The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Natural Language Processing for Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study
Open accessAbstract
Natural Language Processing for Requirements Engineering (NLP4RE) is an area of research and development that seeks to apply natural language processing (NLP) techniques, tools, and resources to the requirements engineering (RE) process, to support human analysts to carry out various linguistic analysis tasks on textual requirements documents, such as detecting language issues, identifying key domain concepts, and establishing requirements traceability links. This article reports on a mapping study that surveys the landscape of NLP4RE research to provide a holistic understanding of the field. Following the guidance of systematic review, the mapping study is directed by five research questions, cutting across five aspects of NLP4RE research, concerning the state of the literature, the state of empirical research, the research focus, the state of tool development, and the usage of NLP technologies. Our main results are as follows: (i) we identify a total of 404 primary studies relevant to NLP4RE, which were published over the past 36 years and from 170 different venues; (ii) most of these studies (67.08%) are solution proposals, assessed by a laboratory experiment or an example application, while only a small percentage (7%) are assessed in industrial settings; (iii) a large proportion of the studies (42.70%) focus on the requirements analysis phase, with quality defect detection as their central task and requirements specification as their commonly processed document type; (iv) 130 NLP4RE tools (i.e., RE specific NLP tools) are extracted from these studies, but only 17 of them (13.08%) are available for download; (v) 231 different NLP technologies are also identified, comprising 140 NLP techniques, 66 NLP tools, and 25 NLP resources, but most of them—particularly those novel NLP techniques and specialized tools—are used infrequently; by contrast, commonly used NLP technologies are traditional analysis techniques (e.g., POS tagging and tokenization), general-purpose tools (e.g., Stanford CoreNLP and GATE) and generic language lexicons (WordNet and British National Corpus). The mapping study not only provides a collection of the literature in NLP4RE but also, more importantly, establishes a structure to frame the existing literature through categorization, synthesis and conceptualization of the main theoretical concepts and relationships that encompass both RE and NLP aspects. Our work thus produces a conceptual framework of NLP4RE. The framework is used to identify research gaps and directions, highlight technology transfer needs, and encourage more synergies between the RE community, the NLP one, and the software and systems practitioners. Our results can be used as a starting point to frame future studies according to a well-defined terminology and can be expanded as new technologies and novel solutions emerge.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
Case Study Research: Design and Methods
Chaiklin, H. (1991) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 · Cited by 39,535
(1998) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 38,631
Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 · Cited by 26,568
Foundations of statistical natural language processing
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999) · Cited by 9,816
Experimentation in Software Engineering
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2012) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2 · Cited by 4,460
Recent Trends in Deep Learning Based Natural Language Processing [Review Article]
Young, T., Hazarika, D., Poria, S., & Cambria, E. (2018) · IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine · doi:10.1109/mci.2018.2840738 · Cited by 2,921
The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2783 · Cited by 2,869
Cited by
An Empirical Study on Using Large Language Models to Analyze Software Supply Chain Security Failures
Singla, T., Anandayuvaraj, D., Kalu, K. G., Schorlemmer, T. R., & Davis, J. C. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Workshop on Software Supply Chain Offensive Research and Ecosystem Defenses · doi:10.1145/3605770.3625214 · Cited by 26
Pre-trained model-based NFR classification: Overcoming limited data challenges
Rahman, K., Ghani, A., Alzahrani, A., Tariq, M. U., & Rahman, A. U. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3301725 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhao, L., Alhoshan, W., Ferrari, A., Letsholo, K. J., Ajagbe, M. A., Chioasca, E.-V., & Batista-Navarro, R. T.
- Venue
- ACM Computing Surveys
- Published
- 2021-04-17
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1-41
- ISSN
- 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7341
- OpenAlex
- W3153389197
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 73
- FWCI
- 40.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Natural Language Processing for Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/3444689
- The paper
- Zhao, L., Alhoshan, W., Ferrari, A., Letsholo, K. J., Ajagbe, M. A., Chioasca, E.-V., & Batista-Navarro, R. T. (2022). Natural Language Processing for Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study. ACM Computing Surveys. https://doi.org/10.1145/3444689
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.