pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12100 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.HC

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

HM-Req: A Framework for Embedding Values within CPS Human Monitoring Requirements

Michael Vierhauser, Ruth Breu, Zoe Pfister

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 04:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.HC
keywords requirements elicitationcontrolled natural languagehuman valuescyber-physical systemshuman monitoringvalue conflictsethics in software engineeringCPS requirements
0
0 comments X

The pith

HM-Req framework uses a controlled natural language and value dashboard to embed stakeholder values into human monitoring requirements for cyber-physical systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces HM-Req to address how requirements for monitoring humans in CPS must incorporate stakeholder values such as privacy and ethics from the start. It supplies a controlled natural language that lets engineers write monitoring rules without the usual vagueness of plain English. Requirements written this way are then linked to specific human values and passed to a dashboard that flags conflicts needing discussion. Tests on multiple datasets plus a survey and expert interview indicate the language can express a wide range of monitoring needs and that the overall process helps during elicitation. A reader would care because CPS increasingly track people for safety and coordination, yet value concerns often surface too late or not at all.

Core claim

HM-Req is a requirements elicitation framework that includes a Controlled Natural Language for defining human monitoring requirements in CPS. These requirements are augmented with human values from relevant stakeholders and integrated into a Value Dashboard to detect potential conflicts that require further discussion and resolution. Validation results, applying the CNL to different datasets and conducting a survey and expert interview, confirm the CNL's ability to capture diverse human monitoring requirements and show HM-Req's usefulness for requirements elicitation activities.

What carries the argument

The HM-Req framework, built around a Controlled Natural Language for human monitoring requirements together with value augmentation and a Value Dashboard that surfaces conflicts.

Load-bearing premise

Stakeholder values can be systematically drawn out, recorded without distortion, and that conflicts flagged by the dashboard will actually trigger productive resolution talks instead of being ignored.

What would settle it

A fresh collection of human monitoring requirements from a CPS project where the CNL produces incomplete or ambiguous statements, or where the dashboard identifies value clashes that the team never resolves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12100 by Michael Vierhauser, Ruth Breu, Zoe Pfister.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Our Proposed HM-Req Framework, consisting of Require￾ments Elicitation and Specification, and Human Value Conflict Analysis and Resolution. our novel framework HM-Req (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of a Human Monitoring Requirement in HM-Req. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of Potential Conflict Score Mappings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview Page and Detail Views (for Requirement R6) Including Potential Value Conflict Highlights. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Monitoring humans, for example, their movement or location, is essential for safe and efficient human-machine collaboration in Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS). This information allows CPS to ensure safety properties, adapt their behaviour dynamically, and coordinate with humans. To ensure that the design of a CPS respects ethical principles and the privacy of its stakeholders, system requirements, particularly those related to human monitoring, must reflect the human values of all involved stakeholders. However, human values are often underrepresented in Software Engineering -- particularly during requirements elicitation and system design, crucial phases when introducing ethically critical functionality. Stakeholder values are often implicit and conflicting, yet rarely systematically captured. Furthermore, unstructured natural language requirements introduce ambiguity and vagueness, complicating conflict resolution. To address these problems, we propose HM-Req, a novel requirements elicitation framework including a Controlled Natural Language (CNL) for defining human monitoring requirements. These requirements are then augmented with human values from relevant stakeholders and integrated into a Value Dashboard to detect potential conflicts that require further discussion and resolution. Validation results, applying the CNL to different datasets and conducting a survey and expert interview, confirms the CNL's ability to capture diverse human monitoring requirements and show HM-Req's usefulness for requirements elicitation activities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HM-Req, a requirements elicitation framework for Cyber-Physical Systems that uses a Controlled Natural Language (CNL) to specify human monitoring requirements, augments them with stakeholder values, and integrates them into a Value Dashboard to detect and resolve conflicts. Validation is described as applying the CNL to multiple datasets plus a survey and expert interview, which the authors claim confirms the CNL's ability to capture diverse requirements and demonstrates the framework's usefulness for elicitation activities.

Significance. If the validation evidence were strengthened with quantitative metrics and observable outcomes on value fidelity and conflict resolution, the work could address an important gap in embedding ethical and privacy values into CPS human-monitoring requirements, providing a structured alternative to ambiguous natural-language specifications.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'validation results... confirms the CNL's ability to capture diverse human monitoring requirements and show HM-Req's usefulness' is unsupported by any quantitative results, description of the conflict-detection logic inside the Value Dashboard, error rates, or inter-rater measures; without these, the evidence cannot substantiate the usefulness claim for elicitation activities.
  2. [Validation] Validation description: the activities test syntactic coverage and subjective usefulness but supply no observable data on whether stakeholder values are elicited and attached without material distortion or whether dashboard-flagged conflicts actually trigger productive resolution discussions rather than being ignored.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important opportunities to strengthen the presentation of our validation activities and the Value Dashboard's mechanisms. We agree that the abstract claim requires qualification and that additional details on the dashboard logic and study limitations would improve clarity. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'validation results... confirms the CNL's ability to capture diverse human monitoring requirements and show HM-Req's usefulness' is unsupported by any quantitative results, description of the conflict-detection logic inside the Value Dashboard, error rates, or inter-rater measures; without these, the evidence cannot substantiate the usefulness claim for elicitation activities.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract phrasing is overly strong given the validation details provided. In the revised manuscript we will rewrite the abstract to state that the CNL was applied to multiple datasets to demonstrate syntactic coverage of diverse requirements and that a survey plus expert interview provided initial evidence of perceived usefulness for elicitation. We will also add a concise description of the conflict-detection logic (rule-based matching of value annotations against requirement attributes) in the Value Dashboard section of the paper and reference it briefly in the abstract. Our study did not collect error rates or inter-rater reliability statistics because the primary goal was feasibility demonstration rather than statistical validation; we will explicitly note this scope limitation and propose quantitative follow-up studies. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Validation] Validation description: the activities test syntactic coverage and subjective usefulness but supply no observable data on whether stakeholder values are elicited and attached without material distortion or whether dashboard-flagged conflicts actually trigger productive resolution discussions rather than being ignored.

    Authors: This assessment is accurate. The current validation shows that the CNL can express a range of human-monitoring requirements drawn from existing datasets and that participants in the survey and interview found the overall HM-Req process helpful for surfacing values. However, we do not provide direct observational measures of value-attachment fidelity or of whether flagged conflicts led to productive discussions. Such data would require a different experimental design (e.g., controlled elicitation sessions with pre/post measures or longitudinal observation). We will add a limitations subsection that acknowledges these gaps and outlines future work to evaluate fidelity and resolution outcomes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: proposal and validation are independent of self-referential inputs

full rationale

The paper presents a requirements elicitation framework (HM-Req) consisting of a CNL for human monitoring requirements, value augmentation, and a Value Dashboard for conflict detection. Its central claim rests on empirical validation: applying the CNL to multiple datasets plus a survey and expert interview. No equations, parameters, or first-principles derivations appear. No step reduces a result to a fitted input, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The validation activities are described as external checks on expressiveness and usefulness; they do not presuppose the target outcomes by construction. This is a standard non-circular proposal paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on the untested premise that human values can be attached to requirements without loss or distortion and that a dashboard can surface actionable conflicts; no independent evidence for these premises is supplied in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Human values relevant to monitoring can be elicited from stakeholders and attached to requirements without significant loss of meaning or introduction of new ambiguity.
    Invoked when the framework augments requirements with values and feeds them to the dashboard.
invented entities (2)
  • HM-Req framework no independent evidence
    purpose: To structure elicitation of human-monitoring requirements together with stakeholder values.
    Newly proposed artifact whose utility is asserted but not independently verified outside the authors' validation activities.
  • Value Dashboard no independent evidence
    purpose: To automatically detect and present value conflicts for discussion.
    Component of the proposed framework with no external validation or prior existence shown.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5519 in / 1405 out tokens · 64182 ms · 2026-05-13T04:44:27.404929+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    EfficientandscalableruntimemonitoringforCyber-Physical System,

    X. Zheng, C. Julien, R. Podorozhny, F. Cassez, and T. Rakotoariv- elo,“EfficientandscalableruntimemonitoringforCyber-Physical System,”IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1667–1678, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Runtime monitoring for systems of system: A closer look on opportunities for manufacturers in the context of industry 4.0,

    M. Vierhauser and A. Egyed, “Runtime monitoring for systems of system: A closer look on opportunities for manufacturers in the context of industry 4.0,” inDigital Transformation: Core Technologies and Emerging Topics from a Computer Science Perspective, pp. 203–222, Springer, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Acyberphysicalsystem (cps) approach for safe human-robot collaboration in a shared workplace,

    N.Nikolakis,V.Maratos,andS.Makris,“Acyberphysicalsystem (cps) approach for safe human-robot collaboration in a shared workplace,”Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 56, pp. 233–243, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Towards a DSL to formal- ize multimodal requirements,

    M. Gomez-Vazquez and J. Cabot, “Towards a DSL to formal- ize multimodal requirements,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14631, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Human-Machine Teaming with Small Unmanned Aerial Systems in a Mape-K Environment,

    J. Cleland-Huang, T. Chambers, S. Zudaire, M. T. Chowdhury, A. Agrawal, and M. Vierhauser, “Human-Machine Teaming with Small Unmanned Aerial Systems in a Mape-K Environment,” ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Multimodal sensor-based whole-body control for human–robot collaboration in industrial settings,

    J. de Gea Fernández, D. Mronga, M. Günther, T. Knobloch, M. Wirkus, M. Schröer, M. Trampler, S. Stiene, E. Kirchner, V. Bargsten, T. Bänziger, J. Teiwes, T. Krüger, and F. Kirchner, “Multimodal sensor-based whole-body control for human–robot collaboration in industrial settings,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 94, pp. 102–119, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Monitoring service workers via com- puter: The effect on employees, productivity, and service,

    R. Grant and C. Higgins, “Monitoring service workers via com- puter: The effect on employees, productivity, and service,”Na- tional Productivity Review, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 101–113, 1989

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Monitoring and surveillance in the workplace: an overview of national and international instruments to protect employees,

    A. Sartoriet al., “Monitoring and surveillance in the workplace: an overview of national and international instruments to protect employees,”Recent Labour Law Issues: A Multilevel Perspective, pp. 203–218, 2019. Preprint – HM-Req: A Framework for Embedding Values within CPS Human Monitoring Requirements11

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    A case for human values in software engineering,

    J. Whittle, M. A. Ferrario, W. Simm, and W. Hussain, “A case for human values in software engineering,”IEEE Software, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 106–113, 2021

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Value stories: Putting human values into requirements engineering.,

    C. Detweiler and M. Harbers, “Value stories: Putting human values into requirements engineering.,” inREFSQ Workshops, vol. 1138, pp. 2–11, 2014

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    The impact of considering human values during requirements engineering activities,

    H. Perera, R. Hoda, R. A. Shams, A. Nurwidyantoro, M. Shahin, W. Hussain, and J. Whittle, “The impact of considering human values during requirements engineering activities,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.15293, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    IEEE standard model process for ad- dressing ethical concerns during system design,

    IEEE Computer Society, “IEEE standard model process for ad- dressing ethical concerns during system design,”IEEE Std 7000- 2021, pp. 1–82, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries,

    S. H. Schwartz, “Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 1–65, Elsevier, 1992

    work page 1992

  14. [14]

