Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ján Cegin
dblp:272/2028
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0003-2692-9320ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 3 first-author · 4 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author
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
3 papers |
Generative modeling · 34% Language models and text generation · 33% Information extraction and text analysis · 16% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Software testing · 100% |
Topics — the 11 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
low-resource language processing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | A Rigorous Evaluation of LLM Data Generation Strategies for Low-Resource Languages · EMNLP 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
low-resource NLP |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | A Rigorous Evaluation of LLM Data Generation Strategies for Low-Resource Languages · EMNLP 2025 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
synthetic data generation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | A Rigorous Evaluation of LLM Data Generation Strategies for Low-Resource Languages · EMNLP 2025 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › synthetic data generation
text data augmentation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Effects of diversity incentives on sample diversity and downstream model performance in LLM-based text augmentation · ACL (1) 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
intent detection |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | ChatGPT to Replace Crowdsourcing of Paraphrases for Intent Classification: Higher Diversity and Comparable Model Robustness · EMNLP 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text generation
paraphrase generation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | ChatGPT to Replace Crowdsourcing of Paraphrases for Intent Classification: Higher Diversity and Comparable Model Robustness · EMNLP 2023 |
Software testing › test adequacy › coverage criteria › structural coverage criteria
MC/DC coverage |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Machine learning based test data generation for safety-critical software · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Software testing
test input generation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Machine learning based test data generation for safety-critical software · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
prompting |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | A Rigorous Evaluation of LLM Data Generation Strategies for Low-Resource Languages · EMNLP 2025 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › synthetic data generation › text data augmentation
data augmentation with language models |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Effects of diversity incentives on sample diversity and downstream model performance in LLM-based text augmentation · ACL (1) 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
model robustness |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | ChatGPT to Replace Crowdsourcing of Paraphrases for Intent Classification: Higher Diversity and Comparable Model Robustness · EMNLP 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
large language model · 1.4self-revision · 0.9prompting · 0.9demonstration · 0.9crowdsourcing · 0.7meta-heuristic search · 0.4machine learning · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | A Rigorous Evaluation of LLM Data Generation Strategies for Low-Resource LanguagesabstractLarge Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate synthetic textual data for training smaller specialized models.However, a comparison of various generation strategies for low-resource language settings is lacking.While various prompting strategies have been proposed-such as demonstrations, labelbased summaries, and self-revision-their comparative effectiveness remains unclear, especially for low-resource languages.In this paper, we systematically evaluate the performance of these generation strategies and their combinations across 11 typologically diverse languages, including several extremely low-resource ones.Using three NLP tasks and four open-source LLMs, we assess downstream model performance on generated versus gold-standard data.Our results show that strategic combinations of generation methods-particularly targetlanguage demonstrations with LLM-based revisions-yield strong performance, narrowing the gap with real data to as little as 5% in some settings.We also find that smart prompting techniques can reduce the advantage of larger LLMs, highlighting efficient generation strategies for synthetic data generation in lowresource scenarios with smaller models. Tatiana Anikina, Ján Cegin, Jakub Simko, Simon Ostermann 0002 |
EMNLP | 2 |
| 2025 | LLMs vs Established Text Augmentation Techniques for Classification: When do the Benefits Outweight the Costs?abstractJan Cegin, Jakub Simko, Peter Brusilovsky. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025. Ján Cegin, Jakub Simko, Peter Brusilovsky |
NAACL (Long Papers) | 1 |
| 2024 | Effects of diversity incentives on sample diversity and downstream model performance in LLM-based text augmentationabstractJan Cegin, Branislav Pecher, Jakub Simko, Ivan Srba, Maria Bielikova, Peter Brusilovsky. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024. Ján Cegin, Branislav Pecher, Jakub Simko, Ivan Srba, Mária Bieliková, Peter Brusilovsky |
ACL (1) | 1 |
| 2023 | ChatGPT to Replace Crowdsourcing of Paraphrases for Intent Classification: Higher Diversity and Comparable Model RobustnessabstractThe emergence of generative large language models (LLMs) raises the question: what will be its impact on crowdsourcing?Traditionally, crowdsourcing has been used for acquiring solutions to a wide variety of human-intelligence tasks, including ones involving text generation, modification or evaluation.For some of these tasks, models like ChatGPT can potentially substitute human workers.In this study, we investigate whether this is the case for the task of paraphrase generation for intent classification.We apply data collection methodology of an existing crowdsourcing study (similar scale, prompts and seed data) using ChatGPT and Falcon-40B.We show that ChatGPT-created paraphrases are more diverse and lead to at least as robust models. Ján Cegin, Jakub Simko, Peter Brusilovsky |
EMNLP | 1 |
| 2020 | Machine learning based test data generation for safety-critical softwareabstractUnit testing focused on Modified Condition/Decision Coverage (MC/DC) criterion is essential in development safety-critical systems. However, design of test data that meets the MC/DC criterion currently needs detailed manual analysis of branching conditions in units under test by test engineers. Multiple state-of-art approaches exist with proven usage even in industrial projects. However, these approaches have multiple shortcomings, one of them being the Path explosion problem which has not been fully solved yet. Machine learning methods as meta-heuristic approximations can model behaviour of programs that are hard to test using traditional approaches, where the Path explosion problem does occur and thus could solve the limitations of the current state-of-art approaches. I believe, motivated by an ongoing collaboration with an industrial partner, that the machine learning methods could be combined with existing approaches to produce an approach suitable for testing of safety-critical projects. Ján Cegin |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 1 |