VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Christoph Lingenfelder
dblp:96/715
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
2as first author
3since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0001-9417-5116ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 2 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 2 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3 · 3 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1Theory of computation · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Data mining · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Logic in computer science · 67% Automated reasoning and model checking · 33% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Cloud and datacenter computing · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Data mining › industrial data mining
industrial data mining applications |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | Open standards and cloud computing: KDD-2009 panel report · KDD 2009 |
Logic in computer science
proof theory |
0.0 | 2 | 1991 | Proof Transformation with Built-in Equality Predicate · IJCAI 1991 Structuring Computer Generated Proofs · IJCAI 1989 |
Logic in computer science › proof theory
proof transformation |
0.0 | 2 | 1991 | Proof Transformation with Built-in Equality Predicate · IJCAI 1991 Structuring Computer Generated Proofs · IJCAI 1989 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
equational reasoning |
0.0 | 1 | 1991 | Proof Transformation with Built-in Equality Predicate · IJCAI 1991 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
panel report · 0.2proof transformation · 0.0proof structuring · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Exploring Millions of User Interactions with ICEBOAT: Big Data Analytics for Automotive User InterfacesabstractUser Experience (UX) professionals need to be able to analyze large amounts of usage data on their own to make evidence-based design decisions. However, the design process for In-Vehicle Information Systems (IVISs) lacks data-driven support and effective tools for visualizing and analyzing user interaction data. Therefore, we propose ICEBOAT1, an interactive visualization tool tailored to the needs of automotive UX experts to effectively and efficiently evaluate driver interactions with IVISs. ICEBOAT visualizes telematics data collected from production line vehicles, allowing UX experts to perform task-specific analyses. Following a mixed methods User-Centered Design (UCD) approach, we conducted an interview study (N=4) to extract the domain specific information and interaction needs of automotive UX experts and used a co-design approach (N=4) to develop an interactive analysis tool. Our evaluation (N=12) shows that ICEBOAT enables UX experts to efficiently generate knowledge that facilitates data-driven design decisions. Patrick Ebel 0001, Kim Julian Gülle, Christoph Lingenfelder, Andreas Vogelsang |
AutomotiveUI | 3 |
| 2023 | Multitasking While Driving: How Drivers Self-Regulate Their Interaction with In-Vehicle Touchscreens in Automated DrivingabstractDriver assistance systems are designed to increase comfort and safety by automating parts of the driving task. At the same time, modern in-vehicle information systems with large touchscreens provide the driver with numerous options for entertainment, information, or communication, and are a potential source of distraction. However, little is known about how driving automation affects how drivers interact with the center stack touchscreen, i.e., how drivers self-regulate their behavior in response to different levels of driving automation. To investigate this, we apply multilevel models to a real-world driving dataset consisting of 31,378 sequences. Our results show significant differences in drivers’ interaction and glance behavior in response to different levels of driving automation, vehicle speed, and road curvature. During automated driving, drivers perform more interactions per touchscreen sequence and increase the time spent looking at the center stack touchscreen. Specifically, at higher levels of driving automation (level 2), the mean glance duration toward the center stack touchscreen increases by 36% and the mean number of interactions per sequence increases by 17% compared to manual driving. Furthermore, partially automated driving has a strong impact on the use of more complex UI elements (e.g., maps) and touch gestures (e.g., multitouch). We also show that the effect of driving automation on drivers’ self-regulation is greater than that of vehicle speed and road curvature. The derived knowledge can inform the design and evaluation of touch-based infotainment systems and the development of context-aware driver monitoring systems. Patrick Ebel 0001, Christoph Lingenfelder, Andreas Vogelsang |
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. | 2 |
| 2021 | Visualizing Event Sequence Data for User Behavior Evaluation of In-Vehicle Information SystemsabstractWith modern In-Vehicle Information Systems (IVISs) becoming more capable and complex than ever, their evaluation becomes increasingly difficult. The analysis of large amounts of user behavior data can help to cope with this complexity and can support UX experts in designing IVISs that serve customer needs and are safe to operate while driving. We, therefore, propose a Multi-level User Behavior Visualization Framework providing effective visualizations of user behavior data that is collected via telematics from production vehicles. Our approach visualizes user behavior data on three different levels: (1) The Task Level View aggregates event sequence data generated through touchscreen interactions to visualize user flows. (2) The Flow Level View allows comparing the individual flows based on a chosen metric. (3) The Sequence Level View provides detailed insights into touch interactions, glance, and driving behavior. Our case study proves that UX experts consider our approach a useful addition to their design process. Patrick Ebel 0001, Christoph Lingenfelder, Andreas Vogelsang |
AutomotiveUI | 2 |
| 2020 | Destination Prediction Based on Partial Trajectory DataabstractTwo-thirds of the people who buy a new car prefer to use a substitute instead of the built-in navigation system. However, for many applications, knowledge about a user's intended destination and route is crucial. For example, suggestions for available parking spots close to the destination can be made or ride-sharing opportunities along the route are facilitated. Our approach predicts probable destinations and routes of a vehicle, based on the most recent partial trajectory and additional contextual data. The approach follows a three-step procedure: First, a k-d tree-based space discretization is performed, mapping GPS locations to discrete regions. Secondly, a recurrent neural network is trained to predict the destination based on partial sequences of trajectories. The neural network produces destination scores, signifying the probability of each region being the destination. Finally, the routes to the most probable destinations are calculated. To evaluate the method, we compare multiple neural architectures and present the experimental results of the destination prediction. The experiments are based on two public datasets of non-personalized, timestamped GPS locations of taxi trips. The best performing models were able to predict the destination of a vehicle with a mean error of 1.3 km and 1.43 km respectively. Patrick Ebel 0001, Ibrahim Emre Göl, Christoph Lingenfelder, Andreas Vogelsang |
IV | 3 |
| 2009 | Open standards and cloud computing: KDD-2009 panel reportabstractAt KDD-2009 in Paris, a panel on open standards and cloud computing addressed emerging trends for data mining applications in science and industry. This report summarizes the answers from a distinguished group of thought leaders representing key software vendors in the data mining industry. Michael Zeller, Robert Grossman, Christoph Lingenfelder, Michael R. Berthold, Erik Marcadé, Rick Pechter, Mike Hoskins, Wayne Thompson, Rich Holada |
KDD | 3 |
| 2008 | Event-Driven Quality of Service Prediction
Liangzhao Zeng, Christoph Lingenfelder, Hui Lei 0001, Henry Chang |
ICSOC | 2 |
| 2000 | Presentation of proofs in modal natural deductionabstractWe introduce a calculus for transforming first-order proofs of theorems originally formulated in modal logic, into modal natural deduction proofs. With a transformation procedure based on this calculus, we are able to present a proof in the language in which the problem was originally formulated, and in a formalism giving better insight into the contents of the proof. As a target language of the proof transformation we use a linearized modal natural deduction calculus which makes the reasoning involving modal contexts explicit. Erika F. de Lima, Christoph Lingenfelder |
J. Log. Comput. | 2 |
| 1996 | Optimizing the Presentation of Modal Natural Deduction Proofs
Erika F. de Lima, Christoph Lingenfelder |
ECAI | 2 |
| 1991 | Proof Transformation with Built-in Equality Predicate
Christoph Lingenfelder, Axel Präcklein |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 1989 | Structuring Computer Generated Proofs
Christoph Lingenfelder |
IJCAI | 1 |