Requirements Engineering

Repository-level repair requires not only correct patches but also inspectable records that explain how issue requirements are translated into code changes and post-edit evidence. We contribute THEMIS, a stage-aware repair workflow that externalizes this requirement-to-repair process through semantic interpretation, a runtime requirement-code graph, graph-derived Developer guidance, retained repair rationale and patches, and post-edit audit records. A retrospective audit of 300 SWE-bench Lite cases demonstrates that these artifacts provide broad support for cross-stage inspection: a complete Developer rationale is available for 288 cases, and 214 cases (71.3%) retain a complete audited field set connecting the selected stages. The retained records further enable systematic measurement of cross-stage correspondence: target symbols recur in 62.6% of Developer rationales and in 62.8% of patches, rising to 75.8% when related symbols are included. In a paired 100-case comparison, the relational workflow resolves 19 cases versus 9 for the direct same-input condition; because the two conditions also differ in Analyzer output, graph-derived distillation, and Judge records, we report this as preliminary, workflow-level evidence rather than a causal effect of the graph component. Together, these results show that THEMIS makes otherwise implicit requirement-to-repair transitions inspectable, enabling systematic examination of how repair decisions persist, align, and evolve across stages.

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.

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.

LLM-based agents excel at software engineering tasks where an existing codebase provides context, but constructing a program from scratch remains fundamentally harder. Recent benchmarks such as ProgramBench quantify this gap: given only natural-language documentation and an execute-only binary as a behavioral oracle, even frontier models solve fewer than 1% of instances. Existing frameworks conflate documentation reading, behavioral exploration, and code synthesis into a single pass, causing agents to probe insufficiently, lose behavioral intent as context drifts, and propagate early misinterpretations into the final implementation. Inspired by classical requirements engineering, we argue that behavioral specification elicitation should be a first-class phase that precedes implementation. We present SpecFirst, a two-stage framework that forces the specification elicitation before code synthesis. A dedicated spec agent first probes the binary and combines observations with documentation into a structured specification. Next, a code synthesis agent then uses this specification to drive implementation. This decomposition resolves documentation ambiguities before coding begins and provides a stable behavioral reference throughout synthesis. We evaluate SpecFirst on all 200 ProgramBench instances across four models spanning two families and an order of magnitude of capability. SpecFirst consistently outperforms the single-loop baseline, improving test pass rates by 6.9%-21.3% and binary exploration coverage by 9.4%-18.5%, all statistically significant. Behavioral analysis on code synthesis further shows that a prior specification enables earlier and more sustained code construction. Our results demonstrate that an explicit requirements-engineering phase is an effective paradigm for from-scratch program construction.

Context: Large Language Models (LLMs) offer natural-language flexibility for automated requirements elicitation but frequently generate structurally invalid requirements and logical inconsistencies, lacking formal correctness guarantees. Objectives: This study aims to eliminate logical inconsistencies and enforce structural conformance in LLM-generated requirements while quantifying the LLM's pre-validation decision uncertainty within a formal domain model. Methods: We present a neuro-symbolic multi-agent architecture that operationalizes the Object-Oriented Method for Requirements Authoring and Management (OOMRAM) lattice. The LLM acts as a non-deterministic heuristic for lattice traversal, while a deterministic symbolic validator enforces all structural constraints. We introduce a three-valued (T, I, F) -- Truth, Indeterminacy, Falsity -- framework to classify and score the LLM's requirement decisions before and after validation. Results: Evaluated across 37 natural-language project visions in eleven application families, the system completely eliminated structural inconsistencies in 35 out of 37 cases (94.6%), with the remaining two containing only 6 unresolved structural errors (0.39% of decisions) due to iteration limits. Three-valued analysis revealed that 24.7% of all decisions are indeterminate -- structurally valid but discretionary choices not explicitly mandated by the stakeholder. Conclusion: Offloading structural integrity to a deterministic symbolic layer successfully guarantees structural conformance, while the three-valued classification provides a formal way to measure neural uncertainty, facilitating safe LLM deployment in formal requirements engineering.

Generative social robots (GSRs) powered by large language models offer new possibilities for personalized tutoring in higher education, but also introduce risks related to misinformation, missing transparency, or reinforcing incorrect student responses. Prior work identified knowledge-based design (KBD) requirements that define the informational prerequisites for GSRs to manifest responsible and effective tutoring behavior in higher education. In this paper, we operationalized selected KBD requirements in the Reachy Mini robot platform through system prompting, retrieval-augmented generation, and stateful prompt orchestration. As a result, we present Teachy Mini, a GSR tutoring system that was developed using KBD. To test the system, we conducted a preliminary evaluation study. Participants (N = 24) completed a robot-guided learning session about research methodologies. They learned either with Teachy Mini or with a control version that did not follow KBD principles. Teachy Mini was perceived as significantly more aligned with responsible tutoring behavior than the control robot. Moreover, a manipulation check illustrated that Teachy Mini used personalization, slide-grounded explanations, Socratic questioning, affective support, and learner-anchored feedback more consistently than the control robot. No significant between-condition differences were found in system acceptance, intrinsic motivation, or learning effectiveness, although exploratory analyses suggested a positive effect of KBD on objective learning gains when accounting for learner preferences. Overall, the study offered an initial implementation and preliminary evaluation of KBD for GSR tutoring, indicating that KBD can shape responsible robot behavior and potentially increase learning effectiveness in robot-supported learning.

Large language model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to security risks, such as prompt injection attacks from untrusted context that manipulate downstream reasoning and tool use. Existing secure-by-design approaches mitigate this risk by separating untrusted observations from privileged execution and careful control of information flow, but often degrade utility and require extensive task-specific engineering. We thus propose Twin Agent, a general privilege separation design pattern inspired by residual coding in the agent context. Twin Agent consists of two nearly symmetric agents: an Explore Agent that inspects untrusted information and a Safe Agent that executes privileged actions. The Explore Agent is conditioned on the Safe Agent's current context and communicates only compact hints to the Safe Agent about the next action to take. This design reduces the information needed to preserve task utility and thus achieves a better security--utility tradeoff, which we empirically verify by measuring how utility and attack success change as the length of hints varies. We evaluate Twin Agent on long-horizon software engineering tasks with SWE-bench Lite and on heterogeneous multi-tool interaction tasks with AgentDojo and DecodingTrust-Agent. Across both benchmarks, Twin Agent preserves high task utility while preventing prompt injection attacks, outperforming both undefended agents and privilege separation baselines.

Modern software teams have mature tools for low-level testing, such as pytest, JUnit, and Jest, which make it inexpensive to write unit tests and run them on every commit. Systems engineering, in parallel, has developed rigorous principles for design verification and validation (V&V), which has worked very well across engineering discipline to align user expecations and requirements with developers' deliverables. In practice, however, the two rarely connect, and the link between users' high-level requirements and the low-level tests that machines actually run is maintained by hand, if at all. This gap is increasingly costly for AI-enabled and cyber-physical systems, for which regulators now ask for traceable evidence that high-level requirements are met, while raw test results provide little of the structure such evidence requires. We introduce VNVSpec, an open-source framework that makes V&V specifications machine-readable and executable. With this framework, users state high-level requirements directly or import them from catalogs derived from published standards. Then, the framework checks requirement quality, supports decomposition into module-level requirements with explicit metrics and acceptance criteria, links these requirements to test results through a traceability graph, and compiles the collected evidence into verdicts and audit-ready reports. We evaluate the framework by self-application, in which it is continuously assessed in CI against its own specification of 36 requirements verified by 449 tests, completed within limited time which scales linearly and thus can handle up to 10,000 requirements. We also discuss how the framework extends to testing black-box AI models and AI coding agents. The framework, its full test suite, the catalogs, and the benchmark scripts are available at https://github.com/ai-vnv/vnvspec.

Agentic AI systems do not just predict or recommend; they plan, maintain state, and act in external environments with varying degrees of autonomy. This changes the requirements engineering problem in a specific and under-addressed way: it introduces what we call the delegated-autonomy boundary -- the set of decisions about what may be delegated to the system, under what graduated authority, with what oversight, and how control is returned. Current practices bury these decisions inside prompts, tool schemas, and runtime policies, even though they are requirements-level commitments. This paper proposes two complementary artifacts. First, an Agency Justification Record (AJR) helps teams decide when an agent is warranted over simpler alternatives. Second, an Agentic Delegation Policy (ADP) captures what must be specified for safe and effective development: purpose, authority, information, coordination, assurance, and evolution. Crucially, authority in the ADP is modelled as graduated, i.e., a tiered structure. We illustrate the framework with two contrasting examples: a safety-critical hospital discharge coordination agent and an automated code review agent.

Explainability has emerged as a critical requirement for AI-based systems, particularly in safety-critical and regulated domains. Although prior research has proposed frameworks, patterns, and user-centered approaches to support explainability, there is limited empirical understanding of how existing Requirements Engineering (RE) practices support explainability requirements across the RE lifecycle, especially in an industrial context. This paper reports early findings from an ongoing industry-based study investigating how explainability requirements are elicited, specified, and validated using established RE techniques. We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study with eight practitioners at Daimler Truck, employing think-aloud protocols and moderated group discussions across requirements elicitation, specification, and validation steps. Our preliminary analysis reveals recurring challenges across all steps, including conceptual ambiguity during elicitation, limited testability and expressiveness during specification, and fragmented validation due to vague criteria and regulatory uncertainty. These findings indicate that current RE practices provide limited support to systematically address explainability requirements. The paper contributes empirical insights into step-specific and cross-cutting challenges and outlines a research vision toward developing an empirically grounded RE framework for explainable AI-based systems.

Ensuring software compliance with regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) poses a significant challenge, as requirements engineers must translate complex legal text into actionable software requirements - a process that remains largely manual and error-prone in practice. We present an automated regulation-to-requirements pipeline that identifies requirement-bearing clauses in regulatory documents and derives system-agnostic software requirements, accompanied by plain-language explanations, traceable to their legal sources. We evaluate the pipeline on the full clause sets of the GDPR (398 clauses) and the EU AI Act (574 clauses). For requirement-bearing clause identification, the approach achieves macro-averaged F1 scores of 0.82 and 0.78, respectively, outperforming a SetFit-based baseline. Human evaluation shows high completeness (4.60 and 4.45) and correctness (3.74 and 3.54) of derived requirements, while explanation clarity scores are near-ceiling (4.92 and 4.94) on a 1-5 scale. We implement the approach in Reg2Req, a publicly released tool that further supports requirement classification, use case seeding, cross-reference analysis, definition indexing, and a traceability matrix to operationalize regulatory compliance in practice. A user study with 25 practitioners shows that the plain-language explanations significantly improve comprehension of derived requirements and confidence in acting on them (p < 0.001), and that all participants would use Reg2Req as a starting point for deriving software requirements from a regulation.

Organisations designing, developing, and deploying machine learning systems (MLS) need to be able to check that these systems are trustworthy, and communicate this clearly to their stakeholders, be they different categories of users, engineers, or wider society. By focusing on stakeholders, Requirements Engineering is well positioned to drive the design and engineering of MLS that align with the needs of their stakeholders. Yet, we still need a systematic process for modelling and reasoning about requirements for MLS that is driven both by stakeholders' needs and constraints for MLS development. This paper proposes a framework entitled REAL (Requirements Engineering for mAchines that Learn - and Fail) to help develop MLS that align with stakeholders' needs by adopting a requirements engineering approach. This model-based framework is based on three principles. First, weaving together requirements for data, models, and the system as a whole. Second, using failure to drive the exploration of alternative requirements. Third, iterative and traceable refinement of MLS requirements. We demonstrate the proposed framework using an example from autonomous driving and show that REAL supports the development of MLS that better align with stakeholders' requirements. A replication package is available online.

Virtual training environments are software-intensive systems in which reinforcement learning (RL) agents learn, adapt, and demonstrate meaningful behavior. Virtual training environments offer a safe and cost-efficient alternative to training agents in real-world settings. However, to converge, most realistic RL problems require training in multiple, mostly similar but slightly different environments - i.e., families of environment variants. The typical development process of environment families is a labor-intensive and error-prone manual endeavor that does not scale well. To alleviate these issues, in this paper, we propose a model-driven approach for developing families of RL training environments. To obtain the family of environments, we develop an approach and prototype tool. In our approach, a hybrid genetic algorithm - a combination of population-based global search and heuristic local search - generates environment families. Mutations and constraints are expressed as model transformations and are operationalized into a search process by a state-of-the-art model transformation engine. We demonstrate the soundness of our approach in a wildfire mitigation scenario and curriculum learning - a particular learning paradigm that relies on environment families.

Generating test specifications that satisfy Automotive SPICE SWE.6 requirements becomes increasingly challenging and time-consuming as projects scale to thousands of requirements. Because this manual process often consumes weeks of engineering effort, automation becomes a critical necessity. However, standard Large Language Model (LLM) approaches struggle at scale: processing requirements individually discards vital inter-requirement dependencies, while feeding entire corpora at once exceeds context-window limits, leading to incomplete integration coverage and redundant test cases. This paper presents a novel "Cluster-then-Summarize" pipeline that addresses these limitations through three-stages. Requirements are embedded using sentence transformers and grouped using UMAP dimensionality reduction followed by HDBSCAN density-based clustering. This grouping utilizes an automatic minimum cluster size selection driven by a quality criterion combining normalized Silhouette and Calinski-Harabasz scores. A multi-level map-reduce summarization algorithm then distills each cluster into concise, domain-conformant descriptions while preserving quantitative thresholds and safety integrity levels. The pipeline exploits the derived cluster topology to generate test specifications at two levels: individual requirement verification and cluster-level integration tests that verify cross-requirement feature behavior. A nearby-cluster context mechanism provides bounded cross-feature awareness during each LLM call, and Retrieval-Augmented Generation grounds all outputs in ISO 26262 and ASPICE standards. Evaluation on automotive requirement datasets of varying scale demonstrates that the cluster-aware approach improves integration test coverage and maintains summarization fidelity compared to baseline methods while scaling efficiently to thousands of requirements.

Building Information Modeling (BIM) projects require information requirements to be described as machine-checkable Information Delivery Specification (IDS) files in order to verify whether building models contain the required attributes. However, IDS authoring remains a practical bottleneck: practitioners must handle domain vocabulary, strict XML schema constraints, and external validator conformance while also checking whether the requirement itself is correctly expressed. We present Ishigaki-IDS, an open-weight LLM specialized for verifier-aware IDS draft generation. The model combines continued pretraining on BIM/IDS corpora, supervised fine-tuning on information-requirement-to-IDS pairs, and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards from an external validator. The goal is not to replace expert review, but to move IDS authoring from low-level XML and schema repair toward validator-loadable drafts that practitioners can inspect and correct. On the 166-case expert-created Ishigaki-IDS-Bench, Ishigaki-IDS-8B achieves an IDSAuditPass score of 0.651, a validator-pass metric for generated IDS files, substantially outperforming Claude Opus 4.5, the strongest single-shot LLM baseline we evaluated, at 0.331. It also obtains an Audit-Gated FacetF1 of 0.282, which measures requirement-facet alignment among validator-passing drafts. The same recipe scales: 14B and 32B variants reach IDSAuditPass 0.753 / 0.693 and Audit-Gated FacetF1 0.392 / 0.369. In a workflow check with six BIM practitioners, Ishigaki-assisted authoring reduced aggregate work time by 54.7% under the same validation and alignment endpoint. These results suggest that verifier-aware IDS generation can reduce the practical burden of converting BIM information requirements into reviewable IDS drafts.

This study investigates how UX research (UXR) principles, combined with Large Language Model (LLM)-supported analysis, can be used to improve the quality of requirements for mobile learning systems designed for learners with cognitive disabilities. Using the UXR Point-of-View (PoV) pyramid as a methodological framework, the study progressed through four stages: foundational structuring of psychological, behavioral, and design layers; structured validation using the DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model and Quality Function Deployment (QFD); insight consolidation through the development of nine Cognitive Accessibility UXR Play Cards; and stakeholder-specific PoV articulation to support interdisciplinary communication. LLM-supported synthesis was integrated to assist in theme clustering, requirement refinement, and hypothesis formulation under human oversight. Findings suggest that many usability and engagement challenges in mobile learning originate from ambiguous or under-specified requirements rather than interface design alone. By embedding cognitive accessibility principles into measurable and technically traceable requirements, the proposed Cognitive Accessibility UXR Playbook provides a structured pathway for aligning theory, system architecture, and stakeholder strategy.

Problem formulation translating customer needs and constraints into a minimum set of independent first-level functional requirements, is arguably the most critical step in every design framework, including axiomatic design yet it is frequently misunderstood or underestimated in practice. This paper focuses exclusively on problem formulation in axiomatic design it clarifies what first-level FRs are (and are not), explains why they should not legitimately vary across designers given the same needs and constraints, and highlights intrinsic difficulties and recurring pitfalls that lead to design failure. The discussion is grounded primarily in Nam P.Suh's three books. The Principles of Design, Axiomatic Design Advances and Applications, and Complexity Theory, and it offers practical guidance to help designers formulate well-posed first-level FRs. Finally, the paper briefly revisits problem formulation in the era of large language models and discusses what such tools can (and cannot) contribute at the first level.

This paper presents the ReXCL tool, which automates the extraction and classification processes in requirements engineering, enhancing the software development life-cycle. The tool features two main modules: Extraction, which processes raw requirement documents into a predefined schema using heuristics and predictive modeling, and Classification, which assigns class labels to requirements using adaptive fine-tuning of encoder-based models. The final output can be exported to external requirement engineering tools. Performance evaluations indicate that ReXCL significantly improves efficiency and accuracy in managing requirements, marking a novel approach to automating the schematization of semi-structured requirement documents.

Natural language interfaces to structured databases are becoming increasingly common, largely due to advances in large language models (LLMs) that enable users to query data using conversational input rather than formal query languages such as SQL. While this paradigm significantly improves usability and accessibility, it introduces new security risks, particularly the amplification of SQL injection vulnerabilities through the prompt-to-SQL translation process. Malicious users can exploit these mechanisms by crafting adversarial prompts that manipulate model behavior and generate unsafe queries. In this work, we propose a multi-layered security framework designed to detect and mitigate LLM-mediated SQL injection attacks. The framework integrates a front-end security shield for prompt sanitization, an advanced threat detection model for behavioral and semantic anomaly identification, and a signature-based control layer for known attack patterns. We evaluate the proposed framework under diverse and realistic attack scenarios, including prompt injection, obfuscated SQL payloads, and context-manipulation attacks. To ensure robustness, we generate and curate a comprehensive benchmark dataset of adversarial prompts and assess performance across a fine-tuned LLM configuration. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves high detection accuracy while maintaining low false-positive rates, significantly improving the secure deployment of LLM-powered database applications.

The Object-Oriented Method for Requirements Authoring and Management (OOMRAM) is a requirements reuse framework that relies on exact identifier matching and rigid templates, limiting its ability to adapt specifications across diverse contexts. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer the flexibility to overcome this bottleneck, they introduce the risk of generating structurally invalid or inconsistent requirement combinations. To address this tension, we present a neuro-symbolic multi-agent system that re-conceptualizes requirements reuse as a Model-Driven Elicitation process. In this paradigm, an LLM serves as a non-deterministic heuristic for traversing a deterministic domain model represented by a formal OOMRAM requirement lattice. A deterministic, symbolic validator enforces all structural constraints within the agent loop, effectively eliminating hallucinated requirement combinations by construction. Evaluated on an autonomous benchmark across two application families, our system achieves 100% requirement coverage and a constraint-violation rate of only 0.2%. Although the F1-score against a single gold standard is moderate (0.47-0.51), every generated specification is structurally valid and satisfies all mandatory domain requirements. The model-agnostic implementation scales to larger lattices via subgraph navigation and provides transparent audit trails for regulatory compliance.

