Light over Heavy: Automated Performance Requirements Quantification with Linguistic Inducement
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Elicited performance requirements need to be quantified for compliance in different engineering tasks, e.g., configuration tuning and performance testing. Much existing work has relied on manual quantification, which is expensive and error-prone due to the imprecision. In this paper, we present LQPR, a highly efficient automatic approach for performance requirements quantification.LQPR relies on a new theoretical framework that converts quantification as a classification problem. Despite the prevalent applications of Large Language Models (LLMs) for requirement analytics, LQPR takes a different perspective to address the classification: we observed that performance requirements can exhibit strong patterns and are often short/concise, therefore we design a lightweight linguistically induced matching mechanism. We compare LQPR against nine state-of-the-art learning-based approaches over diverse datasets, demonstrating that it is ranked as the sole best for 75% or more cases with two orders less cost. Our work proves that, at least for performance requirement quantification, specialized methods can be more suitable than the general LLM-driven approaches.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Nov 2025.
Builds on
25 of 65 references.
References · 25
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2023Text Classification via Large Language Modelscited by 104
- 2023How to estimate carbon footprint when training deep learning models? A guide and reviewcited by 34
- 2021Multi-Objectivizing Software Configuration Tuning (for a single performance concern)cited by 27
- 2023Do Performance Aspirations Matter for Guiding Software Configuration Tuning?cited by 21
- 2021Sampling Projects in GitHub for MSR Studiescited by 20
- 2021MMO: Meta Multi-Objectivization for Software Configuration Tuningcited by 19
- 2016FEMOSAA: Feature Guided and Knee Driven Multi-Objective Optimization for Self-Adaptive Softwarecited by 18
- 2016Self-Adaptive Trade-off Decision Making for Autoscaling Cloud-Based Servicescited by 17
- 2024Predicting Configuration Performance in Multiple Environments with Sequential Meta-learningcited by 17
- 2022Lifelong Dynamic Optimization for Self-Adaptive Systems: Fact or Fiction?cited by 16
- 2023Predicting Software Performance with Divide-and-Learncited by 16
13 more
- 2024Adapting Multi-objectivized Software Configuration Tuningcited by 13
- 2022Planning Landscape Analysis for Self-Adaptive Systemscited by 12
- 2025Distilled Lifelong Self-Adaptation for Configurable Systemscited by 11
- 2025PromiseTune: Unveiling Causally Promising and Explainable Configuration Tuningcited by 11
- 2023Zero-Shot Learning for Requirements Classification: An Exploratory Studycited by 9
- 2025Faster Configuration Performance Bug Testing with Neural Dual-level Prioritizationcited by 9
- 2016Are "Non-functional" Requirements really Non-functional?cited by 8
- 2025Dually Hierarchical Drift Adaptation for Online Configuration Performance Learningcited by 7
- 2020A Dataset for GitHub Repository Deduplication: Extended Descriptioncited by 6
- 2022Self-Adaptation in Industry: A Surveycited by 4
- 2025Are Prompts All You Need? Evaluating Prompt-Based Large Language Models (LLM)s for Software Requirements Classificationcited by 3
- 2021A Machine Learning Based Ensemble Method for Automatic Multiclass Classification of Decisionscited by 1
- 2024An approach for performance requirements verification and test environments generationcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.