Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Renming Zhang
dblp:371/1076
· DBLP profile ↗
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 · 2 · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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
2 papers |
Generative modeling · 40% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 26% Language models and text generation · 17% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model
conditional diffusion model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Conditional Diffusion Models Based Conditional Independence Testing · AAAI 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models › graphical models › conditional independence
conditional independence testing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Conditional Diffusion Models Based Conditional Independence Testing · AAAI 2025 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
diffusion model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Conditional Diffusion Models Based Conditional Independence Testing · AAAI 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations · NeurIPS 2024 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › multi-agent reasoning
strategic reasoning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models › graphical models › conditional independence › conditional independence testing
conditional randomization test |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Conditional Diffusion Models Based Conditional Independence Testing · AAAI 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
chain-of-thought · 1.5LLM-vs-LLM competition · 1.5conditional diffusion model · 0.9classifier-based conditional mutual information estimation · 0.9tree-of-thoughts · 0.8tree-of-thought · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Conditional Diffusion Models Based Conditional Independence TestingabstractConditional independence (CI) testing is a fundamental task in modern statistics and machine learning. The conditional randomization test (CRT) was recently introduced to test whether two random variables, X and Y, are conditionally independent given a potentially high-dimensional set of random variables, Z. The CRT operates exceptionally well under the assumption that the conditional distribution X|Z is known. However, since this distribution is typically unknown in practice, accurately approximating it becomes crucial. In this paper, we propose using conditional diffusion models (CDMs) to learn the distribution of X|Z. Theoretically and empirically, it is shown that CDMs closely approximate the true conditional distribution. Furthermore, CDMs offer a more accurate approximation of X|Z compared to GANs, potentially leading to a CRT that performs better than those based on GANs. To accommodate complex dependency structures, we utilize a computationally efficient classifier-based conditional mutual information (CMI) estimator as our test statistic. The proposed testing procedure performs effectively without requiring assumptions about specific distribution forms or feature dependencies, and is capable of handling mixed-type conditioning sets that include both continuous and discrete variables. Theoretical analysis shows that our proposed test achieves a valid control of the type I error. A series of experiments on synthetic data demonstrates that our new test effectively controls both type-I and type-II errors, even in high dimensional scenarios. Shuai Li 0020, Yingjie Zhang 0004, Hai Shu, Ziqi Chen 0002, Renming Zhang |
AAAI | 7 |
| 2024 | GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs via Game-Theoretic EvaluationsabstractAs Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into critical real-world applications, their strategic and logical reasoning abilities are increasingly crucial. This paper evaluates LLMs' reasoning abilities in competitive environments through game-theoretic tasks, e.g., board and card games that require pure logic and strategic reasoning to compete with opponents. We first propose GTBench, a language-driven environment composing 10 widely-recognized tasks, across a comprehensive game taxonomy: complete versus incomplete information, dynamic versus static, and probabilistic versus deterministic scenarios. Then, we (1) Characterize the game-theoretic reasoning of LLMs; and (2) Perform LLM-vs.-LLM competitions as reasoning evaluation. We observe that (1) LLMs have distinct behaviors regarding various gaming scenarios; for example, LLMs fail in complete and deterministic games yet they are competitive in probabilistic gaming scenarios; (2) Most open-source LLMs, e.g., CodeLlama-34b-Instruct and Llama-2-70b-chat, are less competitive than commercial LLMs, e.g., GPT-4, in complex games, yet the recently released Llama-3-70b-Instruct makes up for this shortcoming. In addition, code-pretraining greatly benefits strategic reasoning, while advanced reasoning methods such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Tree-of-Thought (ToT) do not always help. We further characterize the game-theoretic properties of LLMs, such as equilibrium and Pareto Efficiency in repeated games. Detailed error profiles are provided for a better understanding of LLMs' behavior. We hope our research provides standardized protocols and serves as a foundation to spur further explorations in the strategic reasoning of LLMs. Jinhao Duan, Renming Zhang, James Diffenderfer, Bhavya Kailkhura, Lichao Sun 0001, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Mohit Bansal, Tianlong Chen 0001, Kaidi Xu |
NeurIPS | 2 |