Cited by 74Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering ResearchAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies

Requirements Engineering Using Generative AI: Prompts and Prompting Patterns

Open access
Ronanki, Krishna, Cabrero-Daniel, Beatriz, Horkoff, Jennifer, Berger, Christian·2024·Generative AI for Effective Software Development

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-031-55642-5_5

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ronanki, K., Cabrero-Daniel, B., Horkoff, J., & Berger, C.
Affiliations
University of Gothenburg (SE)
Corresponding author
Ronanki, Krishna
Venue
Generative AI for Effective Software Development
Published
2024
Pages
109-127
OpenAlex
W4399203760
Cited by
74
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 9
FWCI
46.42
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Keywords
requirements engineering, generative AI, prompt engineering, requirements classification, GPT-3.5-turbo, evaluation framework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review