EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sepideh Entezari Maleki
dblp:301/4013
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 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 |
Information extraction and text analysis · 33% Trustworthy machine learning · 33% Language models and text generation · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
confidence estimation |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Confidence Estimation for Text-to-SQL in Large Language Models · AAAI 2026 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › trustworthy language model
large language model reliability |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Confidence Estimation for Text-to-SQL in Large Language Models · AAAI 2026 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › semantic parsing
text-to-SQL |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Confidence Estimation for Text-to-SQL in Large Language Models · AAAI 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
logit analysis · 1.0execution-based grounding · 1.0consistency-based estimation · 1.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Confidence Estimation for Text-to-SQL in Large Language ModelsabstractConfidence estimation for text-to-SQL aims to assess the reliability of model-generated SQL queries without having access to gold answers. We study this problem in the context of large language models (LLMs), where access to model weights and gradients is often constrained. We explore both black-box and white-box confidence estimation strategies, evaluating their effectiveness on cross-domain text-to-SQL benchmarks. Our evaluation highlights the superior performance of consistency-based methods among black-box models and the advantage of SQL-syntax-aware approaches for interpreting LLM logits in white-box settings. Furthermore, we show that execution-based grounding of queries provides a valuable supplementary signal, improving the effectiveness of both approaches. Sepideh Entezari Maleki, Mohammadreza Pourreza, Davood Rafiei |
AAAI | 1 |