Randomized trial evaluates a multi-agent framework for validating SysML v2 models, indicating improved model consistency.
Ensuring semantic consistency between formal system models and natural-language requirements remains a major bottleneck for scalable Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). While SysML v2 introduces enhanced expressiveness and richer semantics, existing validation approaches primarily focus on syntactic correctness and provide limited support for assessing standards-aligned requirement satisfaction. This paper presents a deterministic multi-agent framework for the automated semantic validation of SysML v2 models, explicitly grounded in requirements engineering standards. The approach decomposes the evaluation process into five specialised reasoning agents covering model abstraction, requirement normalisation, semantic judgement aligned with ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 “Systems and software engineering — Life cycle processes — Requirements engineering” quality attributes, coverage metric aggregation, and feedback generation with code-level patch synthesis. The architecture is implemented as a typed state machine using LangGraph, ensuring traceable, auditable, and reproducible evaluation workflows. The framework is evaluated on a curated dataset of 14 SysML v2 models and their associated requirements, derived from official specifications. A comparative analysis using two Large Language Models (GPT-4o-mini and DeepSeek-R1) shows that the two backends agree on well-specified models and diverge on under-specified ones, where they exhibit different degrees of strictness when detecting missing or partially satisfied requirements. Results show that the proposed pipeline reliably detects semantic inconsistencies, partial fulfilment, and missing requirements. Beyond evaluation, the system generates standards-aligned diagnostic reports and actionable model improvements, supporting iterative refinement. The proposed approach contributes a scalable and interpretable method for standards-driven semantic validation, bridging the gap between informal requirements and formal system models within modern software and systems engineering workflows.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2026 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: