Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

How Effective are Large Language Models in Generating Software Specifications?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2306.03324 v3 pith:F34GPOTE submitted 2023-06-06 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords llmssoftwarespecificationsapproacheslanguagecommentsconductevaluate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Software specifications are essential for many Software Engineering (SE) tasks such as bug detection and test generation. Many existing approaches are proposed to extract the specifications defined in natural language form (e.g., comments) into formal machine readable form (e.g., first order logic). However, existing approaches suffer from limited generalizability and require manual efforts. The recent emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs), which have been successfully applied to numerous SE tasks, offers a promising avenue for automating this process. In this paper, we conduct the first empirical study to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs for generating software specifications from software comments or documentation. We evaluate LLMs performance with Few Shot Learning (FSL) and compare the performance of 13 state of the art LLMs with traditional approaches on three public datasets. In addition, we conduct a comparative diagnosis of the failure cases from both LLMs and traditional methods, identifying their unique strengths and weaknesses. Our study offers valuable insights for future research to improve specification generation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Breaking the Myth: Can Small Models Infer Postconditions Too?

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Coder-7B on 1.5K reasoning examples yields postcondition generation close to GPT-4o and better than 32B open models on Defects4J.

  2. GrowthHacker: Automated Off-Policy Evaluation Optimization Using Code-Modifying LLM Agents

    cs.SE 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A benchmark and small-scale evaluation suggesting LLM agents can modify off-policy evaluation code and sometimes improve the measured metrics, with the authors' two-agent framework the most reliable of those tested.

  3. VulBinLLM: LLM-powered Vulnerability Detection for Stripped Binaries

    cs.CR 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    An LLM pipeline that enriches decompiled code with vulnerability hints and then classifies CWEs reports high Juliet accuracy, but leaky hints and unmatched baselines weaken the claim.

Pith tools