On Developing an Artifact-based Approach to Regulatory Requirements Engineering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00415v1
• Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 09:51:56 GMT
• Title: On Developing an Artifact-based Approach to Regulatory Requirements Engineering
• Authors: Oleksandr Kosenkov, Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Jannik Fischbach, Daniel Mendez, Davide Fucci, Tony Gorschek,
• Abstract summary: Regulatory acts are a challenging source when eliciting, interpreting, and analyzing requirements. No existing approach considers explicating and managing legal domain knowledge and engineering-legal coordination. We introduce the first version of our Artifact Model for Regulatory Requirements Engineering (AM4RRE) and its conceptual foundation.
• Score: 18.256422026527986
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Context: Regulatory acts are a challenging source when eliciting, interpreting, and analyzing requirements. Requirements engineers often need to involve legal experts who, however, may often not be available. This raises the need for approaches to regulatory Requirements Engineering (RE) covering and integrating both legal and engineering perspectives. Problem: Regulatory RE approaches need to capture and reflect both the elementary concepts and relationships from a legal perspective and their seamless transition to concepts used to specify software requirements. No existing approach considers explicating and managing legal domain knowledge and engineering-legal coordination. Method: We conducted focus group sessions with legal researchers to identify the core challenges to establishing a regulatory RE approach. Based on our findings, we developed a candidate solution and conducted a first conceptual validation to assess its feasibility. Results: We introduce the first version of our Artifact Model for Regulatory Requirements Engineering (AM4RRE) and its conceptual foundation. It provides a blueprint for applying legal (modelling) concepts and well-established RE concepts. Our initial results suggest that artifact-centric RE can be applied to managing legal domain knowledge and engineering-legal coordination. Conclusions: The focus groups that served as a basis for building our model and the results from the expert validation both strengthen our confidence that we already provide a valuable basis for systematically integrating legal concepts into RE. This overcomes contemporary challenges to regulatory RE and serves as a basis for exposure to critical discussions in the community before continuing with the development of tool-supported extensions and large-scale empirical evaluations in practice.

Related papers

• On the Trustworthiness of Generative Foundation Models: Guideline, Assessment, and Perspective [314.7991906491166]
  Generative Foundation Models (GenFMs) have emerged as transformative tools. Their widespread adoption raises critical concerns regarding trustworthiness across dimensions. This paper presents a comprehensive framework to address these challenges through three key contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T06:20:36Z)
• LeCoPCR: Legal Concept-guided Prior Case Retrieval for European Court of Human Rights cases [1.3723120574076126]
  We propose LeCoPCR, a novel approach that explicitly generate intents in the form of legal concepts from a given query case facts. We employ a weak supervision approach to extract key legal concepts from the reasoning section using Determinantal Point Process (DPP) to balance quality and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T22:10:00Z)
• A Comprehensive Framework for Reliable Legal AI: Combining Specialized Expert Systems and Adaptive Refinement [0.0]
  Article proposes a novel framework combining expert systems with a knowledge-based architecture to improve the precision and contextual relevance of AI-driven legal services. This framework utilizes specialized modules, each focusing on specific legal areas, and incorporates structured operational guidelines to enhance decision-making. The proposed approach demonstrates significant improvements over existing AI models, showcasing enhanced performance in legal tasks and offering a scalable solution to provide more accessible and affordable legal services.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T14:00:11Z)
• Unlocking the Capabilities of Thought: A Reasoning Boundary Framework to Quantify and Optimize Chain-of-Thought [61.588465852846646]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has emerged as a promising approach for enhancing the performance of large language models (LLMs) In this work, we introduce a novel reasoning boundary framework (RBF) to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T05:26:28Z)
• Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic [7.162465547358201]
  This paper explores how to provide designers with effective explanations for their legally relevant design decisions. We extend the previous system for providing explanations by specifying norms and the key legal or ethical principles for justifying actions in normative contexts. Considering that first-order logic has strong expressive power, in the current paper we adopt a first-order deontic logic system with deontic operators and preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T08:03:29Z)
• RIRAG: Regulatory Information Retrieval and Answer Generation [51.998738311700095]
  We introduce a task of generating question-passages pairs, where questions are automatically created and paired with relevant regulatory passages. We create the ObliQA dataset, containing 27,869 questions derived from the collection of Abu Dhabi Global Markets (ADGM) financial regulation documents. We design a baseline Regulatory Information Retrieval and Answer Generation (RIRAG) system and evaluate it with RePASs, a novel evaluation metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T14:44:19Z)
• Rethinking Legal Compliance Automation: Opportunities with Large Language Models [2.9088208525097365]
  We argue that the examination of (textual) legal artifacts should, first employ broader context than sentences. We present a compliance analysis approach designed to address these limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T17:10:27Z)
• Normative Requirements Operationalization with Large Language Models [3.456725053685842]
  Normative non-functional requirements specify constraints that a system must observe in order to avoid violations of social, legal, ethical, empathetic, and cultural norms. Recent research has tackled this challenge using a domain-specific language to specify normative requirements. We propose a complementary approach that uses Large Language Models to extract semantic relationships between abstract representations of system capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T17:01:34Z)
• Validation-Driven Development [54.50263643323]
  This paper introduces a validation-driven development (VDD) process that prioritizes validating requirements in formal development. The effectiveness of the VDD process is demonstrated through a case study in the aviation industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-11T09:15:26Z)
• Unsupervised Domain Generalization for Person Re-identification: A Domain-specific Adaptive Framework [50.88463458896428]
  Domain generalization (DG) has attracted much attention in person re-identification (ReID) recently. Existing methods usually need the source domains to be labeled, which could be a significant burden for practical ReID tasks. We propose a simple and efficient domain-specific adaptive framework, and realize it with an adaptive normalization module.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-30T02:35:51Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.