Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Manan Goenka

dblp:309/5834 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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 · 1 · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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
Question answering and dialogue systems · 44% Language models and text generation · 44% Trustworthy machine learning · 13%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software maintenance and evolution · 77% Software testing · 23%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Data models and query languages · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution › software reengineering › software modernization › software migration
code migration
0.912025
Horizon: Robust Checks for SQL Migration Using LLMs · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2025
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems › interactive question answering
conversational question answering
0.612022
Ditch the Gold Standard: Re-evaluating Conversational Question Answering · ACL (1) 2022
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text evaluation
human evaluation
0.612022
Ditch the Gold Standard: Re-evaluating Conversational Question Answering · ACL (1) 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

large language model · 1.7iterative query refinement · 1.7question rewriting · 0.6human evaluation · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Horizon: Robust Checks for SQL Migration Using LLMs
abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong capabilities in code migration across languages, making them promising for SQL schema migration. However, achieving reliable and accurate SQL migration with LLMs remains a challenge. This paper presents the first comprehensive approach for practical and effective SQL schema migration using LLMs. We highlight the necessity of robust evaluation and iterative query refinement to achieve highly accurate migrations. Building on traditional database tools along with LLMs, we introduce novel checks to guide LLMs towards syntactically complete and functionally equivalent translations. Our approach supports all schema object types, including complex procedural constructs. Our demonstrations offer audience opportunities to explore our system using a variety of configurations, datasets and custom inputs, providing useful insights into the underlying techniques, their strengths, and limitations.
K. Venkatesh Emani, Wenjing Wang 0005, Neel Ball, Kumaraswamy Boora, Carlo Curino, Avrilia Floratou, Manan Goenka, Paridhi Gupta, Katherine Lin, Nick Litombe, Jared Meade, Suryakant Mutnal, Raghu Ramakrishnan 0001, Sudhir Raparla, Dhruv Relwani, Shyam Sai, Vaibhave Sekar, Roneet Shaw, Harmeet Singh, Prasanna Sridharan, Sunidhi Tiwari
Proc. VLDB Endow.9
2022 Ditch the Gold Standard: Re-evaluating Conversational Question Answering
abstract
Conversational question answering aims to provide natural-language answers to users in information-seeking conversations. Existing conversational QA benchmarks compare models with pre-collected human-human conversations, using ground-truth answers provided in conversational history. It remains unclear whether we can rely on this static evaluation for model development and whether current systems can well generalize to real-world human-machine conversations. In this work, we conduct the first large-scale human evaluation of state-of-the-art conversational QA systems, where human evaluators converse with models and judge the correctness of their answers. We find that the distribution of human machine conversations differs drastically from that of human-human conversations, and there is a disagreement between human and gold-history evaluation in terms of model ranking. We further investigate how to improve automatic evaluations, and propose a question rewriting mechanism based on predicted history, which better correlates with human judgments. Finally, we analyze the impact of various modeling strategies and discuss future directions towards building better conversational question answering systems.
Huihan Li 0001, Tianyu Gao 0001, Manan Goenka, Danqi Chen 0001
ACL (1)3