% Encoding: UTF-8
@COMMENT{BibTeX export based on data in FAU CRIS: https://cris.fau.de/}
@COMMENT{For any questions please write to cris-support@fau.de}
@article{faucris.255344512,
abstract = {The authors regret that there is an error in the published article. The null hypothesis [Formula presented] and the alternative hypothesis [Formula presented] for the hypothesis test in Section V are mistakenly swapped. This does not change the general statement of the paper, but has implications on several equations, result tables and the exact line of argument. This corrigendum introduces the necessary corrections. They could have been given as isolated pieces, but for the sake of clarity the complete enclosing sentence is stated for each correction. Additionally, the opportunity was also used to introduce adjustments for some spelling errors. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. ABSTRACT Modern driver assistance systems […] The provided approach therefore allows to design multi-sensor systems such that a specified overall error probability can be met and to give an estimation for the lower bound of the test effort. 1. Introduction […] Especially during the project […] Nevertheless, especially if the development tasks are outsourced to external suppliers, the specification does have to include a reference value for the test amount that has to be carried out by the supplier in order to substantiate a certain level of system reliability. […] To address this, we proposed a new analytical approach to estimate the test effort for multi-sensor-based systems that has to be tested to be able to accept the system with a certain level of statistical significance [6]. […] First, we provide a systematic […] Based on the error probability from the analysis or simulation, a systematic approach is then given to compute a lower bound of the test effort such that with a predefined statistical significance the sensor system shows no errors, this can be used in practice to specify a lower bound for the test effort. […] 2. Problem definition The development and the introduction […] Although it can never be guaranteed that a system is 100% error-free [7], the goal is to test as long as required to be able to accept the system with a predefined level of confidence. […] 4. System description […] 4.2. Event definition […] Based on these systematic event definitions it is possible to derive analytic expressions for the overall error probabilities and in consequence a lower bound of the required test effort. 5. Analytical approach […] The target estimation to be able to accept the system with a certain level of significance results in a hypothesis test with the hypothesis [Formula presented]: the system is too erroneous and the alternative hypothesis [Formula presented]: the system is sufficiently reliable. […] To verify the hypothesis [Formula presented] with a significance level of α, it has to be proven that},
author = {Bock, Florian and Siegl, Sebastian and Bazan, Peter and Buchholz, Peter and German, Reinhard},
doi = {10.1016/j.sysarc.2021.102117},
faupublication = {yes},
journal = {Journal of Systems Architecture},
note = {CRIS-Team Scopus Importer:2021-04-16},
peerreviewed = {Yes},
title = {{Corrigendum}: “{Reliability} and {Test} {Effort} {Analysis} of {Multi}-{Sensor} {Driver} {Assistance} {Systems}” ({Journal} of {Systems} {Architecture} (2018) 85–86 (1–13), ({S1383762117304289}), (10.1016/j.sysarc.2018.01.006))},
volume = {117},
year = {2021}
}