VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Christèle Tarnec
dblp:234/6007
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Language models and text generation · 87% Trustworthy machine learning · 13% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text summarization
dialogue summarization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | PoSum-Bench: Benchmarking Position Bias in LLM-based Conversational Summarization · EMNLP 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
text summarization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | PoSum-Bench: Benchmarking Position Bias in LLM-based Conversational Summarization · EMNLP 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
fairness evaluation |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | PoSum-Bench: Benchmarking Position Bias in LLM-based Conversational Summarization · EMNLP 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
semantic similarity metric · 0.9reference-free evaluation · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | PoSum-Bench: Benchmarking Position Bias in LLM-based Conversational SummarizationabstractLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for zero-shot conversation summarization, but often exhibit positional bias—tending to overemphasize content from the beginning or end of a conversation while neglecting the middle. To address this issue, we introduce PoSum-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating positional bias in conversational summarization, featuring diverse English and French conversational datasets spanning formal meetings, casual conversations, and customer service interactions. We propose a novel semantic similarity-based sentence-level metric to quantify the direction and magnitude of positional bias in model-generated summaries, enabling systematic and reference-free evaluation across conversation positions, languages, and conversational contexts.Our benchmark and methodology thus provide the first systematic, cross-lingual framework for reference-free evaluation of positional bias in conversational summarization, laying the groundwork for developing more balanced and unbiased summarization models. Lionel Delphin-Poulat, Christèle Tarnec, Anastasia Shimorina |
EMNLP | 3 |
| 2022 | Standardization on Bias in Artificial Intelligence as Industry SupportabstractIndustry strives for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems through recognizing and implementing Responsible AI principles. Solutions supporting that goal are of the utmost interest in that context. Standardization is an essential element here, as it provides a platform for industry to discuss and facilitate not only the development of practical rules and requirements but also ways to implement AI based systems. One of Responsible AI principles is fairness, and bias is a serious obstacle against it. First, we explain the concept of Responsible AI and highlight results of our analysis on bias and fairness in ongoing international standardization works and AI Act (AIA). We identified a gap between the principles defined by high-level studies, including the AIA, and their practical implementations, and differences within standardization and research works. Second, we draw a standardization map for AI works. Finally, we state how international standardization bodies may fill this gap? Ewelina Szczekocka, Christèle Tarnec, Janusz Pieczerak |
IEEE Big Data | 2 |