Automated Non-Functional Requirements Generation in Software Engineering with Large Language Models: A Comparative Study
March 19, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Jomar Thomas Almonte, Santhosh Anitha Boominathan, Nathalia Nascimento
arXiv ID
2503.15248
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Cross-listed
cs.AI
Citations
5
Venue
Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Neglecting non-functional requirements (NFRs) early in software development can lead to critical challenges. Despite their importance, NFRs are often overlooked or difficult to identify, impacting software quality. To support requirements engineers in eliciting NFRs, we developed a framework that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to derive quality-driven NFRs from functional requirements (FRs). Using a custom prompting technique within a Deno-based pipeline, the system identifies relevant quality attributes for each functional requirement and generates corresponding NFRs, aiding systematic integration. A crucial aspect is evaluating the quality and suitability of these generated requirements. Can LLMs produce high-quality NFR suggestions? Using 34 functional requirements - selected as a representative subset of 3,964 FRs-the LLMs inferred applicable attributes based on the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 standard, generating 1,593 NFRs. A horizontal evaluation covered three dimensions: NFR validity, applicability of quality attributes, and classification precision. Ten industry software quality evaluators, averaging 13 years of experience, assessed a subset for relevance and quality. The evaluation showed strong alignment between LLM-generated NFRs and expert assessments, with median validity and applicability scores of 5.0 (means: 4.63 and 4.59, respectively) on a 1-5 scale. In the classification task, 80.4% of LLM-assigned attributes matched expert choices, with 8.3% near misses and 11.3% mismatches. A comparative analysis of eight LLMs highlighted variations in performance, with gemini-1.5-pro exhibiting the highest attribute accuracy, while llama-3.3-70B achieved higher validity and applicability scores. These findings provide insights into the feasibility of using LLMs for automated NFR generation and lay the foundation for further exploration of AI-assisted requirements engineering.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted