Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Souha Hassine
dblp:371/4944
· 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
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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 |
Language models and text generation · 100% |
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
large language model evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | TounsiBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Tunisian Arabic · EMNLP 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model evaluation
LLM-as-a-judge |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | TounsiBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Tunisian Arabic · EMNLP 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
low-resource language processing |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | TounsiBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Tunisian Arabic · EMNLP 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
human evaluation · 0.9error analysis · 0.9LLM-as-judge · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | TounsiBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Tunisian ArabicabstractIn this work, we introduce the first benchmark for evaluating the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in understanding and generating responses in Tunisian Arabic.To achieve this, we construct a dataset of Tunisian Arabic instructions and prompt ten widely-used LLMs that claim to support Arabic.We then assess the LLM responses through both human and LLMbased evaluations across four criteria: quality, correctness, relevance, and dialectal adherence.We analyze the agreement and correlation between these judgments and identify GPT-4o as our automated judge model based on its high correlation with human ratings, and generate a final leaderboard using this model.Our error analysis reveals that most of the LLMs that were evaluated struggle with recognizing and properly responding in Tunisian Arabic.To facilitate further research, we release our dataset, along with gold-standard human- written responses for all 744 instructions, and our evaluation framework, allowing others to benchmark their own models. Souha Hassine, Asma Arrak, Marouene Addhoum, Steven R. Wilson 0001 |
EMNLP | 1 |