    Asystematicliteraturereviewofkaosextensions,

    E. Gonçalves, L. Monte, S. Souza, M. de Oliveira, and J. Araujo, “Asystematicliteraturereviewofkaosextensions,”inInternational Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp. 166–180, Springer, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    istar 2.0 language guide,

    F. Dalpiaz, X. Franch, and J. Horkoff, “istar 2.0 language guide,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07767, 2016

    work page arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Formal tropos: language and semantics,

    A. Fuxman, R. Kazhamiakin, M. Pistore, and M. Roveri, “Formal tropos: language and semantics,”University of Trento and IRST, vol. 55, p. 123, 2003

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    Processing natural language re- quirements,

    V. Ambriola and V. Gervasi, “Processing natural language re- quirements,” inProc. of the 12th IEEE International Conference Automated Software Engineering, pp. 36–45, IEEE, 1997

    work page 1997

  18. [18]

    Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements,

    V. Gervasi and D. Zowghi, “Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements,”ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 277– 330, 2005

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

    Easy approach to requirements syntax (EARS),

    A. Mavin, P. Wilkinson, A. Harwood, and M. Novak, “Easy approach to requirements syntax (EARS),” in2009 17th IEEE InternationalRequirementsEngineeringConference,pp.317–322, 2009

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Kluge,»Schablonen für alle Fälle«

    R. Kluge,»Schablonen für alle Fälle«. SOPHIST GmbH, 6 ed., 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    A goal-based framework for contextual requirements modeling and analysis,

    R. Ali, F. Dalpiaz, and P. Giorgini, “A goal-based framework for contextual requirements modeling and analysis,”Requirements Engineering, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 439–458, 2010

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    A goal-based technique for requirements prioritization,

    M. A. A. Elsood, H. A. Hefny, and E. S. Nasr, “A goal-based technique for requirements prioritization,” inProc. of the 9th International Conference on Informatics and Systems, pp. SW–18, IEEE, 2014

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Pohl,Requirements Engineering

    K. Pohl,Requirements Engineering. Springer-Verlag Berlin Hei- delberg, 2 ed., 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Spiekermann,Value-Based Engineering

    S. Spiekermann,Value-Based Engineering. De Gruyter Textbook, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Towards a Value-Complemented Framework for Enabling Human Monitor- ing in Cyber-Physical Systems,

    Z. Pfister, M. Vierhauser, R. Wohlrab, and R. Breu, “Towards a Value-Complemented Framework for Enabling Human Monitor- ing in Cyber-Physical Systems,” inRequirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality(A. Hess and A. Susi, eds.), vol. 15588, pp. 3–12, Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values,

    S. Schwartz, “An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values,”OnlineReadingsinPsychologyandCulture,vol.2,no.1, 2012

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    Domain-specific lan- guages: an annotated bibliography,

    A. Van Deursen, P. Klint, and J. Visser, “Domain-specific lan- guages: an annotated bibliography,”ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 26–36, 2000

    work page 2000

  28. [28]

    A survey and classification of controlled natural lan- guages,

    T. Kuhn, “A survey and classification of controlled natural lan- guages,”Computational Linguistics, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 121–170, 2014

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    About WordNet

    Princeton University, “About WordNet.”

    work page

  30. [30]

    Senet: a semantic web for supporting automation of softwareengineeringtasks,

    Y. Liu, J. Lin, J. Cleland-Huang, M. Vierhauser, J. Guo, and S. Lohar, “Senet: a semantic web for supporting automation of softwareengineeringtasks,”inProc.oftheIEEE7thInternational Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Requirements Engineering, pp. 23–32, IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    On systematically building a controlled natural language for functionalrequirements,

    A. Veizaga, M. Alferez, D. Torre, M. Sabetzadeh, and L. Briand, “On systematically building a controlled natural language for functionalrequirements,”EmpiricalSoftwareEngineering,vol.26, no. 4, p. 79, 2021

