Requirements traceability links support activities such as change-impact analysis, coverage checking, and validation. Industrial requirements can include traceable images, which text-only approaches cannot process directly. For a fixed classifier configuration, binary decisions alone offer no direct way to adjust the balance between missed and incorrect links. We extend a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach for inter-requirements traceability link recovery (TLR). Our extension retrieves text and image candidates separately, classifies each retrieved pair with a vision-language model, and filters the predicted links by verbalized confidence. We evaluate our approach on three non-overlapping industrial requirement sets and six public text-only datasets. On the industrial test sets, our approach achieves an F1 score of 0.310, compared with 0.114 for our replication of the baseline approach by Hey et al. Our approach recovers links in all four modality combinations while improving text-only F1 on the industrial data and maintaining similar performance on the public datasets, but recovery remains limited by failures to retrieve related text requirements for image queries. Confidence filtering produces link sets with different precision and recall, removing false positives and some correctly recovered links from the unfiltered link set. This study provides industrial evidence on the potential and limitations of a current RAG-based TLR approach for multimodal requirements and identifies cross-modal retrieval as the component to prioritize in further optimization.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Illustrative inter-requirements trace links from one high-level requirement to text and image elements in the low-level requirements.
Study
TLR
Image Input
Candidate Retrieval
Industrial Data
Confidence Filtering
Hey et al. [ 1 ]
✓
✓
Fuchß et al. [ 6 ]
✓
✓
Bonner et al. [ 12 ]
✓
✓
✓
Hassine [ 14 ]
✓
Fukuda and Tokumoto [ 15 ]
✓
✓
This study
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
TABLE I: Task Boundaries of Selected Related Studies
Fig. 2: Illustrative multimodal TLR pipeline with the reference retrieval path and classifier input options.
ID
Changed part
Setting
B
Reference
Shared top- k and generic English prompt
B+R
Prompt instruction
Trace-link and decision rules
B+L
Prompt instruction
Instruction in artifact language
B+Cr
Prompt content
r preceding and r following elements
B+S
Prompt content
Section headings
B+M
Candidate retrieval
k text and k image candidates
TABLE II: Configuration Options
Group
Dataset
Requirement Elements
Gold Links
# of Gold Links
HLR
LLR
Text–Text
Image-Involving
Text
Image
Text
Image
TT
TI
IT
II
Subtotal
Industrial
SetA
57
4
267
21
145
8
30
2
40 (21.6%)
185
SetB
39
5
180
11
61
14
10
8
32 (34.4%)
93
SetC
7
12
227
20
0
0
50
28
78 (100.0%)
78
Total
103
21
674
52
206
22
90
38
150 (42.1%)
356
TABLE III: Dataset Characteristics
Setting
Hey et al. [ 1 ]
Hey et al. rep
Our Approach
Embedding
text-emb.-3-large
Qwen3-Emb.-8B
Qwen3-VL-Emb.-8B
Classifier
GPT-4o
Mistral 24B
Gemma 4 31B
Prompt
Reasoning + Trace
Reasoning + Trace
Reasoning + Trace + Conf.
Parser
Trace
Trace
Trace + Conf.
Candidates
Top k
Top k
Top k per Modality
Temperature
0
0
0
TABLE IV: Published and Executed Configurations
Dataset
Result
P
R
F1
CCHIT
Hey et al.
.367
.138
.200
Hey et al. rep
.319
.141
.196
CM1-NASA
Hey et al.
.458
.600
.519
Hey et al. rep
.403
.600
.482
Dronology
Hey et al.
.512
.655
.575
Hey et al. rep
.466
.645
.541
TABLE V: Published and Replicated Public Results
Configuration
τ at max. F1
P
R
F1
Candidate recall
B
1.00
.694
.368
.481
.438
B+R
1.00
.817
.314
.453
.438
B+L
1.00
.661
.389
.490
.438
B+C4
.95
.411
.422
.416
.438
B+S
1.00
.685
.341
.455
.438
B+M
1.00
.667
.422
.517
.492
TABLE VI: Configuration Comparison for Our Approach on Setvalid at Each Row’s Best F1 Threshold
Overall
TT
TI
IT
II
Group
Dataset
Output
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
Industrial
SetA
No Filter
.288
.486
.361
.398
.538
.457
.043
.500
.079
.429
.200
.273
.200
1.00
.333
Max. F0.5
.667
.422
.517
.702
.455
.552
.364
.500
.421
.750
.200
.316
.500
1.00
.667
Max. F1
.667
.422
.517
.702
.455
.552
.364
.500
.421
.750
.200
.316
.500
1.00
.667
Max. F2
.419
.476
.446
.507
.524
.515
.103
.500
.170
.462
.200
.279
.250
1.00
.400
SetB
No Filter
.164
.430
.237
.177
.361
.238
.123
.714
.211
.000
.000
.000
.400
1.00
.571
TABLE VII: Detailed Results of Our Approach on Industrial and Public Datasets
Hey et al.
Our Approach
Scope
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
Industrial All
.135
.099
.114
.338
.287
.310
Industrial Settesttext-only
.135
.279
.182
.152
.361
.214
Industrial Image-Involving
–
.000
.000
.322
.336
.329
Public Combined
.427
.357
.389
.410
.359
.383
TABLE VIII: Hey et al. and Our Approach by Oracle Scope
τ
Links
P
R
F0.5
F1
F2
Selected for
No Filter
313
.288
.486
.313
.361
.427
–
.95
210
.419
.476
.429
.446
.463
Max. F2
1.00
117
.667
.422
.597
.517
.455
Max. F0.5 , F1
TABLE IX: Selected Confidence Thresholds for Our Approach on Setvalid
Fig. 3: Scores against the confidence threshold. Vertical dashed lines in (a) mark the selected thresholds.
Fig. 4: Precision (squares), recall (triangles), and F1 (circles) for the three VLM sizes on the combined industrial test sets.