Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2604.06683

Benchmarking Requirement-to-Architecture Generation with Hybrid Evaluation

Abstract

Software architecture serves as the blueprint of a software system, capturing high-level structural decisions that shape downstream implementation and system quality. Despite this central role, generating architecture designs from requirement documents remains underexplored, with limited task-specific benchmarks for generation or rigorous evaluation. To bridge this gap, we introduce R2ABench, a benchmark for requirements-to-architecture (R2A) reasoning. R2ABench contains 68 projects with human-validated references collected from both educational-style settings and GitHub repositories. Each project is packaged as a unified instance that provides a structured software requirements specification (SRS), a reference architecture view in PlantUML, and the corresponding source requirement artifacts. To evaluate generated architecture views, we design a layered hybrid evaluation framework spanning syntax validation, structural graph diagnostics, and semantic and evidence-based architecture scoring. Using this framework, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study of state-of-the-art LLMs and agents on R2ABench. We find that current systems can often generate syntactically valid and readable architecture views, but still struggle with relation-level architecture modeling across both subsets: component identification is substantially stronger than edge recovery, and edge hallucination is the dominant structural failure mode. Semantically, structural fidelity does not guarantee requirement coverage or traceability, which emerge as the primary quality gaps. The associated data files are available at https://figshare.com/s/01f0a5fb6243a6a60f23.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Minxiao Li, Li Zhang, Shuying Yan, Fang Liu, Liehao Li, Yang Liu, Xiaoli Lian. 2026-09-09. Benchmarking Requirement-to-Architecture Generation with Hybrid Evaluation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06683

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