On the Impact of Requirements Smells in Prompts: The Case of Automated Traceability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.04810v1
• Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 19:54:31 GMT
• Title: On the Impact of Requirements Smells in Prompts: The Case of Automated Traceability
• Authors: Andreas Vogelsang, Alexander Korn, Giovanna Broccia, Alessio Ferrari, Jannik Fischbach, Chetan Arora,
• Abstract summary: We investigate the role of requirements smells-indicators of potential issues like ambiguity and inconsistency-when used in prompts for large language models (LLMs) Our results show mixed outcomes: while requirements smells had a small but significant effect when predicting whether a requirement was implemented in a piece of code (i.e., a trace link exists), no significant effect was observed when tracing the requirements with the associated lines of code. These findings suggest that requirements smells can affect LLM performance in certain SE tasks but may not uniformly impact all tasks.
• Score: 45.24937784556523
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate software artifacts, such as source code, tests, and trace links. Requirements play a central role in shaping the input prompts that guide LLMs, as they are often used as part of the prompts to synthesize the artifacts. However, the impact of requirements formulation on LLM performance remains unclear. In this paper, we investigate the role of requirements smells-indicators of potential issues like ambiguity and inconsistency-when used in prompts for LLMs. We conducted experiments using two LLMs focusing on automated trace link generation between requirements and code. Our results show mixed outcomes: while requirements smells had a small but significant effect when predicting whether a requirement was implemented in a piece of code (i.e., a trace link exists), no significant effect was observed when tracing the requirements with the associated lines of code. These findings suggest that requirements smells can affect LLM performance in certain SE tasks but may not uniformly impact all tasks. We highlight the need for further research to understand these nuances and propose future work toward developing guidelines for mitigating the negative effects of requirements smells in AI-driven SE processes.

Related papers

• SpecTool: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs [77.79172008184415]
  SpecTool is a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks. We show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs. Researchers can use the analysis and insights from SPECTOOL to guide their error mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T18:56:22Z)
• Towards Boosting LLMs-driven Relevance Modeling with Progressive Retrieved Behavior-augmented Prompting [23.61061000692023]
  This study proposes leveraging user interactions recorded in search logs to yield insights into users' implicit search intentions. We propose ProRBP, a novel Progressive Retrieved Behavior-augmented Prompting framework for integrating search scenario-oriented knowledge with Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-18T11:07:38Z)
• SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning [70.21358720599821]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. We propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM. We report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T04:41:58Z)
• What Did I Do Wrong? Quantifying LLMs' Sensitivity and Consistency to Prompt Engineering [8.019873464066308]
  We introduce two metrics for classification tasks, namely sensitivity and consistency. sensitivity measures changes of predictions across rephrasings of the prompt. Instead, consistency measures how predictions vary across rephrasings for elements of the same class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T06:59:24Z)
• Guiding LLM Temporal Logic Generation with Explicit Separation of Data and Control [0.7580487359358722]
  Temporal logics are powerful tools that are widely used for the synthesis and verification of reactive systems. Recent progress on Large Language Models has the potential to make the process of writing such specifications more accessible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T16:07:24Z)
• Are you still on track!? Catching LLM Task Drift with Activations [55.75645403965326]
  Task drift allows attackers to exfiltrate data or influence the LLM's output for other users. We show that a simple linear classifier can detect drift with near-perfect ROC AUC on an out-of-distribution test set. We observe that this approach generalizes surprisingly well to unseen task domains, such as prompt injections, jailbreaks, and malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-02T16:53:21Z)
• Feedback Loops With Language Models Drive In-Context Reward Hacking [78.9830398771605]
  We show that feedback loops can cause in-context reward hacking (ICRH) We identify and study two processes that lead to ICRH: output-refinement and policy-refinement. As AI development accelerates, the effects of feedback loops will proliferate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T18:59:29Z)
• Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedback [127.75419038610455]
  Large language models (LLMs) are able to generate human-like, fluent responses for many downstream tasks. This paper proposes a LLM-Augmenter system, which augments a black-box LLM with a set of plug-and-play modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T18:48:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.