Cited by 3

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Fundamental Research on Detecting Contradictions in Requirements: Taxonomy and Semi-Automated Approach

Gärtner, Alexander Elenga, Fay, Tu-Anh, Göhlich, Dietmar·2022·Applied Sciences

Abstract

Requirements documents can contain several thousand individual requirements. They must be error-free to avoid unnecessary complications and costs in the later product development stages. An important part of this is to identify contradictions between two requirements. The first step is therefore to define what contradictions are and in what form they can occur in requirement documents. In this paper the scientific theories regarding contradictions are discussed, concerning to their usefulness for the topic. In doing so, the Aristotelian Logic proved to provide the best basis for an application in the Requirements Engineering context. Based on this theory, we have created specific subtypes of contradictions to match them to the requirements engineering field. The identification of these subtypes is done by a formalization of the requirement sentences and a subsequent analysis by means of simple questions. To validate the method, industrial requirement documents were searched for contradictions. For each detected type of contradiction, we present an example of the detection process. Thereby, we show that the method is easy to apply and may also be used by non-specialists. Thus, our method provides a taxonomy as a basis for further research on automated contradiction detection as well as on automated quality analysis of requirements documents.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/app12157628

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 3

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Dick, J. (2017). Requirements Engineering, Springer. [4th ed.]. Springer eBook Collection Computer Science.
  2. Bender, 2021, Entwickeln der Anforderungsbasis: Requirements Engineering, Pahl/Beitz Konstruktionslehre: Methoden und Anwendung Erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung, Volume 50, 169, 10.1007/978-3-662-57303-7_7 · DOI
  3. Montgomery, 2022, Empirical research on requirements quality: A systematic mapping study, Requir. Eng., 29, 183, 10.1007/s00766-021-00367-z · DOI
  4. Luisa, 2004, Market research for requirements analysis using linguistic tools, Requir. Eng., 9, 40, 10.1007/s00766-003-0179-8 · DOI
  5. Müller, S. (2013). Formal Logischer Widerspruch, Dialektischer Widerspruch, Antinomie. Reflexionen über den Widerspruch. Jenseits der Dichotomie, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
  6. Landhäußer, M., and Körner, S.J. (2017, January 27–29). Artificial Intelligence in Requirements Engineering. Proceedings of the REConf, München, Germany.
  7. Marneffe, M.C., Rafferty, A.N., and Manning, C.D. (2008). Finding Contradictions in Text, Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. Darimont, 1998, Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 24, 908, 10.1109/32.730542 · DOI
  9. Guo, W., Zhang, L., and Lian, X. (2021). Automatically detecting the conflicts between software requirements based on finer semantic analysis. arXiv.
  10. Zhao, 2021, Natural Language Processing for Requirements Engineering, ACM Comput. Surv., 54, 1
  11. Kurtanovic, Z., and Maalej, W. (2017, January 4–8). Automatically Classifying Functional and Non-functional Requirements Using Supervised Machine Learning. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), Lisbon, Portugal. · DOI
  12. Jindal, R., Malhotra, R., and Jain, A. (2016, January 21–24). Automated classification of security requirements. Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), Jaipur, India. · DOI
  13. Staab, 2009, What Is an Ontology?, Handbook on Ontologies, Volume 5, 1
  14. Sandhu, G., and Sikka, S. (2015, January 15–16). State-of-art practices to detect inconsistencies and ambiguities from software requirements. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing, Communication & Automation, Greater Noida, India. · DOI
  15. Fischbach, J., Frattini, J., Vogelsang, A., Mendez, D., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Wehrle, A., Henao, P.R., Yousefi, P., Juricic, T., and Radduenz, J. (2022). Automatic Creation of Acceptance Tests by Extracting Conditionals from Requirements: NLP Approach and Case Study. arXiv. · DOI
  16. Bender, 2021, Arbeiten mit Anforderungen: Requirements Management, Pahl/Beitz Konstruktionslehre: Methoden und Anwendung Erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung, Volume 25, 211

Metadata

Authors
Gärtner, A. E., Fay, T.-A., & Göhlich, D.
Venue
Applied Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-07-28
Volume
12
Issue
15
Pages
7628
ISSN
2076-3417
Cited by
3
Language
en
Funders
German Research foundation

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: Fundamental Research on Detecting Contradictions in Requirements: Taxonomy and Semi-Automated Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/app12157628
The paper
Gärtner, A. E., Fay, T.-A., & Göhlich, D. (2022). Fundamental Research on Detecting Contradictions in Requirements: Taxonomy and Semi-Automated Approach. Applied Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157628