You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Software Testing Process Models Benefits&Drawbacks: a Systematic Literature Review 
Chapter Title:  253 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Test activities are very important for the product quality. Testability Maturity Model (TMM) and Test Process Improvement (TPI) are often applied to improve the test activities. However, in the domain of embedded software, there are many different concerns from that of other software domains to achieve the high quality. This paper deals with the characteristics of embedded software and industrial corporate challenges based on the referential models suggesting the TPI-EI (Test Process Improvement for Embedded software and Industrial characteristics) model. The TPI-EI model reflects the practical improvement strategies and focuses on the evaluation procedures with cost-effectiveness. In order to check if this model is valid, the result of applying this model is explained. The proposed model provides the foundation to find out the insufficient parts of test activities, ultimately improving the test capabilities upon the self-evaluation. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  Model-based testing (MBT) provides a systematic and automated way to facilitate rigorous testing of software systems. MBT has been an intense area of research and a large number of MBT techniques have been developed in the literature and in the practice. However, all of the techniques have been developed using their own concepts and terminology of MBT, which are very often different than other techniques and at times have conflicting semantics. Moreover, while working on MBT projects with our industrial partners in the last several years, we were unable to find a unified way of defining MBT techniques based on standard terminology. To precisely define MBT concepts with the aim of providing common understanding of MBT terminology across techniques, we formalize a small subset of the recently released ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119 Software Testing Standard as a conceptual model (UML class diagrams) together with OCL constraints. The conceptual model captures all the necessary concepts based on the standard terminology that are mandatory or optional in the context of MBT techniques and can be used to define new MBT tools and techniques. To validate the conceptual model, we instantiated its concepts for various MBT techniques previously developed in the context of our industrial partners. Such instantiation automatically enforces the specified OCL constraints. This type of validation provided us feedback to further refine the conceptual model. Finally, we also provide our experiences and lessons learnt for such formalization and validation.

Literature Review:
Springer Link software AND test title contains: "maturity model" OR "process improvement" OR "improvement model" OR "maturity standard" OR "test* standard" OR "capability model" OR "test* process" OR "test* model" was still responsibility of the researchers to evaluate the exclusion of the paper. To improve the quality of results, several articles were removed from the list based on a low number of citations per year (Table 4) . Two articles with low citation ratio were not eliminated from the list: Ali and Yue BIB003 directly describe existing approach and references to the official ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119 Software Testing website (http://www.softwaretestingstandard.org/) and Lee BIB002 suggests a testing model and includes valuable information about the TMM model and its drawbacks. Subsequently, quality evaluation proceeded based on the conferences and journals where papers were published (Table 5) . We collected information about ranking of the most conferences/journals, which are available online (http://www.conferenceranks.com/, http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-ranks/, http://portal.core.edu.au/jnl-ranks/). Based on the results, the article of Saiedian and Carr BIB001 was removed because it was published in a newsletter.