Cross-organizational collaboration is widely regarded as a key promise of SysML-based Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), yet practitioners still face persistent challenges when exchanging and integrating system models. In parallel, Large Language Models (LLMs) raise expectations for AI-assisted model understanding and integration, while reliability and required human oversight continue to pose challenges. This paper reports the results of an online questionnaire survey with 29 MBSE stakeholders involved in cross-organizational collaboration. Respondents rated eight predefined integration challenge categories and six AI-supported task types on five-point Likert scales. The results indicate that stakeholders perceive model integration as a multi-dimensional alignment problem across semantics, behavior, traceability, and exchange interoperability. These perceptions vary by organizational role and frequency of integration involvement. AI is rated highly useful for analysis tasks such as semantic structure analysis and inconsistency detection, and respondents predominantly prefer human-in-the-loop use with mandatory verification. These findings motivate AI support that enhances, rather than replaces, engineering responsibility in SysML-based integration.
Figures & tables
Label
Category
Median
4–5 Ratio
Mean
A
Naming and Semantic Conflicts
4
65.5%
3.97
B
Structural and Abstraction Challenges
4
51.7%
3.55
C
Interface and Port Integration Issues
3
34.5%
3.24
D
Behavioral and Logical Misalignment
4
58.6%
3.55
E
Methodology and Profile Integration
3
35.7%
3.11
F
Traceability Gaps
4
58.6%
3.90
TABLE I: Model Integration Challenges
Label
Category
Median
4–5 Ratio
Mean
A
Understand model content from textual or structural input
5
75.9%
4.28
B
Suggest mappings between model elements
4
79.3%
4.21
C
Identify semantic conflicts or inconsistencies
5
82.8%
4.34
D
Generate integration workflows and prompts
4
65.5%
3.72
E
Suggest cross-methodology transformations
4
55.2%
3.55
F
Support semantic structure analysis
5
89.7%
4.45
TABLE II: AI-Supported Model Understanding and Integration Tasks
Cross-organizational collaboration in Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) faces many challenges in achieving semantic alignment across independently developed system models. SysML v2 introduces enhanced structural modularity and formal semantics, offering a stronger foundation for interoperable modeling. Meanwhile, GPT-based Large Language Models (LLMs) provide new capabilities for assisting model understanding and integration. This paper proposes a structured, prompt-driven approach for LLM-assisted semantic alignment of SysML v2 models. The core contribution lies in the iterative development of an alignment approach and interaction prompts, incorporating model extraction, semantic matching, and verification. The approach leverages SysML v2 constructs such as alias, import, and metadata extensions to support traceable, soft alignment integration. It is demonstrated with a GPT-based LLM through an example of a measurement system. Benefits and limitations are discussed.
Zirui Li, Stephan Husung, Haoze Wang
Product and Systems Engineering Group Technische Universität Ilmenau Ilmenau, Germany
AI tools are being deployed over MBSE models today, and those models were not designed for this kind of consumption. The problem is not simply that tools hallucinate: well-prompted frontier models produce competent, useful output over a conformant SysML model, but the reasoning they produce is drawn from training rather than retrieved from the model itself, and different tools over the same model produce different results with nothing in the record to adjudicate between them. The model, in other words, is functioning as a prompt rather than as a knowledge base. Attaching better tools to the same model does not resolve this. The model and the methodology that governs its construction need to be designed together for AI participation, treating the model as a machine-queryable knowledge substrate rather than a structured artefact for human navigation, and that co-design has not yet happened in any systematic way. This paper works through a concrete workflow scenario to show what that gap looks like in practice, proposes three principles that jointly characterise what model and methodology must achieve together, and closes with a call to the community to begin this work before the architectural decisions about AI integration settle without the methodological foundation they require.
Siyuan Ji
Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
Machine-readable models such as SysML v2 are now programmatically accessible, and a growing body of work treats that access as the enabling condition for AI participation in systems engineering. Access is necessary, but not sufficient. The remaining work lies not in the modelling language but in the data architecture around it. An AI reader that queries a structurally complete model for a derivation still runs into absent derivation chains, untagged epistemic status, missing provenance, and evidence that the model cannot resolve. Faced with these gaps, it does not abstain; it fills them from training data, a source that is neither verifiable nor governed. To make the case on a model that is exemplary by current practice rather than deficient, we probe the public Apollo 11 SysML v2 reconstruction. We name the missing property epistemic adequacy and offer it as a candidate data-architecture pattern in two halves. Read-side adequacy lets derivation, status, and provenance answer a query rather than invite a guess; write-side admissibility gates an AI contribution before it enters the record. The property is broken down into five criteria. Four sit on the read side, evidenced by the case and convergent literature; the fifth sits on the participation side, advanced as a hypothesis this paper does not yet test. The architecture space runs from an inline metadata extension up to a substrate-native multi-model store, and over it, we propose the Governed-Query Architecture Framework, which governs agent participation through the viewpoint conventions that engineers already use. We commit the reframing to falsification: the epistemic layer counts as refuted if it cannot beat a retrieval-augmented baseline on the same model, tested first on the Apollo chain and then in an industrial pilot.
Jason Gower, Michael J. de C. Henshaw, Siyuan Ji
Loughborough University Loughborough, United Kingdom