Requirements Engineering

We introduce fidelity probes: natural-language questions generated from a reference artifact with code-derived ground-truth answers, answered from a candidate specification. The fraction of agreeing probes, which we call the fidelity, decomposes into contradiction and coverage-gap rates that drive targeted spec edits to convergence. On a 15-program, roughly 12k-line COBOL benchmark (AWS CardDemo), we raise frozen-test specification fidelity from 0.63 to 0.94 over eight iterations, with the plateau location predicted by a two-state Markov fixed point $F^\dagger$ from just four iterations of rate data. Probes come from an LLM reading the code or from a static-analysis pipeline over its control-flow, data-flow, and system-dependence graphs, with a tunable mixture. A probe-resampling protocol with a frozen held-out set gives a Hoeffding-bounded overfitting discriminant; our measured train/test gap stays more than an order of magnitude below this envelope. Three graph-grounded mixtures lift fidelity by +16 to +30 points; cross-distribution evaluation shows the LLM and symbolic channels are empirically complementary. A cross-family generator sweep on five independent LLM lineages (Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google, Alibaba, OpenAI) confirms the convergence behaviour is not tied to any single model family: three of five non-Claude generators produce trajectories consistent with the Markov fixed-point prediction, and the frozen-test protocol actively falsifies the two generators whose probe distributions drift across iterations. The method applies to any pair of artifacts that are supposed to describe the same behaviour.

Natural-language software requirements are often ambiguous, inconsistent, and underspecified; in safety-critical domains, these defects propagate into formal models that verify the wrong specification and into implementations that ship unsafe behavior. We show that large language models, equipped with an SMT solver, can audit such requirements: translating them into formal logic, detecting ambiguity through stochastic variation in the generated formalization, and exposing inconsistency, vacuousness, and safety violations through solver queries on the resulting specification. We present VERIMED, a neurosymbolic pipeline that operationalizes this idea for medical-device software requirements, and report two findings. First, stochastic variation across independent formalizations is a signal of ambiguity: requirements that admit multiple plausible interpretations produce SMT-inequivalent formalizations, and bidirectional SMT equivalence checking turns this disagreement into a solver-checkable test. Second, the usefulness of symbolic feedback depends on its granularity: in counterexample-guided repair on a hemodialysis question-answering benchmark, concrete SMT counterexamples raise verified accuracy from 55.4% to 98.5%. Over an extensive experimental evaluation on open-source hemodialysis safety requirements, we show that the LLM-based approach in VERIMED successfully reduces ambiguity-sensitive requirements and enables rigorous auditing of software requirements through SMT-based queries.

Today's agents are highly effective at implementing well-scoped software design plans, but user intent is often vague and admits multiple equally valid solutions. In this paper, we introduce SpecBench, a new benchmark for evaluating an agent's ability to translate user intent into a structured, executable specification that aligns with user preferences. The agent is given access to past user conversations and may interact with the user for a fixed number of rounds to ask clarifying questions. We find that existing agents exhibit two extreme behaviors: they either (i) struggle to collaborate proactively with users, entering implementation mode too quickly while overestimating their understanding of user preferences, or (ii) exhaust their question budget by asking about every ambiguous design choice. To address this limitation, we introduce a user-assistant agent: Buddy. It follows a workflow inspired by classical morphological analysis, decomposing user intent into a structured space of design dimensions and candidate choices. It then creates simulated users to evaluate these choices, before engaging the real user to resolve remaining ambiguities and finalize the specification. By shifting the focus from execution to specification, SpecBench and Buddy emphasize agent-user collaboration (not just code generation) as a key frontier in future agent design.

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.

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.

