QUARE: Multi-Agent Negotiation for Balancing Quality Attributes in Requirements Engineering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.11890v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 13:03:01 GMT
• Title: QUARE: Multi-Agent Negotiation for Balancing Quality Attributes in Requirements Engineering
• Abstract summary: QUARE (Quality-Aware Requirements Engineering) is a multi-agent framework that formulates requirements analysis as structured negotiation.<n>We present five case studies drawn from established RE benchmarks (MARE, iReDev) and an industrial autonomous-driving specification.
• Score: 5.798725202578518
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Cross-Vendor Sola ISPM Benchmark: Evaluating Agentic AI for Federated Identity Security Reasoning [0.41942958779358674]
  Existing evaluations focus on isolated single-platform environments.<n>We introduce the Cross-Vendor Sola ISPM Benchmark, a production-grade benchmark of 50 data-grounded tasks.<n>We also contribute an evaluation framework measuring not only final answer correctness but also evidentiary grounding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T12:41:00Z)
• ArgRE: Formal Argumentation for Conflict Resolution in Multi-Agent Requirements Negotiation [3.512547713134864]
  ArgRE is a multi-agent requirements system that embeds abstract argumentation into the negotiation stage.<n>It provides argument-level traceability absent from existing frameworks.<n> Evaluation shows that ArgRE provides argument-level traceability absent from existing frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T03:28:13Z)
• RPA-Check: A Multi-Stage Automated Framework for Evaluating Dynamic LLM-based Role-Playing Agents [4.07447364754644]
  This paper introduces RPA-Check, a multi-stage automated evaluation framework designed to objectively assess the performance of LLM-based RPAs.<n>We validate this framework by applying it to LLM Court, a serious game for forensic training involving several quantized local models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T16:08:03Z)
• OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation [57.505743202759646]
  OccuBench is a benchmark covering 100 real-world professional task scenarios across 10 industry categories and 65 specialized domains.<n>Our multi-agent synthesis pipeline automatically produces evaluation instances with guaranteed solvability, calibrated difficulty, and document-grounded diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T00:27:32Z)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• MC-Search: Evaluating and Enhancing Multimodal Agentic Search with Structured Long Reasoning Chains [79.14584837105808]
  We present MC-Search, the first benchmark for agentic MM-RAG with long, step-wise annotated reasoning chains spanning five representative reasoning structures.<n>Beyond answer accuracy, MC-Search introduces new process-level metrics for reasoning quality, stepwise retrieval and planning accuracy.<n>By developing a unified agentic MM-RAG pipeline, we benchmark six leading MLLMs and reveal systematic issues such as over- and under-retrieval and modality-misaligned planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T02:25:57Z)
• Agentic Proposing: Enhancing Large Language Model Reasoning via Compositional Skill Synthesis [10.951981109673119]
  Agentic Proposing is a framework that models problem synthesis as a goal-driven sequential decision process.<n>It generates high-precision, verifiable training trajectories across mathematics, coding, and science.<n>A 30B solver trained on only 11,000 synthesized trajectories achieves a state-of-the-art 91.6% accuracy on AIME25.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T09:02:53Z)
• Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems [79.64446272302287]
  We formalize a definition for agent evaluation and characterize scaling laws as the interplay between agent quantity, coordination structure, modelic, and task properties.<n>We derive a predictive model using coordination metrics, that cross-validated R2=0, enabling prediction on unseen task domains.<n>We identify three effects: (1) a tool-coordination trade-off: under fixed computational budgets, tool-heavy tasks suffer disproportionately from multi-agent overhead, and (2) a capability saturation: coordination yields diminishing or negative returns once single-agent baselines exceed 45%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T06:52:21Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• RAGalyst: Automated Human-Aligned Agentic Evaluation for Domain-Specific RAG [0.0]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a critical technique for grounding Large Language Models (LLMs) in factual evidence.<n>Existing evaluation frameworks often rely on metrics that fail to capture domain-specific nuances.<n>This paper introduces RAGalyst, an automated, human-aligned agentic framework designed for the rigorous evaluation of domain-specific RAG systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T16:22:52Z)
• RAISE: A Unified Framework for Responsible AI Scoring and Evaluation [0.0]
  We introduce RAISE (Responsible AI Scoring and Evaluation), a unified framework that quantifies model performance across four dimensions and aggregates them into a single Responsibility Score.<n>Our findings reveal critical trade-offs: the Transformer excelled in explainability and fairness at a very high environmental cost, and the Tabular ResNet offered a balanced profile.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T12:15:13Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• Automated Quality Assessment for LLM-Based Complex Qualitative Coding: A Confidence-Diversity Framework [0.23872611575805827]
  We develop a dual-signal quality assessment framework that combines model confidence with inter-model consensus (external entropy)<n>We evaluate it across legal reasoning, political analysis, and medical classification transcripts.<n>The framework offers a principled, domain-agnostic quality assurance mechanism that scales qualitative coding without extensive double-coding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:25:07Z)
• OmniEAR: Benchmarking Agent Reasoning in Embodied Tasks [52.87238755666243]
  We present OmniEAR, a framework for evaluating how language models reason about physical interactions, tool usage, and multi-agent coordination in embodied tasks.<n>We model continuous physical properties and complex spatial relationships across 1,500 scenarios spanning household and industrial domains.<n>Our systematic evaluation reveals severe performance degradation when models must reason from constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T17:54:15Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)

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.