Haowei Cheng

Haowei Cheng, Jati H. Husen, Yijun Lu et al.

Introduction: Requirements engineering faces challenges due to the handling of increasingly complex software systems. These challenges can be addressed using generative AI. Given that GenAI based RE has not been systematically analyzed in detail, this review examines related research, focusing on trends, methodologies, challenges, and future directions. Methods: A systematic methodology for paper selection, data extraction, and feature analysis is used to comprehensively review 238 articles published from 2019 to 2025 and available from major academic databases. Results: Generative pretrained transformer models dominate current applications (67.3%), but research remains unevenly distributed across RE phases, with analysis (30.0%) and elicitation (22.1%) receiving the most attention, and management (6.8%) underexplored. Three core challenges: reproducibility (66.8%), hallucinations (63.4%), and interpretability (57.1%) form a tightly interlinked triad affecting trust and consistency. Strong correlations (35% cooccurrence) indicate these challenges must be addressed holistically. Industrial adoption remains nascent, with over 90% of studies corresponding to early stage development and only 1.3% reaching production level integration. Conclusions: Evaluation practices show maturity gaps, limited tool and dataset availability, and fragmented benchmarking approaches. Despite the transformative potential of GenAI based RE, several barriers hinder practical adoption. The strong correlations among core challenges demand specialized architectures targeting interdependencies rather than isolated solutions. The limited deployment reflects systemic bottlenecks in generalizability, data quality, and scalable evaluation methods. Successful adoption requires coordinated development across technical robustness, methodological maturity, and governance integration.

Haowei Cheng, Milhan Kim, Foutse Khomh et al.

Requirements engineering (RE) is critical to software success, yet automating it remains challenging because multiple, often conflicting quality attributes must be balanced while preserving stakeholder intent. Existing Large-Language-Model (LLM) approaches predominantly rely on monolithic reasoning or implicit aggregation, limiting their ability to systematically surface and resolve cross-quality conflicts. We present QUARE (Quality-Aware Requirements Engineering), a multi-agent framework that formulates requirements analysis as structured negotiation among five quality-specialized agents (Safety, Efficiency, Green, Trustworthiness, and Responsibility), coordinated by a dedicated orchestrator. QUARE introduces a dialectical negotiation protocol that explicitly exposes inter-quality conflicts and resolves them through iterative proposal, critique, and synthesis. Negotiated outcomes are transformed into structurally sound KAOS goal models via topology validation and verified against industry standards through retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). We evaluate QUARE on five case studies drawn from established RE benchmarks (MARE, iReDev) and an industrial autonomous-driving specification, spanning safety-critical, financial, and information-system domains. Results show that QUARE achieves 98.2% compliance coverage (+105% over both baselines), 94.9% semantic preservation (+2.3 percentage points over the best baseline), and high verifiability (4.96/5.0), while generating 25-43% more requirements than existing multi-agent RE frameworks. These findings suggest that effective RE automation depends less on model scale than on principled architectural decomposition, explicit interaction protocols, and automated verification.

Haowei Cheng, Milhan Kim, Chong Liu et al.

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.