LLM-Driven Cost-Effective Requirements Change Impact Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Requirements are inherently subject to change throughout the software development lifecycle. Within the limited budget available to requirements engineers, manually identifying the impact of such changes on other requirements is error-prone and effort-intensive, especially in regulated domains. This can lead to overlooked impacted requirements, which, if not properly managed, can cause serious issues in downstream tasks. Inspired by the growing potential of large language models (LLMs) across diverse domains, we propose ProReFiCIA , an LLM-driven approach to automatically identify impacted requirements when changes occur. We conduct an extensive evaluation of ProReFiCIA using several LLMs and prompt variants tailored to this task. Using the best LLM-prompt combination, ProReFiCIA achieves 85.7% recall on an unseen industrial dataset, demonstrating its effectiveness in identifying impacted requirements. Further, the cost of applying ProReFiCIA remains small, as the engineer only needs to review the predicted impacted requirements, which represent 3.0% of the entire set of requirements. Lastly, incorporating domain knowledge via RAG increases recall to 95.8% while slightly raising the cost to 3.4%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".