Due to the textual and repetitive nature of many Requirements Engineering (RE) artefacts, Large Language Models (LLMs) have proven useful to automate their generation and processing. In this paper, we discuss a possible approach for automating the Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering (GORE) process by extracting functional goals from software documentation through three phases: actor identification, high and low-level goal extraction. To implement these functionalities, we propose a chain of LLMs fed with engineered prompts. We experimented with different variants of in-context learning and measured the similarities between input data and in-context examples to better investigate their impact. Another key element is the generation-critic mechanism, implemented as a feedback loop involving two LLMs. Although the pipeline achieved 61% accuracy in low-level goal identification, the final stage, these results indicate the approach is best suited as a tool to accelerate manual extraction rather than as a full replacement. The feedback-loop mechanism with Zero-shot outperformed stand-alone Few-shot, with an ablation study suggesting that performance slightly degrades without the feedback cycle. However, we reported that the combination of the feedback mechanism with Few-shot does not deliver any advantage, possibly suggesting that the primary performance ceiling is the prompting strategy applied to the 'critic' LLM. Together with the refinement of both the quantity and quality of the Shot examples, future research will integrate Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to improve accuracy.

Machine Learning (ML) Engineering is a growing field that necessitates an increase in the rigor of ML development. It draws many ideas from software engineering and more specifically, from requirements engineering. Existing literature on ML Engineering defines quality models and Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) specific to ML, in particular interpretability being one such NFR. However, a major challenge occurs in verifying ML NFRs, including interpretability. Although existing literature defines interpretability in terms of ML, it remains an immeasurable requirement, making it impossible to definitively confirm whether a model meets its interpretability requirement. This paper shows how ML provenance can be used to verify ML interpretability requirements. This work provides an approach for how ML engineers can save various types of model and data provenance to make the model's behavior transparent and interpretable. Saving this data forms the basis of quantifiable Functional Requirements (FRs) whose verification in turn verifies the interpretability NFR. Ultimately, this paper contributes a method to verify interpretability NFRs for ML models.

Since software performance requirements are documented in natural language, quantifying them into mathematical forms is essential for software engineering. Yet, the vagueness in performance requirements and uncertainty of human cognition have caused highly uncertain ambiguity in the interpretations, rendering their automated quantification an unaddressed and challenging problem. In this paper, we formalize the problem and propose IRAP, an approach that quantifies performance requirements into mathematical functions via interactive retrieval-augmented preference elicitation. IRAP differs from the others in that it explicitly derives from problem-specific knowledge to retrieve and reason the preferences, which also guides the progressive interaction with stakeholders, while reducing the cognitive overhead. Experiment results against 10 state-of-the-art methods on four real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of IRAP on all cases with up to 40x improvements under as few as five rounds of interactions.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Agentic AI become increasingly integrated across sectors such as education and healthcare, it is critical to ensure that Multi-Agent Education System (MAES) is explainable from the early stages of requirements engineering (RE) within the AI software development lifecycle. Explainability is essential to build trust, promote transparency, and enable effective human-AI collaboration. Although personas are well-established in human-computer interaction to represent users and capture their needs and behaviors, their role in RE for explainable MAES remains underexplored. This paper proposes a human-first, persona-driven, explainable MAES RE framework and demonstrates the framework through a MAES for clinical reasoning training. The framework integrates personas and user stories throughout the RE process to capture the needs, goals, and interactions of various stakeholders, including medical educators, medical students, AI patient agent, and clinical agents (physical exam agent, diagnostic agent, clinical intervention agent, supervisor agent, evaluation agent). The goals, underlying models, and knowledge base shape agent interactions and inform explainability requirements that guided the clinical reasoning training of medical students. A post-usage survey found that more than 78% of medical students reported that MAES improved their clinical reasoning skills. These findings demonstrate that RE based on persona effectively connects technical requirements with non-technical medical students from a human-centered approach, ensuring that explainable MAES are trustworthy, interpretable, and aligned with authentic clinical scenarios from the early stages of the AI system engineering. The partial MAES for the clinical scenario simulator is~\href{https://github.com/2sigmaEdTech/MAS/}{open sourced here}.

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.