# IDRAAK: From Multi-Agent NLP to Few-Shot Prompting for Semantic Drift Detection in Technical Requirements

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08801 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.08801/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 25 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02116/) (2019)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.12837/) (2022)
- [BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04696/) (2020)
- [What Makes Good In-Context Examples for GPT-3?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.06804/) (2021)
- [COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.09025/) (2020)
- [SemEval-2017 Task 1: Semantic Textual Similarity - Multilingual and Cross-lingual Focused Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.00055/) (2017)
- [XNLI: Evaluating Cross-lingual Sentence Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.05053/) (2018)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [How multilingual is Multilingual BERT?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.01502/) (2019)
- [PAWS: Paraphrase Adversaries from Word Scrambling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01130/) (2019)
- [PAWS-X: A Cross-lingual Adversarial Dataset for Paraphrase Identification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.11828/) (2019)
- [Are All Languages Created Equal in Multilingual BERT?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.09093/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Translating technical requirements across languages can introduce semantic drift, altering numerical constraints, polarities, modalities, or other specification-critical meaning. IDRAAK is presented as an interpretable framework for detecting such drift using a language-independent Semantic Requirement Representation (SRR), with six detection workflows evaluated, ranging from deterministic comparison to multi-agent verification and few-shot prompting. On 890 synthetic perturbations across 300 requirements from 10 engineering domains, a single LLM call with six few-shot examples achieves MCC=0.888 and F1=0.983, outperforming the evaluated structured and multi-stage alternatives. Further evaluation on PAWS-X (805 pairs, 5 languages) and XNLI (700 pairs, 7 languages) exposes complementary strengths and limitations of structured and LLM-based approaches. Deterministic SRR comparison performs strongly on technical requirements (F1=0.898) but poorly on general-domain text (F1=0.012), while structured evidence improves performance on adversarial paraphrases. Post-hoc Platt scaling further improves confidence calibration. The results demonstrate that increased agentic complexity does not necessarily improve semantic-drift detection and that simple few-shot prompting can provide a strong and efficient alternative.