceptually intensive subjects such as requirements engineering (RE). This study examines a TPACK-guided integration of a multi-agent AI tool into a master-level RE assignment on requirements quality analysis. Using a mixed-methods design (N=100; 72 submissions analysed), we examine how structured assignment design shaped students' AI use, affected their understanding of user story quality criteria, and influenced their perceptions of AI's benefits and limitations. Results show that students used the AI tool selectively, mainly as support for analysis and evaluation rather than automation. Alignment improvements were most evident for structurally concrete requirements quality dimensions, such as value articulation and testability, while negotiability showed mixed effects. Students reported conditional trust, active refinement, and increased awareness of quality criteria, alongside moderate usability challenges. The findings show that TPACK-guided scaffolding can align AI affordances with pedagogical goals and RE content, offering design guidance for responsible AI integration in RE education.
Hansika Ekanayake Mudiyanselage, Rohan Jai Dharmaraj, Malik Abdul Sami +1
The March 2020 INCOSE INSIGHT special issue on AI and Systems Engineering (SE) became the most downloaded issue in the publication's history and launched a research community that now draws over 250 registrants to its annual workshop. In this article, we trace the progress in AI and SE across three phases (labeled here foundational, applied, and LLM inflection) based on the authors' reading of the field's core papers, and describe our opinions of where the community has converged and where critical gaps remain. Separately, a human-AI agreement literature review leveraging both human expertise and six AI models was performed to assess the relevance of 1,712 INCOSE INSIGHT articles and 889 SERC publications. The results identify five critical research gaps and offer guidance for practitioners navigating AI adoption, assurance, and workforce transformation in SE. We share the agreement data and the AI4SE/SE4AI Explorer web application so readers can compare their own relevance judgments with the human and AI raters.
A new class of agentic review systems are emerging as a remedy to the pressure placed on peer review systems by AI-assisted research, but it is unclear how they should be evaluated. We evaluate two open-source systems (OpenAIReview and coarse), one proprietary system (Reviewer3), and a zero-shot baseline, across six LLMs spanning frontier and efficient models. First, we study whether AI reviews on ICLR/NeurIPS papers track with papers' quality as approximated by external signals such as citations and acceptance decisions. Every system performs above chance in pairwise accuracy, and the best is OpenAIReview + GPT-5.5 at 83.0%. Second, to test whether systems can catch errors with known ground truth, we construct a perturbation benchmark that injects four categories of errors into papers across eight arXiv subject classes and measure detection recall. The strongest configuration (OpenAIReview + GPT-5.5) catches 71.6% of injected errors, leaving substantial room for improvement. The union of detections across six models reaches 83.3% recall, suggesting different models detect different errors and better harness design can potentially increase performance. Beyond these benchmarks, we study a public deployment of OpenAIReview with real users. Votes on its comments skew positive at 1.44 to 1, and the most common complaints are about false positives and minor nitpicks. Together, by evaluating full review systems backed by state-of-the-art models on real research papers, we show that while AI reviews still have room for improvement, they can already track human quality judgments well, catch important errors, and earn positive feedback from real users.