Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a structured workflow for formulating explainability requirements in AI systems, addressing the common issue of vague and inconsistent requirements generated by unguided large language models. Through a literature review and practitioner surveys, the authors identified and prioritized ten core quality properties for explainability, which were operationalized in a web-based tool. The evaluation demonstrated that this tool significantly reduced formulation time by 23.5% while maintaining comparable quality to manually written requirements, highlighting the effectiveness of combining guidelines with LLM support.
Tool-assisted workflows can cut explainability requirement formulation time by over 23% without sacrificing quality.
Explainability is increasingly required in AI-enabled software systems to support transparency, user trust, and compliance. Yet, explainability requirements are often written ad hoc, and unguided large language model support can yield vague, inconsistent, or incomplete statements. This paper presents a sequential, guideline-driven workflow for formulating explainability requirements and evaluates its tool-based operationalization. We first elicited candidate quality properties through a structured literature review and developer interviews. We then prioritized these properties in an online survey with practitioners (n=20) and derived a concise guideline of ten core properties with actionable formulation instructions. Next, we operationalized the guideline in a web-based tool that supports an iterative workflow of drafting, property-based checks, and revision. We evaluated the workflow in two complementary studies. In a workshop with requirements engineers (n=6), tool support reduced formulation time by 23.5% on average (Wilcoxon p=0.021). In an independent online study with software developers (n=18), tool-supported and manually written requirements received comparable ratings for implementability and formulation quality, with a descriptive slight preference tendency toward the tool-supported versions. Overall, our results suggest that combining a prioritized quality guideline with lightweight LLM support can reduce formulation effort while producing requirements that are perceived comparably to manually written ones.