REVIEW 3 cited by
Using Large Language Models for Natural Language Processing Tasks in Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Guideline
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
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are the cornerstone in automating Requirements Engineering (RE) tasks, underpinning recent advancements in the field. Their pre-trained comprehension of natural language is pivotal for effectively tailoring them to specific RE tasks. However, selecting an appropriate LLM from a myriad of existing architectures and fine-tuning it to address the intricacies of a given task poses a significant challenge for researchers and practitioners in the RE domain. Utilizing LLMs effectively for NLP problems in RE necessitates a dual understanding: firstly, of the inner workings of LLMs, and secondly, of a systematic approach to selecting and adapting LLMs for NLP4RE tasks. This chapter aims to furnish readers with essential knowledge about LLMs in its initial segment. Subsequently, it provides a comprehensive guideline tailored for students, researchers, and practitioners on harnessing LLMs to address their specific objectives. By offering insights into the workings of LLMs and furnishing a practical guide, this chapter contributes towards improving future research and applications leveraging LLMs for solving RE challenges.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
LLM-Driven Cost-Effective Requirements Change Impact Analysis
ProReFiCIA uses LLMs with tailored prompts to identify impacted requirements, achieving 85.7% recall on unseen industrial data while requiring review of only 3% of requirements, rising to 95.7% recall with RAG at 3.6%...
-
Automatic Generation of Explainability Requirements and Software Explanations From User Reviews
A ChatGPT-based pipeline can draft explainability requirements and explanations from app reviews, but engineers still prefer manually written requirements and users find AI explanations stylish yet less correct.
-
Model-Driven Requirements Configuration with Three-Valued Uncertainty Scoring
An LLM-plus-symbolic-validator loop cuts structural requirement errors to 0.39% under a small model (0% under a frontier model) and quantifies ~25% of LLM choices as valid but indeterminate.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.