As software systems grow in complexity, they must satisfy an increasing number of competing quality attributes, making it essential to balance them in a principled manner -- for example, a safety requirement for sensor-fusion verification may conflict with a tight planning-cycle budget. Multi-agent large language model frameworks support this balancing process by assigning specialized agents to different objectives. However, their conflict resolution is typically heuristic. Requirements are aggregated implicitly without explicit acceptance or rejection, limiting auditability in regulated domains. We present ArgRE, a multi-agent requirements negotiation system that embeds Dung-style abstract argumentation into the negotiation stage. Each proposal, critique, and refinement is modeled as an argument, conflicts are represented as directed attack relations, and the accepted set of arguments is computed under grounded and preferred semantics. The pipeline further integrates KAOS goal modeling, multi-layer verification, and standards-oriented artifact generation. Evaluation across five case studies spanning safety-critical, financial, and information-system domains shows that ArgRE provides argument-level traceability absent from existing frameworks. Independent evaluators rated its decision justifications significantly higher than those of heuristic synthesis (4.32 vs. 3.07, p < 0.001), indicating improved auditability, while semantic intent preservation remains comparable (94.9% BERTScore F1) and compliance coverage reaches 84.7% versus 47.6%--47.8% for baselines. Structural analysis further confirms that the default pairwise protocol yields acyclic graphs in which grounded and preferred semantics coincide, whereas cross-pair arbitration introduces controlled cyclicity, leading to predictable divergence between the two semantics.

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.

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.

AI governance programmes increasingly rely on natural language prompts to constrain and direct AI agent behaviour. These prompts function as executable specifications: they define the agent's mandate, scope, and quality criteria. Despite this role, no systematic framework exists for evaluating whether a governance prompt is structurally complete. We introduce a five-principle evaluation framework grounded in computability theory, proof theory, and Bayesian epistemology, and apply it to an empirical corpus of 34 publicly available AGENTS.md governance files sourced from GitHub. Our evaluation reveals that 37% of evaluated file-model pairs score below the structural completeness threshold, with data classification and assessment rubric criteria most frequently absent. These results suggest that practitioner-authored governance prompts exhibit consistent structural patterns that automated static analysis could detect and remediate. We discuss implications for requirements engineering practice in AI-assisted development contexts, identify a previously undocumented artefact classification gap in the AGENTS.md convention, and propose directions for tool support.

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~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.

Competency question (CQ) elicitation represents a critical but resource-intensive bottleneck in ontology engineering. This foundational phase is often hampered by the communication gap between domain experts, who possess the necessary knowledge, and ontology engineers, who formalise it. This paper introduces IDEA2, a novel, semi-automated workflow that integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) within a collaborative, expert-in-the-loop process to address this challenge. The methodology is characterised by a core iterative loop: an initial LLM-based extraction of CQs from requirement documents, a co-creational review and feedback phase by domain experts on an accessible collaborative platform, and an iterative, feedback-driven reformulation of rejected CQs by an LLM until consensus is achieved. To ensure transparency and reproducibility, the entire lifecycle of each CQ is tracked using a provenance model that captures the full lineage of edits, anonymised feedback, and generation parameters. The workflow was validated in 2 real-world scenarios (scientific data, cultural heritage), demonstrating that IDEA2 can accelerate the requirements engineering process, improve the acceptance and relevance of the resulting CQs, and exhibit high usability and effectiveness among domain experts. We release all code and experiments at https://github.com/KE-UniLiv/IDEA2

Requirements engineering for aged-care digital health must account for human aspects, because requirement priorities are shaped not only by technical functionality but also by stakeholders' health conditions, socioeconomics, and lived experience. Knowing which human aspects matter most, and for whom, is critical for inclusive and evidence-based requirements prioritisation. Yet in practice, while some studies have examined human aspects in RE, they have largely relied on expert judgement or model-driven analysis rather than large-scale user studies with meaningful human-in-the-loop validation to determine which aspects matter most and why. To address this gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study with 103 older adults, 105 developers, and 41 caregivers. We first applied an explainable machine learning to identify the human aspects most strongly associated with requirement priorities across 8 aged-care digital health themes, and then conducted 12 semi-structured interviews to validate and interpret the quantitative patterns. The results identify the key human aspects shaping requirement priorities, reveal their directional effects, and expose substantial misalignment across stakeholder groups. Together, these findings show that human-centric requirements analysis should engage stakeholder groups explicitly rather than collapsing their perspectives into a single aggregate view. This paper contributes an identification of the key human aspects driving requirement priorities in aged-care digital health and an explainable, human-centric RE framework that combines ML-derived importance rankings with qualitative validation to surface the stakeholder misalignments that inclusive requirements engineering must address.

App store reviews provide a constant flow of real user feedback that can help improve software requirements. However, these reviews are often messy, informal, and difficult to analyze manually at scale. Although automated techniques exist, many do not perform well when replicated and often fail to produce clean, backlog-ready user stories for agile projects. In this study, we evaluate how well large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 Turbo, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and Mistral 7B Instruct can generate usable user stories directly from raw app reviews. Using the Mini-BAR dataset of 1,000+ health app reviews, we tested zero-shot, one-shot, and two-shot prompting methods. We evaluated the generated user stories using both human judgment (via the RUST framework) and a RoBERTa classifier fine-tuned on UStAI to assess their overall quality. Our results show that LLMs can match or even outperform humans in writing fluent, well-formatted user stories, especially when few-shot prompts are used. However, they still struggle to produce independent and unique user stories, which are essential for building a strong agile backlog. Overall, our findings show how LLMs can reliably turn unstructured app reviews into actionable software requirements, providing developers with clear guidance to turn user feedback into meaningful improvements.

Requirements engineering is a vital, yet labor-intensive, stage in the software development process. This article introduces ReqFusion: an AI-enhanced system that automates the extraction, classification, and analysis of software requirements utilizing multiple Large Language Model (LLM) providers. The architecture of ReqFusion integrates OpenAI GPT, Anthropic Claude, and Groq models to extract functional and non-functional requirements from various documentation formats (PDF, DOCX, and PPTX) in academic, industrial, and tender proposal contexts. The system uses a domain-independent extraction method and generates requirements following the Project, Environment, Goal, and System (PEGS) approach introduced by Bertrand Meyer. The main idea is that, because the PEGS format is detailed, LLMs have more information and cues about the requirements, producing better results than a simple generic request. An ablation study confirms this hypothesis: PEGS-guided prompting achieves an F1 score of 0.88, compared to 0.71 for generic prompting under the same multi-provider configuration. The evaluation used 18 real-world documents to generate 226 requirements through automated classification, with 54.9% functional and 45.1% nonfunctional across academic, business, and technical domains. An extended evaluation on five projects with 1,050 requirements demonstrated significant improvements in extraction accuracy and a 78% reduction in analysis time compared to manual methods. The multi-provider architecture enhances reliability through model consensus and fallback mechanisms, while the PEGS-based approach ensures comprehensive coverage of all requirement categories.

Requirements engineering in Industry 4.0 faces critical challenges with heterogeneous, unstructured documentation spanning technical specifications, supplier lists, and compliance standards. While retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) shows promise for knowledge-intensive tasks, no prior work has evaluated RAG on authentic industrial RE workflows using comprehensive production-grade performance metrics. This paper presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation of RAG for industrial requirements engineering automation using authentic automotive manufacturing documentation comprising 669 requirements across four specification standards (MBN 9666-1, MBN 9666-2, BQF 9666-5, MBN 9666-9) spanning 2015-2023, plus 49 supplier qualifications with extensive supporting documentation. Through controlled comparisons with BERT-based and ungrounded LLM approaches, the framework achieves 98.2% extraction accuracy with complete traceability, outperforming baselines by 24.4% and 19.6%, respectively. Hybrid semantic-lexical retrieval achieves MRR of 0.847. Expert quality assessment averaged 4.32/5.0 across five dimensions. The evaluation demonstrates 83% reduction in manual analysis time and 47% cost savings through multi-provider LLM orchestration. Ablation studies quantify individual component contributions. Longitudinal analysis reveals a 55% reduction in requirement volume coupled with 1,800% increase in IT security focus, identifying 10 legacy suppliers (20.4%) requiring requalification, representing potential $2.3M in avoided contract penalties.