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    VerbNet.acomputationallexical resource for verbs.,

    UniversityofColoradoBoulder,“VerbNet.acomputationallexical resource for verbs.,” 2006

    work page 2006

  33. [33]

    ACTIVAGE user needs_requirements and services

    P. Sala, P. A. Jimenez, and S. Nunziata, “ACTIVAGE user needs_requirements and services.”

    work page

  34. [34]

    The MobSTr dataset: Model-based safety assurance and traceability

    J.-P. Steghöfer, B. Koopmann, J. S. Becker, I. Stierand, M. Zeller, M. Bonner, D. Schmelter, and S. Maro, “The MobSTr dataset: Model-based safety assurance and traceability.”

    work page

  35. [35]

    Software engineering repositories: Expanding the PROMISE database,

    M. Lima, V.Valle, E. a.Costa, F. Lira, and B. Gadelha, “Software engineering repositories: Expanding the PROMISE database,” inProceedings of the XXXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, SBES ’19, pp. 427–436, Association for Computing Machinery, 2019

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Functional and NonFunctional requirements for VHCURES 3.0,

    State of Vermont, “Functional and NonFunctional requirements for VHCURES 3.0,” 2018

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Digital adaptation kit for antenatal care: Operational requirements for implementing WHO recommendations in digital systems,

    WHO, “Digital adaptation kit for antenatal care: Operational requirements for implementing WHO recommendations in digital systems,” 2021

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    SupportingValue-Aware SoftwareEngineeringThroughTraceabilityandValueTactics,

    R. Wohlrab, M. Herrmann, C. Lazik, M. Wyrich, I. Nunes, K.Schneider,L.Gren,andR.Heinrich,“SupportingValue-Aware SoftwareEngineeringThroughTraceabilityandValueTactics,”in Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2024., 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    ApplyingHumanValuesTheoryto Software Engineering Practice: Lessons and Implications,

    M.A.FerrarioandE.Winter,“ApplyingHumanValuesTheoryto Software Engineering Practice: Lessons and Implications,”IEEE TransactionsonSoftwareEngineering,vol.49,no.3,pp.973–990, 2023

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    A General Nonmetric Technique for Finding the Smallest Coordinate Space for a Configuration of Points,

    L. Guttman, “A General Nonmetric Technique for Finding the Smallest Coordinate Space for a Configuration of Points,”Psy- chometrika, vol. 33, pp. 469–506, Dec. 1968

    work page 1968

  41. [41]

    Eclipse-Langium/Langium

    “Eclipse-Langium/Langium.” Eclipse Langium, 2025

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    PURE: A Dataset of Public Requirements Documents,

    A. Ferrari, G. O. Spagnolo, and S. Gnesi, “PURE: A Dataset of Public Requirements Documents,” in2017 IEEE 25th Interna- tional Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 502–505, Sept. 2017

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    ReqNet and ReqSim: A Network and Semantic Similarity Dataset of Re- quirements From the Tree Structure of System Requirement Specifications,

    C. K. Sahu, R. Rai, M. Wiecek, and D. Gorsich, “ReqNet and ReqSim: A Network and Semantic Similarity Dataset of Re- quirements From the Tree Structure of System Requirement Specifications,”Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, vol. 25, Mar. 2025

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    De- scription and Comparative Analysis of QuRE: A New Industrial Requirements Quality Dataset,

    H. Femmer, F. Houdek, M. Unterbusch, and A. Vogelsang, “De- scription and Comparative Analysis of QuRE: A New Industrial Requirements Quality Dataset,” in2025 IEEE 33rd International RequirementsEngineeringConferenceWorkshops(REW),pp.23– 29, 2025

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    DataAugmentationforConflict and Duplicate Detection in Software Engineering Sentence Pairs,

    G.Malik,M.Cevik,andA.Başar,“DataAugmentationforConflict and Duplicate Detection in Software Engineering Sentence Pairs,” inProceedings of the 33rd Annual International Conference on Preprint – HM-Req: A Framework for Embedding Values within CPS Human Monitoring Requirements12 Computer Science and Software Engineering, CASCON ’23, (USA), pp. 34–43, IBM Cor...

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Dronology: An incubator for cyber-physical system research,

    J. Cleland-Huang, M. Vierhauser, and S. Bayley, “Dronology: An incubator for cyber-physical system research,” 2018

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    S. Bird, E. Klein, and E. Loper,Natural language processing with Python: analyzingtextwiththenaturallanguagetoolkit. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2009

    work page 2009

  48. [48]

    Nltk_data/packages/corpora

    NLTK, “Nltk_data/packages/corpora.” https://github.com/nltk/nltk_data/ tree/gh- pages/packages/corpora

    work page

  49. [49]

    Dronology A Software Engineering Research Environment using Unmanned Aerial Systems,

    University of Notre Dame, “Dronology A Software Engineering Research Environment using Unmanned Aerial Systems,” 2018

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced rea- soning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities,

    G. Comanici, E. Bieber, M. Schaekermann, I. Pasupat, N. Sachdeva, I. Dhillon, M. Blistein, O. Ram, D. Zhang, and e. a. Rosen, “Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced rea- soning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities,” 2025

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Technologyacceptancemodel: Tam,

    F.D.Davisetal.,“Technologyacceptancemodel: Tam,”Al-Suqri, MN, Al-Aufi, AS: Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption, vol. 205, no. 219, p. 5, 1989

    work page 1989

  52. [52]

    Attempto Controlled Natural Language for Requirements Specifications,

    N. E. Fuchs and R. Schwitter, “Attempto Controlled Natural Language for Requirements Specifications,” inProc. Seventh Intl. Logic Programming Symp. Workshop Logic Programming Environments, 1995

    work page 1995

  53. [53]

    Semkis-dsl: A domain-specific language to support requirements engineering of datasets and neural network recognition,

    B. Jahić, N. Guelfi, and B. Ries, “Semkis-dsl: A domain-specific language to support requirements engineering of datasets and neural network recognition,”Information, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 213, 2023

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Formal Requirements Elicitation with FRET,

    D.Giannakopoulou,A.Mavridou,J.Rhein,T.Pressburger,J.Schu- mann, and N. Shi, “Formal Requirements Elicitation with FRET,” inInternational Working Conference on Requirements Engineer- ing: Foundation for Software Quality, (Pisa), 2020

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Advancing the Study of Human Values in Software Engineering,

    E. Winter, S. Forshaw, L. Hunt, and M. A. Ferrario, “Advancing the Study of Human Values in Software Engineering,” in2019 IEEE/ACM 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), pp. 19–26, 2019

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    Human-Robot Interaction Design: Understanding UserNeedsandRequirements,

    J. A. Adams, “Human-Robot Interaction Design: Understanding UserNeedsandRequirements,”ProceedingsoftheHumanFactors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 447– 451, 2005

    work page 2005

  57. [57]

    The Next Generation of Human-Drone Partnerships: Co-Designing an Emergency Response System,

    A. Agrawal, S. J. Abraham, B. Burger, C. Christine, L. Fraser, J. M. Hoeksema, S. Hwang, E. Travnik, S. Kumar, W. Scheirer, J. Cleland-Huang, M. Vierhauser, R. Bauer, and S. Cox, “The Next Generation of Human-Drone Partnerships: Co-Designing an Emergency Response System,” inProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ...

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    M. R. Endsley,Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design. CRC Press, 2 ed., 2016

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Maintainingdriver attentiveness in shared-control autonomous driving,

    R.Calinescu,N.Alasmari,andM.Gleirscher,“Maintainingdriver attentiveness in shared-control autonomous driving,” in2021 International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), pp. 90–96, 2021

    work page 2021