Large Language Models for Requirements Engineering: A Cross-Task Empirical Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.21531v1
• Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 18:09:48 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models for Requirements Engineering: A Cross-Task Empirical Evaluation
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) can support many Requirements Engineering (RE) activities.<n>Existing evidence is fragmented across tasks, artefact types, and evaluation settings.<n>We present two complementary studies evaluating LLMs across five RE-related activities.
• Score: 2.8202756171824315
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Requirements-related information is scattered across heterogeneous artefacts such as user feedback, developer discussions, and software repositories, making the extraction of actionable requirements knowledge labour-intensive and hard to scale. Large Language Models (LLMs) can support many Requirements Engineering (RE) activities, from classification and traceability identification to specification and explanation generation, but existing evidence is fragmented across tasks, artefact types, and evaluation settings, and studies rarely offer cross-task evaluations or replication packages. We present two complementary empirical studies evaluating LLMs across five RE-related activities. The first is a controlled experiment on five lightweight open-source LLMs for feedback-driven requirements classification and specification generation. The second is an exploratory industrial case study on two frontier LLMs for traceability link identification and traceability explanation generation using real project artefacts. Classification and traceability identification were assessed with quantitative metrics, and generation tasks through human evaluation. LLM performance is strongly task-dependent, ranging from moderate to high, and no single model consistently outperformed the others, indicating that effective adoption depends on selecting models and prompting strategies per task. Our contributions are: (i) the first cross-task empirical evaluation of LLMs spanning five RE-related activities, (ii) replication materials supporting reproducibility, and (iii) a broader understanding of the capabilities, limitations, and practical readiness of current LLMs for RE.

Related papers

• A2RBench: An Automatic Paradigm for Formally Verifiable Abstract Reasoning Benchmark Generation [59.98516959731531]
  Abstract reasoning ability reflects intelligence and capacity of LLMs to extract and apply abstract rules.<n>Existing benchmarks either rely on expensive manual annotation, limiting their scale, or risk measuring memorization rather than genuine reasoning.<n>We introduce an automated pipeline named A2RBench, encompassing generation, expansion, evaluation, and analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T06:14:20Z)
• Class Model Generation from Requirements using Large Language Models [5.685497917524985]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate class diagrams from natural language requirements automatically.<n>This paper investigates the capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.0, Gemini 2.5 Flash Thinking, and Llama-3.1-8-B-Instruct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T02:20:35Z)
• From Online User Feedback to Requirements: Evaluating Large Language Models for Classification and Specification Tasks [0.777471208829183]
  Large language models (LLMs) show strong potential to automate the analysis of online user feedback.<n>Existing studies offer limited empirical evidence, lack thorough evaluation, and rarely provide replication packages.<n>We evaluate five lightweight open-source LLMs on three requirements engineering (RE) tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T06:33:01Z)
• How Effective are Generative Large Language Models in Performing Requirements Classification? [4.429729688079712]
  This study explores the effectiveness of three generative large language models (LLMs) performing both binary and multi-class requirements classification.<n>Our study concludes that while factors like prompt design and LLM architecture are universally important, others-such as dataset variations-have a more situational impact, depending on the complexity of the classification task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T14:41:11Z)
• How do Large Language Models Understand Relevance? A Mechanistic Interpretability Perspective [64.00022624183781]
  Large language models (LLMs) can assess relevance and support information retrieval (IR) tasks.<n>We investigate how different LLM modules contribute to relevance judgment through the lens of mechanistic interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T16:14:55Z)
• MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs [97.94579295913606]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered increased attention from both industry and academia.<n>In the development process, evaluation is critical since it provides intuitive feedback and guidance on improving models.<n>This work aims to offer researchers an easy grasp of how to effectively evaluate MLLMs according to different needs and to inspire better evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:59:54Z)
• Beyond Binary: Towards Fine-Grained LLM-Generated Text Detection via Role Recognition and Involvement Measurement [51.601916604301685]
  Large language models (LLMs) generate content that can undermine trust in online discourse.<n>Current methods often focus on binary classification, failing to address the complexities of real-world scenarios like human-LLM collaboration.<n>To move beyond binary classification and address these challenges, we propose a new paradigm for detecting LLM-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T08:14:10Z)
• Understanding the Role of LLMs in Multimodal Evaluation Benchmarks [77.59035801244278]
  This paper investigates the role of the Large Language Model (LLM) backbone in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evaluation. Our study encompasses four diverse MLLM benchmarks and eight state-of-the-art MLLMs. Key findings reveal that some benchmarks allow high performance even without visual inputs and up to 50% of error rates can be attributed to insufficient world knowledge in the LLM backbone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T07:49:13Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• Knowledgeable Agents by Offline Reinforcement Learning from Large Language Model Rollouts [10.929547354171723]
  This paper introduces Knowledgeable Agents from Language Model Rollouts (KALM) It extracts knowledge from large language models (LLMs) in the form of imaginary rollouts that can be easily learned by the agent through offline reinforcement learning methods. It achieves a success rate of 46% in executing tasks with unseen goals, substantially surpassing the 26% success rate achieved by baseline methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T13:19:40Z)
• Improving Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models: A Study on Demonstration Uncertainty [52.72790059506241]
  Open Information Extraction (OIE) task aims at extracting structured facts from unstructured text. Despite the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT as a general task solver, they lag behind state-of-the-art (supervised) methods in OIE tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T01:35:24Z)

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.