Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Renming Zhang

dblp:371/1076 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model
conditional diffusion model
0.912025
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
0.912025
Conditional Diffusion Models Based Conditional Independence Testing · AAAI 2025
Machine learning › Generative modeling
diffusion model
0.912025
Conditional Diffusion Models Based Conditional Independence Testing · AAAI 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation
0.812024
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
0.812024
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
0.312025
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Conditional Diffusion Models Based Conditional Independence Testing
abstract
Conditional 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
AAAI7
2024 GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations
abstract
As 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
NeurIPS2