Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2603.09492

Towards Viewpoint-centric Artifact-based Regulatory Requirements Engineering for Compliance by Design

Abstract

Processing regulations and resulting requirements to achieve regulatory compliance in software engineering (SE) is a developing challenge due to the continuously growing amount, complexity, and expanding scope of regulations. Despite the growing amount of newly suggested regulatory requirements engineering (RE) approaches by the research community, industry remains under pressure to assure their integration into their RE and overall software development life cycle (SDLC) practices to facilitate a seamless and legally valid compliance by design. As of today, we still have limited empirical understanding of how this can be achieved. Such integration should avoid additional burdens and address the demands of legal knowledge intensity, cross-functional communication and consistency between different involved viewpoints. Intermediary results of this doctoral study showed that regulatory RE has peculiarities distinguishing it from the engineering of other requirements. Oftentimes, organizations establish standalone regulatory RE processes on the organizational level. However, software development teams usually approach compliance by design in an ad-hoc manner, rather than in a systematic way. Among other, because of the complexity of the coordination between the involved viewpoints. The goal of this paper is to report and get feedback about the synthesis and future evaluation of our Artefact Model for Regulatory Requirements Engineering (AM4RRE) for a integrated compliance by design. We hope this paper will spark discussions about regulatory RE and help us refine plans for the final stage of the doctoral study.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Oleksandr Kosenkov. 2026-03-10. Towards Viewpoint-centric Artifact-based Regulatory Requirements Engineering for Compliance by Design. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.09492

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE