Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Requirements Engineering for Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Systematic Mapping Study

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2212.10693 v1 pith:4LBANCIU submitted 2022-12-20 cs.SE

Requirements Engineering for Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Systematic Mapping Study

classification cs.SE
keywords requirementsre4aiexistingsystemschallengescurrenttechniquestools
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

[Context] In traditional software systems, Requirements Engineering (RE) activities are well-established and researched. However, building Artificial Intelligence (AI) based software with limited or no insight into the system's inner workings poses significant new challenges to RE. Existing literature has focused on using AI to manage RE activities, with limited research on RE for AI (RE4AI). [Objective] This paper investigates current approaches for specifying requirements for AI systems, identifies available frameworks, methodologies, tools, and techniques used to model requirements, and finds existing challenges and limitations. [Method] We performed a systematic mapping study to find papers on current RE4AI approaches. We identified 43 primary studies and analysed the existing methodologies, models, tools, and techniques used to specify and model requirements in real-world scenarios. [Results] We found several challenges and limitations of existing RE4AI practices. The findings highlighted that current RE applications were not adequately adaptable for building AI systems and emphasised the need to provide new techniques and tools to support RE4AI. [Conclusion] Our results showed that most of the empirical studies on RE4AI focused on autonomous, self-driving vehicles and managing data requirements, and areas such as ethics, trust, and explainability need further research.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. From Business Problems to AI Solutions: Where Does Transformation Support Fail

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A literature review of 18 transformation approaches reveals that none provide systematic guidance for deriving machine learning task specifications from business problems, creating the Analytics Translation Problem.