TVR: Automotive System Requirement Traceability Validation and Recovery Through Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Feifei Niu; Hanyang Hu; Lionel C. Briand; Rongqi Pan

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

TVR: Automotive System Requirement Traceability Validation and Recovery Through Retrieval-Augmented Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes TVR, a retrieval-augmented LLM method that validates and recovers requirement traceability links in automotive systems, reporting 98.87% validation accuracy and 85.50% recovery correctness on industrial DTC data.

desk verdict Solid, transparent industrial case study—retrieved positive/negative demonstrations genuinely help LLM link validation—but the 98.87% headline is best-of-grid and the 85.50% recovery number is precision-only with an untested filter. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15427 v5 pith:ZAKBU5RW submitted 2025-04-21 cs.SE

Feifei Niu , Rongqi Pan , Lionel C. Briand , Hanyang Hu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SE

keywords requirementstraceabilityretrieval-augmentedgenerationlargelanguagemodelsautomotivesystemsdiagnostictroublecodesvalidationrecoveryin-contextlearning

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that requirement traceability in automotive systems can be checked automatically by an LLM that is shown similar already-labeled requirement pairs before it judges a new pair. On 2,132 industrial diagnostic-trouble-code (DTC) links between stakeholder and system requirements, the proposed method, TVR, reaches 98.87% accuracy and 96.72% Macro-F1 for validation, and identifies missing links with 85.50% correctness after human verification. The method holds up when tested on requirement variations not seen in the retrieval examples, keeping 97.13% accuracy. A sympathetic reader would care because traceability is currently checked by hand for weeks each year, and mistakes propagate into safety-critical automotive functions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is retrieval-augmented in-context learning with balanced demonstrations. The retriever embeds whole requirement pairs with the partner-approved embedding model, finds the k=3 closest valid pairs and k=3 closest invalid pairs by cosine similarity, and the generator then receives a prompt that defines the task narrowly: check only whether the message or signal from the stakeholder requirement is covered by the system requirement. The retrieved examples do the teaching work: they let the model infer the domain-specific notion of a valid link without retraining, and the explicit inclusion of invalid examples shows it what near-miss pairs look like. The paper's recovery mechanism relies on a three-step filter (same DTC type, same mature or demature condition, and at least one shared message) to shrink the candidate space before the same validator is applied.

What would settle it

Re-annotate the same 2,132 links with independent automotive engineers who do not see TVR's outputs, then rerun leave-one-out evaluation; a material drop below 98.87% would show the ground truth and the retrieved examples were not independent of the tested labels. For recovery, manually inspect a random sample of the pairs removed by the three-step filter; finding genuine missing links there would show that the 85.50% figure measures precision only and overstates completeness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that traceability validation for DTC requirements is a message-coverage question rather than a text-similarity question: a system requirement is correctly linked to a stakeholder requirement when the system requirement actually covers the message or signal named by the stakeholder requirement. TVR operationalizes this by retrieving the k most similar valid pairs and the k most similar invalid pairs from a labeled database, concatenating them into the prompt, and asking the LLM to answer Yes or No for the candidate pair. With cosine similarity and k=3, the paper reports 98.87% accuracy and 96.72% Macro-F1, a clear margin over plain zero-shot, chain-of-thought, few-shot, and self-consistency prompts and over retrieval-only baselines whose Macro-F1 peaks below 58%. For recovery, three filtering rules reduce a near-Cartesian candidate set to 1,919 pairs, TVR predicts 502 missing links, and human verification confirms 85.50% of them. The paper also reports robustness to unseen requirement variations at 97.13% accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes the two authors' manual labels of the 2,132 links are correct ground truth, and the recovery results also assume the three-step filter never discards a real missing link. If the labels are wrong or the filter drops true links, the reported accuracy and recovery correctness no longer measure what they appear to measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Engineers can use TVR to audit existing DTC traceability links at near-99% accuracy, turning a weeks-long manual review into a review of model-flagged exceptions.
The 85.50% recovery correctness means roughly 7 in 8 automatically proposed missing links are right, so recovery can be used as a suggestion engine with human sign-off on the remainder.
Because the retrieval database grows as engineers confirm links, each validation cycle should improve future prompts without retraining or prompt rewriting.
The large gap over similarity-only baselines suggests lexical or embedding distance alone is not sufficient for this requirement level, so traceability tooling in safety-critical domains needs label-guided reasoning rather than thresholds.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This implies a bootstrapping strategy: a small seed set of validated links could start the loop, with engineers verifying only model-flagged pairs until the database is large enough to maintain 98%-class accuracy; the paper does not test how small a seed can be.
Because the prompt defines traceability narrowly as message or signal coverage, the method may transfer to other artifact pairs whose validity is similarly local, such as a code change covering a requirement's named variable; this transfer is an editorial inference, not a paper result.
The recovery filter's completeness assumption is untested: if any true missing link shares no message token, it is removed before TVR runs, so measuring recall would require sampling the filtered-out pairs.
One testable extension is to replace the fixed k=3 with per-DTC-type or per-variation retrieval counts, since the paper's robustness results suggest some variation categories are harder than others.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick read on TVR (arXiv:2504.15427): this is a solid, transparent industrial case study of RAG-based LLM validation for automotive traceability, and the core empirical finding—retrieving balanced valid and invalid requirement pairs as in-context demonstrations beats zero-shot, CoT, few-shot, and LiSSA-style baselines—holds up on their data. Just don't take the headline numbers at face value: 98.87% is the best of a sixteen-configuration grid selected on the same test outcomes, and the 85.50% recovery figure is precision-only, with the candidate filter's false-negative rate untested.

What's new: Hey et al. [61] and LiSSA both precede TVR on RAG-based traceability, so the abstract's claim that existing approaches don't address stakeholder-to-system traceability is contradicted by the paper's own related work. That said, TVR's specific twist—retrieving both positive and negative pairs as explicit demonstrations, and validating existing stakeholder-to-system DTC links rather than recovering links from scratch—is a legitimate new application, and it targets a real pain point (ASPICE/ISO 26262 compliance).

What they do well: leave-one-out cross-validation, 13 LLMs, four prompting strategies, a k and similarity-measure sweep, Fisher's exact tests, a thoughtful cross-variation robustness experiment, error analysis on every recovery false positive, and a public replication package. Given the 89.7% valid-class imbalance, reporting macro-F1 and invalid-class F1 rather than leaning on accuracy is the right call.

Soft spots, proportionately. First, configuration selection: k=3/cosine was chosen after seeing the same leave-one-out outcomes, so 98.87% is the maximum of a small grid. The Fisher p-values against self-consistency (0.0011) and few-shot (0.0004) survive a Bonferroni correction for 16 configs, so the relative conclusion is safe; just read the headline as best-of-grid, not expected performance. Second, and more load-bearing for the recovery claim: correctness is computed only over the 502 pairs TVR predicted. A true missing link dropped by the step-3 message-overlap filter never appears in any reported number, and Section 7's assertion that the rules were 'designed to ensure no true traceability links were inadvertently removed' is unsupported by any analysis. The stress-test note lands here. Third, the dataset is private and the labels are author-made; kappa of 0.962 helps, but the retrieved demonstrations come from the same annotation, so the estimates are conditional on that ground truth. Minor: the LiSSA baseline is reimplemented with Claude 3.5, which is reasonable given data privacy but is not the published LiSSA.

Who it's for: requirements-engineering researchers and automotive practitioners who want an LLM-based validation tool with an honest evaluation. It deserves a serious referee, with required revision: either measure recovery recall on a sampled candidate set or hedge the recovery claim, tone down the abstract, and acknowledge the config-selection caveat.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents TVR, a retrieval-augmented generation approach for validating and recovering traceability links between stakeholder and system requirements for diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) in an automotive industrial dataset. For validation, TVR retrieves k valid and k invalid labeled requirement pairs most similar to a given pair and includes them in the LLM prompt, asking the model to decide whether the system requirement covers the message or signal in the stakeholder requirement. The authors evaluate 13 LLMs, four prompting strategies, two similarity measures, and K = 1...8 using leave-one-out cross-validation on 2,132 links, reporting 98.87% accuracy and 96.72% Macro-F1 for their best configuration (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, cosine similarity, K = 3), significantly above LiSSA and TF-IDF/SBERT retrieval baselines. A variation-based cross-validation reports 97.13% accuracy. For recovery, a three-step filter plus TVR over the remaining 1,919 candidate pairs yields 502 predicted missing links with 85.50% human-verified correctness.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine industrial problem with a plausible method and a largely transparent evaluation: leave-one-out cross-validation, multiple baselines, Fisher's exact tests, a broad model landscape, and a public replication package are strengths. If the performance holds out of sample, a RAG-based in-context demonstration approach for validating domain-specific requirement links is a useful practical contribution to automotive requirements engineering. However, the current evidence has two gaps that bear directly on the headline claims: the reported validation accuracy is selected over configurations assessed on the same test folds, and the recovery metric is precision-only with no assessment of the filter's false negatives. These are fixable with additional experiments, but the claims as written are stronger than the evidence.

major comments (3)

[§5.2, Table 1, Fig. 5] The headline validation result (98.87% accuracy, 96.72% Macro-F1) is the best configuration selected from K = 1...8 and cosine/Euclidean similarity after observing the same leave-one-out test outcomes. Because the same test data were used both to choose K and the similarity measure and to report the final accuracy, the reported number is an optimistically biased estimate of the method's expected accuracy; the Fisher's exact tests cited in §5.2 do not account for this selection. Please either use a nested validation procedure (e.g., select K on a validation fold and evaluate on a held-out fold) or report the full distribution over configurations with an appropriate correction, and qualify the abstract and RQ2 conclusion accordingly.
[§5.4 and Eq. (5), with §3.3 and §7] The recovery claim rests on Correctness (Eq. 5), which is precision over the 502 links that TVR predicted among the 1,919 candidate pairs surviving the three preprocessing steps. The assertion in §7 that the manually defined rules 'were designed to ensure that no true traceability links were inadvertently removed' is not backed by any analysis. In particular, Step 3 (message-overlap matching) can silently remove a true missing link if the stakeholder and system requirements express the same message with different surface tokens or pseudonyms, and such a pair is then invisible to the 85.50% metric, so the recovery result says nothing about recall. I request a false-negative analysis of the filter (e.g., check how many of the 1,913 known-valid links survive the three steps, or sample pairs removed at Step 3 and manually verify them) and reporting of recall and F1 for recovery; the abstract and RQ4 conclusion should be adjusted until such evidence is provided.
[§4.3 and §5.2] In the leave-one-out setup, the test pair ⟨stakeReq, sysReq⟩ is removed from the retrieval database, but Dtrain still contains all other links that share the same sysReq (and sometimes the same stakeReq). Because the retriever embeds the concatenation of both requirements, those near-duplicate pairs are likely to dominate the k positive and k negative retrieved examples, effectively giving the LLM a small labeled set for the exact same system requirement. This may inflate accuracy relative to a deployment scenario where the link being validated concerns a requirement not present in the retrieval database. Please report an additional experiment where all links involving the test pair's sysReq are excluded from Dtrain, and discuss how performance changes.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and §1] The abstract and introduction state '98.87% accuracy' and '85.50% correctness' without qualification; these should be presented as the best configuration observed and as a precision-oriented recovery metric, respectively, ideally with a pointer to the relevant sections.
[§4.3] The dataset description would benefit from an explicit statement that the 48 system requirements are each typically linked to multiple stakeholder requirements; this makes clear why the retrieval near-duplicate issue in the leave-one-out protocol can arise.
[§5.3, Table 2] The term 'unseen variations' is somewhat strong: the four variation categories are all identified from the same dataset, so the evaluation shows generalization to held-out instances of known templates rather than to genuinely new template structures. A sentence qualifying this in the RQ3 answer would improve precision.
[§5.2] The Fisher's exact test p-values are reported for a few pairwise comparisons only; a compact table with all configuration comparisons or a statement about the number of tests performed would help readers evaluate the selection effect discussed in the major comments.
[§3.3] The phrase 'preserving all potential missing links' before the description of the three-step filtering steps in Section 3.3 is an unverified claim; consider rephrasing it as a design goal or moving the supporting evidence from Section 7 into Section 3.3.
[General presentation] Minor typographical and formatting issues include inconsistent capitalization of 'VARIATION' in the text and figures, and some reference entries (e.g., [5] and [6]) appear to have identical titles; these should be cleaned up in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: validation uses held-out links with retrieved demonstrations from other labels, and the recovery metric is an honestly labeled precision measure.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular by construction. For validation (RQ2), leave-one-out cross-validation holds the test link out of the retrieval database, and the prompt contains only the task instruction, k positive and k negative retrieved examples from other labeled links, and the test pair; the test label is not an input to the model. The ground truth was independently produced by two annotators following engineers' guidelines, and while author-produced labels are an internal validity concern, they do not make the prediction equal to its input. Selecting the best K and similarity measure from Figure 5 and then reporting that configuration's accuracy is model selection on the evaluation set, which can inflate the reported estimate, but it is not a derivation that reduces to its input. The recovery result in Eq. (5) is explicitly a precision-style metric ('Correctness = Number of Correct Links Verified by Humans / Total Number of Links Predicted by the Model'), and the paper does not present it as recall or full recovery completeness; the unconverified preservation property of the three-step filter is a completeness threat, acknowledged in Section 7, not a circular step. No load-bearing self-citation appears: the RAG inspiration is attributed to external prior work, and the authors' own replication package is an implementation artifact. Thus the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with the noted evaluation-design limitations falling under validity and generalizability rather than circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on two unverified inputs: the author-created ground truth labels for all 2,132 links and the manually designed recovery filters in Section 3.3. The only free parameters are the number of retrieved demonstrations k and the similarity measure, both selected by maximizing F1 on the same evaluation data. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

k (number of retrieved examples per class) = 3
K=3 with cosine similarity was selected as the configuration with the highest F1 score in Figure 5, using the same leave-one-out evaluation data on which the final accuracy is reported.
embedding similarity measure = cosine
Cosine similarity was chosen over Euclidean distance after comparing F1 curves in Figure 5 on the evaluation data.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption The two authors' annotations of all 2,132 traceability links are correct ground truth.
Section 4.3: labels were produced by two authors and reconciled; Section 7 admits manual annotation is error-prone, and any label errors propagate into accuracy, retrieval examples, and recovery verification.
ad hoc to paper The three-step preprocessing in recovery (same DTC type, same mature/demature condition, shared message overlap) preserves all true missing traceability links.
Section 3.3 defines these manual rules for the studied dataset; Section 7 notes their applicability to other datasets may be limited. If a rule removes a real link, the recovery claim misses it because only precision is measured.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TVR: Automotive System Requirement Traceability Validation and Recovery Through Retrieval-Augmented Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZAKBU5RW

@misc{pith2026250415427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TVR: Automotive System Requirement Traceability Validation and Recovery Through Retrieval-Augmented Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZAKBU5RW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15427}
}

read the original abstract

In automotive software development, as well as other domains, traceability between stakeholder requirements and system requirements is crucial to ensure consistency, correctness, and regulatory compliance. However, erroneous or missing traceability relationships often arise due to improper propagation of requirement changes or human errors in requirement mapping, leading to inconsistencies and increased maintenance costs. Existing approaches do not address traceability between stakeholder and system requirements, and are not validated on industrial data, where the links between requirements are established manually by engineers. Additionally, automotive requirements often exhibit variations in the way they are expressed, posing challenges for training-based approaches. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) provide new opportunities to address these challenges. In this paper, we introduce TVR, a requirement Traceability Validation and Recovery approach primarily targeting automotive systems, leveraging LLMs enhanced with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). TVR is designed to validate existing traceability links and recover missing ones with high accuracy. The experimental results highlight the practical effectiveness of TVR in industrial settings, offering a promising solution for improving requirements traceability in complex automotive systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

A Triple-Robustness Analysis of Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Multi-Hop Requirements Traceability
cs.IR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

RAG architecture rankings flip depending on whether citations are measured over the retrieved context or over the answer, and single-judge LLM faithfulness is highly unstable across embedders and over time.
Bridging Stakeholder and Product Requirements: An Empirical Study of Requirement Engineering in the Automotive Industry
cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In industrial automotive chip projects, stakeholder-to-product refinement complexity is driven mainly by architectural scope and missing context rather than linguistic verbosity, while acceptance is dominated by speci...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[61]

In: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp

Hey, T., Fuchß, D., Keim, J., Koziolek, A.: Requirements traceability link recov- ery via retrieval-augmented generation. In: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp. 381–397 (2025). Springer 30

work page 2025
[1]

Automotive Innovation 7(1), 82–101 (2024)

Wang, W., Guo, K., Cao, W., Zhu, H., Nan, J., Yu, L.: Review of electrical and electronic architectures for autonomous vehicles: Topologies, networking and simulators. Automotive Innovation 7(1), 82–101 (2024)

work page 2024
[2]

In: 2016 IEEE/ACS 13th International Conference of Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA), pp

Idri, A., Cheikhi, L.: A survey of secondary studies in software process improve- ment. In: 2016 IEEE/ACS 13th International Conference of Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA), pp. 1–8 (2016). IEEE

work page 2016
[3]

In: 16th International Conference on Eval- uation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), pp

García-Mireles, G.A., Ángeles Moraga, M., García, F.: Development of maturity models: a systematic literature review. In: 16th International Conference on Eval- uation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), pp. 279–283 (2012). IET

work page 2012
[4]

International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2015-03)

ISO/IEC 33001: Information technology – Process assessment – Concepts and ter- minology. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2015-03)

work page 2015
[5]

International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

ISO/IEC 33002: Information technology—Process assessment—Concepts and terminology. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

work page 2015
[6]

International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

ISO/IEC 33003: Information technology—Process assessment—Concepts and terminology. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

work page 2015
[7]

International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

ISO/IEC 33004: Information technology—Process assessment—Concepts and terminology. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

work page 2015

Show all 61 references

[8]

Pearson Education, ??? (2013)

Wiegers, K.E., Beatty, J.: Software Requirements. Pearson Education, ??? (2013)

2013
[9]

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) 12(8), 2003–2007 (2023)

Pargaonkar, S.: Synergizing requirements engineering and quality assurance: A comprehensive exploration in software quality engineering. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) 12(8), 2003–2007 (2023)

2023
[10]

In: 2017 2nd International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS), pp

Tufail, H., Masood, M.F., Zeb, B., Azam, F., Anwar, M.W.: A systematic review of requirement traceability techniques and tools. In: 2017 2nd International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS), pp. 450–454 (2017). IEEE

2017
[11]

In: 2010 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp

Siegl, S., Hielscher, K.-S., German, R.: Model based requirements analysis and 25 testing of automotive systems with timed usage models. In: 2010 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 345–350 (2010). IEEE

2010
[12]

In: 2011 18th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pp

Qusef, A., Bavota, G., Oliveto, R., De Lucia, A., Binkley, D.: Scotch: Slicing and coupling based test to code trace hunter. In: 2011 18th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pp. 443–444 (2011). IEEE

2011
[13]

Laxmi Publications, Ltd., ??? (2009)

Marscholik, C., Subke, P.: Road Vehicles: Diagnostic Communication: Technology and Applications. Laxmi Publications, Ltd., ??? (2009)

2009
[14]

In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Data Mining, pp

Pirasteh, P., Nowaczyk, S., Pashami, S., Löwenadler, M., Thunberg, K., Ydreskog, H., Berck, P.: Interactive feature extraction for diagnostic trouble codes in predictive maintenance: A case study from automotive domain. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Data Minin...

2019
[15]

In: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp

Gao, H., Kuang, H., Sun, K., Ma, X., Egyed, A., Mäder, P., Rong, G., Shao, D., Zhang, H.: Using consensual biterms from text structures of requirements and code to improve ir-based traceability recovery. In: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automate...

2022
[16]

In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pp

Hey, T., Chen, F., Weigelt, S., Tichy, W.F.: Improving traceability link recovery using fine-grained requirements-to-code relations. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pp. 12–22 (2021). IEEE

2021
[17]

In: 2013 17th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pp

Panichella, A., McMillan, C., Moritz, E., Palmieri, D., Oliveto, R., Poshyvanyk, D., De Lucia, A.: When and how using structural information to improve ir- based traceability recovery. In: 2013 17th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pp. 199–208 (20...

2013
[18]

Kuang, H., Mäder, P., Hu, H., Ghabi, A., Huang, L., Lü, J., Egyed, A.: Can method data dependencies support the assessment of traceability between requirements and source code? Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 27(11), 838–866 (2015)

2015
[19]

IEEE transactions on software engineering 28(10), 970–983 (2002)

Antoniol, G., Canfora, G., Casazza, G., De Lucia, A., Merlo, E.: Recovering trace- ability links between code and documentation. IEEE transactions on software engineering 28(10), 970–983 (2002)

2002
[20]

In: 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003

Marcus, A., Maletic, J.I.: Recovering documentation-to-source-code traceabil- ity links using latent semantic indexing. In: 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings., pp. 125–135 (2003). IEEE

2003
[21]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp

Keim, J., Corallo, S., Fuchß, D., Hey, T., Telge, T., Koziolek, A.: Recovering trace links between software documentation and code. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 1–13 26 (2024)

2024
[22]

In: 2023 IEEE 20th International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA), pp

Keim, J., Corallo, S., Fuchß, D., Koziolek, A.: Detecting inconsistencies in soft- ware architecture documentation using traceability link recovery. In: 2023 IEEE 20th International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA), pp. 141–152 (2023). IEEE

2023
[23]

In: 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE’05), pp

Cleland-Huang, J., Settimi, R., Duan, C., Zou, X.: Utilizing supporting evi- dence to improve dynamic requirements traceability. In: 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE’05), pp. 135–144 (2005). IEEE

2005
[24]

: Language models are few-shot learners

Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J.D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. : Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 1877–1901 (2020)

2020
[25]

Qin, C., Zhang, A., Zhang, Z., Chen, J., Yasunaga, M., Yang, D.: Is chat- gpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06476 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[26]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering

Fuchß, D., Hey, T., Keim, J., Liu, H., Ewald, N., Thirolf, T., Koziolek, A.: Lissa: Toward generic traceability link recovery through retrieval-augmented gen- eration. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE, vol. 25 (2025)

2025
[27]

In: 2023 IEEE 31st International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), pp

Rodriguez, A.D., Dearstyne, K.R., Cleland-Huang, J.: Prompts matter: Insights and strategies for prompt engineering in automated software traceability. In: 2023 IEEE 31st International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), pp. 455–464 (2023). IEEE

2023
[28]

https://github.com/ feifeiniu-se/TVR

Feifei, N., Rongqi, P., Lionel C., B., Hanyang, H.: TVR. https://github.com/ feifeiniu-se/TVR. Accessed: 2025-09-28 (2025)

2025
[29]

In: 2017 IEEE 15th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), pp

Theissler, A.: Multi-class novelty detection in diagnostic trouble codes from repair shops. In: 2017 IEEE 15th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), pp. 1043–1049 (2017). IEEE

2017
[30]

Palai, D.: Vehicle level approach for optimization of on-board diagnostic strategies for fault management (2013)

2013
[31]

In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp

Gotel, O.C., Finkelstein, C.: An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 94–101 (1994). IEEE

1994
[32]

Empirical Software Engineering 23, 2198–2231 (2018) 27

Rahimi, M., Cleland-Huang, J.: Evolving software trace links between require- ments and source code. Empirical Software Engineering 23, 2198–2231 (2018) 27

2018
[33]

Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 33(2), 2294 (2021)

Charalampidou, S., Ampatzoglou, A., Karountzos, E., A vgeriou, P.: Empirical studies on software traceability: A mapping study. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 33(2), 2294 (2021)

2021
[34]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10845 (2024)

Guo, J.L., Steghöfer, J.-P., Vogelsang, A., Cleland-Huang, J.: Natural language processing for requirements traceability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10845 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[35]

In: Rogers, A., Boyd- Graber, J.L., Okazaki, N

Li, X., Lv, K., Yan, H., Lin, T., Zhu, W., Ni, Y., Xie, G., Wang, X., Qiu, X.: Unified demonstration retriever for in-context learning. In: Rogers, A., Boyd- Graber, J.L., Okazaki, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

2023 doi
[36]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13193 (2024)

Wu, S., Xiong, Y., Cui, Y., Wu, H., Chen, C., Yuan, Y., Huang, L., Liu, X., Kuo, T.-W., Guan, N., et al.: Retrieval-augmented generation for natural language processing: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13193 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[37]

https: //docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/titan-embedding-models

Amazon Web Services: Amazon Titan Embedding Models – A WS Bedrock. https: //docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/titan-embedding-models. html. Accessed: 2025-09-29 (2025)

2025
[38]

https://github.com/facebookresearch/faiss

Facebook Research: Faiss: A library for eﬀicient similarity search and clustering of dense vectors. https://github.com/facebookresearch/faiss. Accessed: 2025-09-29 (2025)

2025
[39]

https://aws.amazon

Amazon Web Services: Anthropic Claude on A WS Bedrock. https://aws.amazon. com/bedrock/anthropic/. Accessed: 2025-09-29 (2025)

2025
[40]

https://docs

Anthropic: Prompt Engineering with Claude: Use XML Tags. https://docs. claude.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/use-xml-tags . Accessed: 2025-09-29 (2025)

2025
[41]

Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.H., Friedman, J.H.: The Elements of Sta- tistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction vol. 2. Springer, ??? (2009)

2009
[42]

Schütze, H., Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P.: Introduction to Information Retrieval vol. 39. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, ??? (2008)

2008
[43]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 (2019)

Reimers, N., Gurevych, I.: Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[44]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 (2022) 28

Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., Zhou, D.: Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 (2022) 28

2022 arXiv
[45]

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 16(4), 13 (2007)

Lucia, A.D., Fasano, F., Oliveto, R., Tortora, G.: Recovering traceability links in software artifact management systems using information retrieval methods. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 16(4), 13 (2007)

2007
[46]

In: 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp

Mahmoud, A.: An information theoretic approach for extracting and tracing non-functional requirements. In: 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 36–45 (2015). IEEE

2015
[47]

In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1, pp

Asuncion, H.U., Asuncion, A.U., Taylor, R.N.: Software traceability with topic modeling. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1, pp. 95–104 (2010)

2010
[48]

In: 2011 27th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), pp

Gethers, M., Oliveto, R., Poshyvanyk, D., De Lucia, A.: On integrating orthogo- nal information retrieval methods to improve traceability recovery. In: 2011 27th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), pp. 133–142 (2011). IEEE

2011
[49]

In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp

Moran, K., Palacio, D.N., Bernal-Cárdenas, C., McCrystal, D., Poshyvanyk, D., Shenefiel, C., Johnson, J.: Improving the effectiveness of traceability link recovery using hierarchical bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software E...

2020
[50]

In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp

Guo, J., Cheng, J., Cleland-Huang, J.: Semantically enhanced software trace- ability using deep learning techniques. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 3–14 (2017). IEEE

2017
[51]

In: 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp

Wang, W., Niu, N., Liu, H., Niu, Z.: Enhancing automated requirements trace- ability by resolving polysemy. In: 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 40–51 (2018). IEEE

2018
[52]

In: 2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), pp

Zhao, T., Cao, Q., Sun, Q.: An improved approach to traceability recovery based on word embeddings. In: 2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), pp. 81–89 (2017). IEEE

2017
[53]

In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pp

Mills, C., Escobar-A vila, J., Bhattacharya, A., Kondyukov, G., Chakraborty, S., Haiduc, S.: Tracing with less data: active learning for classification-based traceability link recovery. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pp. 1...

2019
[54]

In: 2021 IEEE 21st International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS), pp

Zhang, M., Tao, C., Guo, H., Huang, Z.: Recovering semantic traceability between requirements and source code using feature representation techniques. In: 2021 IEEE 21st International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS), pp. 873–882 (2021). IEEE

2021
[55]

https://openai.com/chatgpt 29

OpenAI: ChatGPT (2023). https://openai.com/chatgpt 29

2023
[56]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774

OpenAI: GPT-4 Technical Report (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774

2023 arXiv
[57]

https://www.llama.com/

https://www.llama.com/: Llama (2023). https://www.llama.com/

2023
[58]

https://claude.ai/

https://claude.ai/: Claude (2023). https://claude.ai/

2023
[59]

In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

Kusner, M., Sun, Y., Kolkin, N., Weinberger, K.: From word embeddings to document distances. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 957– 966 (2015). PMLR

2015
[60]

In: 2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp

Hey, T., Keim, J., Corallo, S.: Requirements classification for traceability link recovery. In: 2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 155–167 (2024). IEEE

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [61]

In: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp

Hey, T., Fuchß, D., Keim, J., Koziolek, A.: Requirements traceability link recov- ery via retrieval-augmented generation. In: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp. 381–397 (2025). Springer 30

work page 2025

[2] [1]

Automotive Innovation 7(1), 82–101 (2024)

Wang, W., Guo, K., Cao, W., Zhu, H., Nan, J., Yu, L.: Review of electrical and electronic architectures for autonomous vehicles: Topologies, networking and simulators. Automotive Innovation 7(1), 82–101 (2024)

work page 2024

[3] [2]

In: 2016 IEEE/ACS 13th International Conference of Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA), pp

Idri, A., Cheikhi, L.: A survey of secondary studies in software process improve- ment. In: 2016 IEEE/ACS 13th International Conference of Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA), pp. 1–8 (2016). IEEE

work page 2016

[4] [3]

In: 16th International Conference on Eval- uation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), pp

García-Mireles, G.A., Ángeles Moraga, M., García, F.: Development of maturity models: a systematic literature review. In: 16th International Conference on Eval- uation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), pp. 279–283 (2012). IET

work page 2012

[5] [4]

International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2015-03)

ISO/IEC 33001: Information technology – Process assessment – Concepts and ter- minology. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2015-03)

work page 2015

[6] [5]

International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

ISO/IEC 33002: Information technology—Process assessment—Concepts and terminology. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

work page 2015

[7] [6]

International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

ISO/IEC 33003: Information technology—Process assessment—Concepts and terminology. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

work page 2015

[8] [7]

International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

ISO/IEC 33004: Information technology—Process assessment—Concepts and terminology. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer- land (2015-03)

work page 2015