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

Max Haase

dblp:167/7844 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements analysis
0.212015
Evaluating a formal scenario-based method for the requirements analysis in automotive software engineering · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015
Requirements engineering and software design › requirements analysis
scenario-based requirements analysis
0.212015
Evaluating a formal scenario-based method for the requirements analysis in automotive software engineering · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015
Automated reasoning and model checking › synthesis
realizability checking
0.112015
Evaluating a formal scenario-based method for the requirements analysis in automotive software engineering · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015

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

modal sequence diagrams · 0.4live sequence charts · 0.4case study · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Evaluating a formal scenario-based method for the requirements analysis in automotive software engineering
abstract
Automotive software systems often consist of multiple reactive components that must satisfy complex and safety-critical requirements. In automotive projects, the requirements are usually documented informally and are reviewed manually; this regularly causes inconsistencies to remain hidden until the integration phase, where their repair requires costly iterations. We therefore seek methods for the early automated requirement analysis and evaluated the scenario-based specification approach based on LSCs/MSDs; it promises to support an incremental and precise specification of requirements, and offers automated analysis through scenario execution and formal realizability checking. In a case study, we used ScenarioTools to model and analyze the requirements of a software to control a high-voltage coupling for electric vehicles. Our example contained 36 requirements and assumptions that we could successfully formalize, and we could successfully find specification defects by automated realizability checking. In this paper, we report on lessons learned, tool and method extensions we have introduced, and open challenges.
Joel Greenyer, Max Haase, Jörg Marhenke, Rene Bellmer
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE2