EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Salma Begum Tamanna
dblp:359/4380
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Debugging and program repair · 77% Program analysis · 23% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Debugging and program repair
program repair |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Chatgpt Inaccuracy Mitigation During Technical Report Understanding: Are we There Yet? · ICSE 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
retrieval-augmented generation · 0.9query transformation · 0.9metamorphic testing · 0.9context-free grammar · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Chatgpt Inaccuracy Mitigation During Technical Report Understanding: Are we There Yet?abstractHallucinations, the tendency to produce irrelevant/incorrect responses, are prevalent concerns in generative AIbased tools like ChatGPT. Although hallucinations in ChatGPT are studied for textual responses, it is unknown how ChatGPT hallucinates for technical texts that contain both textual and technical terms. We surveyed 47 software engineers and produced a benchmark of 412 Q&A pairs from the bug reports of two OSS projects. We find that a RAG-based ChatGPT (i.e., ChatGPT tuned with the benchmark issue reports) is 36.4 % correct when producing answers to the questions, due to two reasons 1) limitations to understand complex technical contents in code snippets like stack traces, and 2) limitations to integrate contexts denoted in the technical terms and texts. We present CHIME (ChatGPT Inaccuracy Mitigation Engine) whose underlying principle is that if we can preprocess the technical reports better and guide the query validation process in ChatGPT, we can address the observed limitations. CHIME uses context-free grammar (CFG) to parse stack traces in technical reports. CHIME then verifies and fixes ChatGPT responses by applying metamorphic testing and query transformation. In our benchmark, CHIME shows 30.3% more correction over ChatGPT responses. In a user study, we find that the improved responses with CHIME are considered more useful than those generated from ChatGPT without CHIME. Salma Begum Tamanna, Gias Uddin 0001, Song Wang 0009, Lan Xia, Longyu Zhang |
ICSE | 1 |