Papers › Towards a Completeness Argumentation for Scenario Concepts
Towards a Completeness Argumentation for Scenario Concepts
Christoph Glasmacher, Hendrik Weber, Lutz Eckstein
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Scenario-based testing has become a promising approach to overcome the complexity of real-world traffic for safety assurance of automated vehicles. Within scenario-based testing, a system under test is confronted with a set of predefined scenarios. This set shall ensure more efficient testing of an automated vehicle operating in an open context compared to real-world testing. However, the question arises if a scenario catalog can cover the open context sufficiently to allow an argumentation for sufficiently safe driving functions and how this can be proven. Within this paper, a methodology is proposed to argue a sufficient completeness of a scenario concept using a goal structured notation. Thereby, the distinction between completeness and coverage is discussed. For both, methods are proposed for a streamlined argumentation and regarding evidence. These methods are applied to a scenario concept and the inD dataset to prove the usability.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections