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

Stefan Schwedt

dblp:398/4612 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0003-8202-3811ORCID · reported

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 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
Requirements engineering and software design · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements elicitation
0.912025
From Bugs to Benefits: Improving User Stories by Leveraging Crowd Knowledge with CrUISE-AC · ICSE 2025
Requirements engineering and software design › requirements specification
user stories
0.912025
From Bugs to Benefits: Improving User Stories by Leveraging Crowd Knowledge with CrUISE-AC · ICSE 2025

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

natural language processing · 0.9large language model · 0.9ensemble learning · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 From Bugs to Benefits: Improving User Stories by Leveraging Crowd Knowledge with CrUISE-AC
abstract
Costs for resolving software defects increase exponentially in late stages. Incomplete or ambiguous requirements are one of the biggest sources for defects, since stakeholders might not be able to communicate their needs or fail to share their domain specific knowledge. Combined with insufficient developer experience, teams are prone to constructing incorrect or incomplete features. To prevent this, requirements engineering has to explore knowledge sources beyond stakeholder interviews. Publicly accessible issue trackers for systems within the same application domain hold essential information on identified weaknesses, edge cases, and potential error sources, all documented by actual users. Our research aims at (1) identifying, and (2) leveraging such issues to improve an agile requirements artifact known as a “user story”. We present CrUISE-AC (Crowd and User Informed Suggestion Engine for Acceptance Criteria) as a fully automated method that investigates issues and generates non-trivial additional acceptance criteria for a given user story by employing NLP techniques and an ensemble of LLMs. CrUISE-AC was evaluated by five independent experts in two distinct business domains. Our findings suggest that issue trackers hold valuable information pertinent to requirements engineering. Our evaluation shows that 80–82 % of the generated acceptance criteria add relevant requirements to the user stories. Limitations are the dependence on accessible input issues and the fact that we do not check generated criteria for being conflict-free or non-overlapping with criteria from other user stories.
Stefan Schwedt, Thomas Ströder
ICSE1