Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Guido Mintjes
dblp:431/0674
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0004-0068-215XORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 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% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Games and playful interaction · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing
game testing |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Programming Smart Playtesting · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2026 |
Software testing › test process › test design
test specification |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Programming Smart Playtesting · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2026 |
Games and playful interaction
game testing |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | Programming Smart Playtesting · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
reinforcement learning · 2.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Programming Smart PlaytestingabstractUntil recently the game industry heavily relied on manual playtesting to test the games it produces. Even if the benefits of introducing automated testing are acknowledged, it is rarely done in practice. Some of the main hurdles include the lack of automated testing tools that can target computer games as well as the complexity of automated game plays which are much more difficult to program than typical simple test sequences. This article presents an agent-based testing framework called aplib that comes with a Domain Specific Language (DSL) that allows complex playtests to be programmed more abstractly. A so-called goal structure is used to abstractly formulate a playtest scenario in terms of main goals and their decomposition into subgoals. Scenarios that are not too complicated can be formulated using static goal structures. More complex scenarios may need a test agent that can dynamically adapt its play according to the situation that evolves during the play. To handle such cases, aplib allows dynamic goals to be expressed as well. Invariants and pre-/post-conditions are used to assert the properties that a play is expected to satisfy. They include differential properties that allow constraints on the current state to be related to that of past states. Three case studies are included in the article. The first one aims to evaluate the performance of playtests programmed with aplib . The second shows that the approach can also be combined with other automated testing approaches, in this case reinforcement learning. The third shows the applicability of such playtests in a 3D setup and for non-functional testing. I. S. W. B. Prasetya, Mehdi Dastani, Rui Prada, Tanja E. J. Vos, Frank Dignum, Fitsum Meshesha Kifetew, Guido Mintjes, Samira Shirzadehhajimahmood, Saba Gholizadeh Ansari |
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. | 7 |