mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating LLM-Based Goal Extraction in Requirements Engineering: Prompting Strategies and Their Limitations

arXiv 2604.22207 ↗First posted 24 Apr 2026cs.SE cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Due to the textual and repetitive nature of many Requirements Engineering (RE) artefacts, Large Language Models (LLMs) have proven useful to automate their generation and processing. In this paper, we discuss a possible approach for automating the Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering (GORE) process by extracting functional goals from software documentation through three phases: actor identification, high and low-level goal extraction. To implement these functionalities, we propose a chain of LLMs fed with engineered prompts. We experimented with different variants of in-context learning and measured the similarities between input data and in-context examples to better investigate their impact. Another key element is the generation-critic mechanism, implemented as a feedback loop involving two LLMs. Although the pipeline achieved 61% accuracy in low-level goal identification, the final stage, these results indicate the approach is best suited as a tool to accelerate manual extraction rather than as a full replacement. The feedback-loop mechanism with Zero-shot outperformed stand-alone Few-shot, with an ablation study suggesting that performance slightly degrades without the feedback cycle. However, we reported that the combination of the feedback mechanism with Few-shot does not deliver any advantage, possibly suggesting that the primary performance ceiling is the prompting strategy applied to the 'critic' LLM. Together with the refinement of both the quantity and quality of the Shot examples, future research will integrate Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to improve accuracy.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 2026.

Builds on

9 of 33 references.

References · 9

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  2. 2022Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproductioncited by 110
  3. 2024What Did I Do Wrong? Quantifying LLMs' Sensitivity and Consistency to Prompt Engineeringcited by 88
  4. 2023Autonomous Large Language Model Agents Enabling Intent-Driven Mobile GUI Testingcited by 15
  5. 2024The Impact of Prompt Programming on Function-Level Code Generationcited by 13
  6. 2025Large Language Models (LLMs) for Requirements Engineering (RE): A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 9
  7. 2023Ethical Aspects of ChatGPT in Software Engineering Researchcited by 6
  8. 2024AI based Multiagent Approach for Requirements Elicitation and Analysiscited by 6
  9. 2024Semantic API Alignment: Linking High-level User Goals to APIscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Prompt Engineering for Requirements Engineering: A Literature Review and Roadmap
  2. 2026BT-APE: A Computationally Light Backtracking Approach to Automatic Prompt Engineering for Requirements Classification ↗
  3. 2025ReqInOne: A Large Language Model-Based Agent for Software Requirements Specification Generation
  4. 2025Are Prompts All You Need? Evaluating Prompt-Based Large Language Models (LLM)s for Software Requirements Classification
  5. 2024Leveraging Graph-RAG and Prompt Engineering to Enhance LLM-Based Automated Requirement Traceability and Compliance Checks
  6. 2026Automating the Detection of Requirement Dependencies Using Large Language Models
  7. 2026On the Viability of Requirements Generation From Code: An Experience Report ↗
  8. 2026Automatic Translation of Unstructured Requirements into Linear Temporal Logic through Large Language Models ↗