Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Hermann Felbinger

dblp:145/7715 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021

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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software testing · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Autonomous driving · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Robotics › Autonomous driving
safety validation
0.712023
Finding Critical Scenarios for Automated Driving Systems: A Systematic Mapping Study · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023
Software testing › test process › test design
critical scenario identification
0.712023
Finding Critical Scenarios for Automated Driving Systems: A Systematic Mapping Study · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023
Software testing › specification-based testing › requirements-based testing
scenario-based testing
0.712023
Finding Critical Scenarios for Automated Driving Systems: A Systematic Mapping Study · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

systematic mapping study · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Finding Critical Scenarios for Automated Driving Systems: A Systematic Mapping Study
abstract
Scenario-based approaches have been receiving a huge amount of attention in research and engineering of automated driving systems. Due to the complexity and uncertainty of the driving environment, and the complexity of the driving task itself, the number of possible driving scenarios that an Automated Driving System or Advanced Driving-Assistance System may encounter is virtually infinite. Therefore it is essential to be able to reason about the identification of scenarios and in particular critical ones that may impose unacceptable risk if not considered. Critical scenarios are particularly important to support design, verification and validation efforts, and as a basis for a safety case. In this paper, we present the results of a systematic mapping study in the context of autonomous driving. The main contributions are: (i) introducing a comprehensive taxonomy for critical scenario identification methods; (ii) giving an overview of the state-of-the-art research based on the taxonomy encompassing 86 papers between 2017 and 2020; and (iii) identifying open issues and directions for further research. The provided taxonomy comprises three main perspectives encompassing the problem definition (the why), the solution (the methods to derive scenarios), and the assessment of the established scenarios. In addition, we discuss open research issues considering the perspectives of coverage, practicability, and scenario space explosion.
Xinhai Zhang, Jianbo Tao, Kaige Tan, Martin Törngren, José Manuel Gaspar Sánchez, Muhammad Rusyadi Ramli, Xin Tao 0003, Magnus Gyllenhammar, Franz Wotawa, Naveen Mohan, Mihai Nica, Hermann Felbinger
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.12
2017 A "Strength of Decision Tree Equivalence"-Taxonomy and Its Impact on Test Suite Reduction
Hermann Felbinger, Ingo Pill, Franz Wotawa
ICTSS1
2015 Test Suite Quality Assessment Using Model Inference Techniques
abstract
To state whether a System Under Test is sufficiently tested requires an assessment of the test suite quality. Existing methods to assess the quality of a test suite either are based on the structure of an implementation or determine the quality using mutation score. In this paper we introduce a method, which is based on inductive inference to assess the quality of a test suite and propose a method to augment a test suite depending on the quality assessment result. In this paper we provide a short glimpse on our objectives and show preliminary results of model inference of a test suite.
Hermann Felbinger
ICST1