A Rapid Review Regarding the Concept of Legal Requirements in Requirements Engineering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06012v1
• Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2025 11:02:45 GMT
• Title: A Rapid Review Regarding the Concept of Legal Requirements in Requirements Engineering
• Abstract summary: Legal requirements (LRs) are often characterized as vague and complex, requiring a lot of effort to elicit, implement, and validate.<n>LRs seem to be also reluctantly implemented, often providing only a minimal baseline for other requirements.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Out of a personal puzzlement, recent peer review comments, and demonstrable confusion in the existing literature, the paper presents a rapid review of the concept of legal requirements (LRs) in requirements engineering (RE) research. According to reviewing results, a normative understanding of LRs has often been present, although proper definitions and conceptual operationalizations are lacking. Some papers also see LRs as functional and others as non-functional requirements. Legal requirements are often characterized as being vague and complex, requiring a lot of effort to elicit, implement, and validate. These characterizations supposedly correlate with knowledge gaps among requirements engineers. LRs are also seen to often change and overlap. They may be also prioritized. According to the literature, they seem to be also reluctantly implemented, often providing only a minimal baseline for other requirements. With these and other observations, the review raises critical arguments about apparent knowledge gaps, including a lack of empirical evidence backing the observations and enduring conceptual confusion.

Related papers

• Evaluating RE Practices for Explainability: Synthesizing Insights from Daimler Truck into an Explainable RE Framework Proposal [4.854198429397777]
  This paper reports findings from an ongoing industry-based study investigating how explainability requirements are elicited, specified, and validated.<n>Our preliminary analysis reveals recurring challenges across all steps, including conceptual ambiguity during elicitation, limited testability and expressiveness during specification, and fragmented validation due to vague criteria and regulatory uncertainty.<n>The paper contributes empirical insights into step-specific and cross-cutting challenges and outlines a research vision toward developing an empirically grounded RE framework for explainable AI-based systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T16:28:45Z)
• Citation-Closure Retrieval and Per-Rule Attribution for Real-World Regulatory Compliance Question Answering [54.97384993676565]
  We formalize Regulatory Compliance QA with RegOps-Bench, a novel benchmark featuring an Operational Knowledge Graph derived from complex national R&D regulations.<n>RefWalk traverses cross-document citations, fuses multi-view candidates via max-based aggregation, and enforces per-rule attribution to explicitly map claims to sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T10:38:38Z)
• Ref-Adv: Exploring MLLM Visual Reasoning in Referring Expression Tasks [65.37131487318273]
  Ref-Adv is a modern REC benchmark that suppresses shortcuts by pairing linguistically nontrivial expressions with only the information necessary to identify the target.<n>The dataset contains referring expressions on real images, curated with hard distractors and annotated with reasoning facets including negation.<n>Despite strong results on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg, models drop markedly on Ref-Adv, revealing reliance on shortcuts and gaps in visual reasoning and grounding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T10:47:26Z)
• Another Systematic Review? A Critical Analysis of Systematic Literature Reviews on Agile Effort and Cost Estimation [0.08594140167290097]
  Systematic literature reviews ( SLRs) have become prevalent in software engineering research.<n>The proliferation of overlapping and often repetitive SLRs indicates that researchers are not extensively checking for existing SLRs on a topic.<n>We identify common justification patterns through a qualitative content analysis of 18 published SLRs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T08:07:28Z)
• LRAS: Advanced Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search [48.281150948187786]
  Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search (LRAS) is a framework designed to transition legal LLMs from static and parametric "closed-loop thinking" to dynamic and interactive "Active Inquiry"<n>By integrating Introspective Learning and Difficulty-aware Reinforcement Learning, LRAS enables LRMs to identify knowledge boundaries and handle legal reasoning.<n> Empirical results demonstrate that LRAS outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by 8.2-32%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T08:07:35Z)
• Do LLMs Truly Understand When a Precedent Is Overruled? [3.5784933879188796]
  Large language models (LLMs) with extended context windows show promise for complex legal reasoning tasks.<n>We present an assessment of state-of-the-art LLMs on identifying overruling relationships from U.S. Supreme Court cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T19:07:42Z)
• UOOR: Seamless and Traceable Requirements [28.579389358111115]
  The proposed solution is a requirements engineering method, called UOOR.<n>The method unifies many known requirements concepts and a few new ones in a framework entirely devised to accommodate and support seamless change throughout the project lifecycle.<n>The UOOR approach is not just a theoretical proposal but has been designed for practical use and has been applied to a significant real-world case study: Roborace.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T20:03:01Z)
• Elevating Legal LLM Responses: Harnessing Trainable Logical Structures and Semantic Knowledge with Legal Reasoning [19.477062052536887]
  We propose the Logical-Semantic Integration Model (LSIM), a supervised framework that bridges semantic and logical coherence.<n>LSIM comprises three components: reinforcement learning predicts a structured fact-rule chain for each question, a trainable Deep Structured Semantic Model (DSSM) retrieves the most relevant candidate questions and in-answer learning generates the final answer.<n>Our experiments on a real-world legal dataset QA-validated through both automated metrics and human evaluation-demonstrate that LSIM significantly enhances accuracy and reliability compared to existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T19:33:07Z)
• RuleArena: A Benchmark for Rule-Guided Reasoning with LLMs in Real-World Scenarios [58.90106984375913]
  RuleArena is a novel and challenging benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex, real-world rules in reasoning.<n> Covering three practical domains -- airline baggage fees, NBA transactions, and tax regulations -- RuleArena assesses LLMs' proficiency in handling intricate natural language instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T06:08:46Z)
• Eliciting Critical Reasoning in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models via Contrastive Explanations [4.697267141773321]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a critical mechanism in contemporary NLP to support Large Language Models (LLMs) in systematically accessing richer factual context. Recent studies have shown that LLMs still struggle to critically analyse RAG-based in-context information, a limitation that may lead to incorrect inferences and hallucinations. In this paper, we investigate how to elicit critical reasoning in RAG via contrastive explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T10:11:53Z)
• LaRS: Latent Reasoning Skills for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [61.7853049843921]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a popular in-context learning approach for large language models (LLMs)<n>This paper introduces a new approach named Latent Reasoning Skills (LaRS) that employs unsupervised learning to create a latent space representation of rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T20:36:10Z)
• From Chaos to Clarity: Claim Normalization to Empower Fact-Checking [57.024192702939736]
  Claim Normalization (aka ClaimNorm) aims to decompose complex and noisy social media posts into more straightforward and understandable forms. We propose CACN, a pioneering approach that leverages chain-of-thought and claim check-worthiness estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that CACN outperforms several baselines across various evaluation measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T16:07:06Z)
• Status Quo and Problems of Requirements Engineering for Machine Learning: Results from an International Survey [7.164324501049983]
  Requirements Engineering (RE) can help address many problems when engineering Machine Learning-enabled systems. We conducted a survey to gather practitioner insights into the status quo and problems of RE in ML-enabled systems. We found significant differences in RE practices within ML projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T15:53:50Z)
• A Principled Design of Image Representation: Towards Forensic Tasks [75.40968680537544]
  We investigate the forensic-oriented image representation as a distinct problem, from the perspectives of theory, implementation, and application. At the theoretical level, we propose a new representation framework for forensics, called Dense Invariant Representation (DIR), which is characterized by stable description with mathematical guarantees. We demonstrate the above arguments on the dense-domain pattern detection and matching experiments, providing comparison results with state-of-the-art descriptors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-02T07:46:52Z)

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.