Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Elicitron: An LLM Agent-Based Simulation Framework for Design Requirements Elicitation

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 2404.16045 v1 pith:ONNH7VSU submitted 2024-04-04 cs.HC cs.AIcs.MA

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.MA
keywords needsuserframeworkinterviewsagentagentselicitationlatent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Requirements elicitation, a critical, yet time-consuming and challenging step in product development, often fails to capture the full spectrum of user needs. This may lead to products that fall short of expectations. This paper introduces a novel framework that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate and enhance the requirements elicitation process. LLMs are used to generate a vast array of simulated users (LLM agents), enabling the exploration of a much broader range of user needs and unforeseen use cases. These agents engage in product experience scenarios, through explaining their actions, observations, and challenges. Subsequent agent interviews and analysis uncover valuable user needs, including latent ones. We validate our framework with three experiments. First, we explore different methodologies for diverse agent generation, discussing their advantages and shortcomings. We measure the diversity of identified user needs and demonstrate that context-aware agent generation leads to greater diversity. Second, we show how our framework effectively mimics empathic lead user interviews, identifying a greater number of latent needs than conventional human interviews. Third, we showcase that LLMs can be used to analyze interviews, capture needs, and classify them as latent or not. Our work highlights the potential of using LLM agents to accelerate early-stage product development, reduce costs, and increase innovation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. iReDev: A Knowledge-Driven Multi-Agent Framework for Intelligent Requirements Development

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A knowledge-driven, event-triggered multi-agent framework called iReDev generates software requirements artifacts that outperform zero-shot prompting, MetaGPT, and Elicitron on ten small projects.

  2. Requirements Elicitation Follow-Up Question Generation

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GPT-4o-generated follow-up questions are rated equal to human questions when minimally guided, and better when guided by a 14-type interviewer mistake framework.

  3. Requirements Development and Formalization for Reliable Code Generation: A Multi-Agent Vision

    cs.SE 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper proposes ReDeFo, a multi-agent pipeline that uses formal specifications and verification to generate reliable code from natural language requirements.

  4. "If we misunderstand the client, we misspend 100 hours": Exploring conversational AI and response types for information elicitation

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a 2x2 experiment with 50 mock clients, conversational AI and choice-based responses improved response clarity but lowered perceived dependability of an elicitation tool.

  5. REConnect: Participatory RE for Social Sustainability

    cs.SE 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    REConnect is a participatory requirements engineering framework, drawn from three community projects, that makes trust, co-design, and user empowerment the core of requirements work and assigns humans defined governan...

  6. Can LLMs Generate User Stories and Assess Their Quality?

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LLMs generate user stories with human-like coverage and style but lower diversity, and they assess semantic quality well when given explicit codebook criteria, though human oversight is still needed.

Pith tools