Agentic AI systems exhibit numerous crosscutting concerns -- security, observability, cost management, fault tolerance -- that are poorly modularized in current implementations, contributing to the high failure rate of AI projects in reaching production. The goals-to-aspects methodology proposed at RE 2004 demonstrated that aspects can be systematically discovered from i* goal models by identifying non-functional soft-goals that crosscut functional goals. This paper revisits and extends that methodology to the agentic AI domain. We present a pattern language of 12 reusable patterns organized across four NFR categories (security, reliability, observability, cost management), each mapping an i* goal model to a concrete aspect implementation using an AOP framework for Rust. Four patterns address agent-specific crosscutting concerns absent from traditional AOP literature: tool-scope sandboxing, prompt injection detection, token budget management, and action audit trails. We extend the V-graph model to capture how agent tasks simultaneously contribute to functional goals and non-functional soft-goals. We validate the pattern language through a case study analyzing an open-source autonomous agent framework, demonstrating how goal-driven aspect discovery systematically identifies and modularizes crosscutting concerns. The pattern language offers a principled approach for engineering reliable agentic AI systems through early identification of crosscutting concerns.

Requirements are inherently interconnected through various types of dependencies. Identifying these dependencies is essential, as they underpin critical decisions and influence a range of activities throughout software development. However, this task is challenging, particularly in modern software systems, given the high volume of complex, coupled requirements. These challenges are further exacerbated by the ambiguity of Natural Language (NL) requirements and their constant change. Consequently, requirement dependency detection is often overlooked or performed manually. Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong capabilities in NL processing, presenting a promising avenue for requirement-related tasks. While they have shown to enhance various requirements engineering tasks, their effectiveness in identifying requirement dependencies remains unexplored. In this paper, we introduce LEREDD, an LLM-based approach for automated detection of requirement dependencies that leverages Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and In-Context Learning (ICL). It is designed to identify diverse dependency types directly from NL requirements. We empirically evaluate LEREDD against two state-of-the-art baselines. The results show that LEREDD provides highly accurate classification of dependent and non-dependent requirements, achieving an accuracy of 0.93, and an F1 score of 0.84, with the latter averaging 0.96 for non-dependent cases. LEREDD outperforms zero-shot LLMs and baselines, particularly in detecting fine-grained dependency types, where it yields average relative gains of 94.87% and 105.41% in F1 scores for the Requires dependency over the baselines. We also provide an annotated dataset of requirement dependencies encompassing 813 requirement pairs across three distinct systems to support reproducibility and future research.

The adoption of large language models in safety-critical system engineering is constrained by trustworthiness, traceability, and alignment with established verification practices. We propose workflow-level design principles for trustworthy GenAI integration and demonstrate them in an end-to-end automotive pipeline, from requirement delta identification to SysML v2 architecture update and re-testing. First, we show that monolithic ("big-bang") prompting misses critical changes in large specifications, while section-wise decomposition with diversity sampling and lightweight NLP sanity checks improves completeness and correctness. Then, we propagate requirement deltas into SysML v2 models and validate updates via compilation and static analysis. Additionally, we ensure traceable regression testing by generating test cases through explicit mappings from specification variables to architectural ports and states, providing practical safeguards for GenAI used in safety-critical automotive engineering.

User stories are one of the most widely used artifacts in the software industry to define functional requirements. In parallel, the use of high-fidelity mockups facilitates end-user participation in defining their needs. In this work, we explore how combining these techniques with large language models (LLMs) enables agile and automated generation of user stories from mockups. To this end, we present a case study that analyzes the ability of LLMs to extract user stories from high-fidelity mockups, both with and without the inclusion of a glossary of the Language Extended Lexicon (LEL) in the prompts. Our results demonstrate that incorporating the LEL significantly enhances the accuracy and suitability of the generated user stories. This approach represents a step forward in the integration of AI into requirements engineering, with the potential to improve communication between users and developers.