BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Abdul Ali Bangash

Abdul Ali Bangash contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringArtificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Understanding Prompt Management in GitHub Repositories: A Call for Best Practices

The rapid adoption of foundation models (e.g., large language models) has given rise to promptware, i.e., software built using natural language prompts. Effective management of prompts, such as organization and quality assurance, is essential yet challenging. In this study, we perform an empirical analysis of 24,800 open-source prompts from 92 GitHub repositories to investigate prompt management practices and quality attributes. Our findings reveal critical challenges such as considerable inconsistencies in prompt formatting, substantial internal and external prompt duplication, and frequent readability and spelling issues. Based on these findings, we provide actionable recommendations for developers to enhance the usability and maintainability of open-source prompts within the rapidly evolving promptware ecosystem.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On the Time-Based Conclusion Stability of Cross-Project Defect Prediction Models

Researchers in empirical software engineering often make claims based on observable data such as defect reports. Unfortunately, in many cases, these claims are generalized beyond the data sets that have been evaluated. Will the researcher's conclusions hold a year from now for the same software projects? Perhaps not. Recent studies show that in the area of Software Analytics, conclusions over different data sets are usually inconsistent. In this article, we empirically investigate whether conclusions in the area of defect prediction truly exhibit stability throughout time or not. Our investigation applies a time-aware evaluation approach where models are trained only on the past, and evaluations are executed only on the future. Through this time-aware evaluation, we show that depending on which time period we evaluate defect predictors, their performance, in terms of F-Score, the area under the curve (AUC), and Mathews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), varies and their results are not consistent. The next release of a product, which is significantly different from its prior release, may drastically change defect prediction performance. Therefore, without knowing about the conclusion stability, empirical software engineering researchers should limit their claims of performance within the contexts of evaluation, because broad claims about defect prediction performance might be contradicted by the next upcoming release of a product under analysis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access