The findings provide empirical evidence that LLM support does not necessarily improve performance and may, instead, hinder it for novice inspectors, and suggest that learning RI with LLM-support from the beginning may slow down the skill acquisition process.
Abstract
Background. Requirements inspection (RI) is a well-established practice for detecting potential defects in requirements artifacts early in the software lifecycle. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have stimulated interest in their potential to support requirements engineering (RE) tasks. However, empirical evidence on the effects of LLMs when used as collaborative assistants in human-performed RI remains scarce. Aims. We aim to investigate the impact of LLM support on human-performed RI, considering inspection effectiveness in terms of smell identification and severity classification (i.e., nocuous vs innocuous), as well as inspection duration. Method. We conducted a controlled crossover design experiment with 34 participants, who inspected textual specifications with and without LLM support, identifying and classifying requirements smells while recording inspection time. We analyzed the data using one Bayesian regression model per outcome variable, accounting for validity threats induced by the crossover design as well as covariates and mediators. Results. Results show that LLM support negatively affects smell detection accuracy but has no significant effect on smell classification or task duration. A learning effect is present across experimental periods, but reduced when RI is first performed with LLM support. Conclusions. Our findings provide empirical evidence that LLM support does not necessarily improve performance and may, instead, hinder it for novice inspectors. Moreover, the results suggest that learning RI with LLM-support from the beginning may slow down the skill acquisition process, implying threats for LLM-supported learning.
The adoption of large language models (LLMs) in software engineering has enabled the potential to automate complex activities such as requirements analysis. This paper presents an empirical performance analysis of four modern LLMs: GPT-4o, Aya, Gemma and Phi-4 on the task of automated classification of atomic software...
Nourchène Elleuch Ben Ayed, Jaber Jemai, Keletso J. Letsholo et al.· Journal of Information &...· 0 citations
The state of the art in AI for requirements engineering research leading up to the transformation, before reviewing advances in LLMs, and two subsequent research areas: prompt programming and generalist SE agents, which combine multiple LLM advances to yield semi-autonomous processes that complete SE tasks.
Travis D. Breaux, Anmol Singhal· Requirements Engineering· 0 citations
This work presents the first cross-task empirical evaluation of LLMs spanning five RE-related activities, as well as replication materials supporting reproducibility, and a broader understanding of the capabilities, limitations, and practical readiness of current LLMs for RE.
Jacek Dabrowski, Manjeshwar Aniruddh Mallya, Alessio Ferrari et al.· 1 citation
This paper investigates the reliability of LLMs in evaluating UML diagrams generated through reverse engineering processes (source code) and asks: do LLM assessments align with those of human experts?
Olena Chebanyuk, Carles Sierra· International Conference on...· 0 citations
This work analyzes SciLitBench, a corpus of 888 review-automation papers with 14,726 annotations, to characterize changes in methods, review-stage use, evaluation and reported limitations, and introduces PRISMA-LLM, an empirically grounded framework separating implementation disclosure from consequence-sensitive evalua...
A codepath-aware governance framework for AI-assisted engineering in regulated codebases, with emphasis on financial services, payments, healthcare, and other domains where software changes may affect legal, operational, privacy, and audit obligations is developed.
Ashutosh Pal· International journal of com...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.