Which AI Technique Is Better to Classify Requirements? An Experiment with SVM, LSTM, and ChatGPT

Abdelkarim El-Hajjami, Nicolas Fafin, Camille Salinesi
11/20/2023
cs.AIcs.SE

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 1 possible match can be shown below.

Abstract

Recently, Large Language Models like ChatGPT have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in various Natural Language Processing tasks. Their application in Requirements Engineering, especially in requirements classification, has gained increasing interest. This paper reports an extensive empirical evaluation of two ChatGPT models, specifically gpt-3.5-turbo, and gpt-4 in both zero-shot and few-shot settings for requirements classification. The question arises as to how these models compare to traditional classification methods, specifically Support Vector Machine and Long Short-Term Memory. Based on five different datasets, our results show that there is no single best technique for all types of requirement classes. Interestingly, the few-shot setting has been found to be beneficial primarily in scenarios where zero-shot results are significantly low.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 1 weaker match is hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{elhajjami2023which,
  title  = {Which AI Technique Is Better to Classify Requirements? An Experiment with SVM, LSTM, and ChatGPT},
  author = {Abdelkarim El-Hajjami and Nicolas Fafin and Camille Salinesi},
  year   = {2023},
  eprint = {2311.11547},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11547v2}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2311.11547.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2311.11547)

Discussion