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

Jixi He

dblp:408/4165 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as 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 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
Vision and language · 67% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computer vision › Vision and language
multimodal benchmark
0.912025
SeePhys: Does Seeing Help Thinking? - Benchmarking Vision-Based Physics Reasoning · NeurIPS 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › commonsense reasoning
physical reasoning
0.912025
SeePhys: Does Seeing Help Thinking? - Benchmarking Vision-Based Physics Reasoning · NeurIPS 2025
Computer vision › Vision and language
visual reasoning
0.912025
SeePhys: Does Seeing Help Thinking? - Benchmarking Vision-Based Physics Reasoning · NeurIPS 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

multimodal model · 0.9large language model · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 SeePhys: Does Seeing Help Thinking? - Benchmarking Vision-Based Physics Reasoning
abstract
We present SeePhys, a large-scale multimodal benchmark for LLM reasoning grounded in physics questions ranging from middle school to PhD qualifying exams. The benchmark covers 7 fundamental domains spanning the physics discipline, incorporating 21 categories of highly heterogeneous diagrams. In contrast to prior works where visual elements mainly serve auxiliary purposes, our benchmark features a substantial proportion of vision-essential problems (75%) that mandate visual information extraction for correct solutions. Through extensive evaluation, we observe that even the most advanced visual reasoning models (e.g., Gemini-2.5-pro and o4-mini) achieve sub-60% accuracy on our benchmark. These results reveal fundamental challenges in current large language models' visual understanding capabilities, particularly in: (i) establishing rigorous coupling between diagram interpretation and physics reasoning, and (ii) overcoming their persistent reliance on textual cues as cognitive shortcuts.Project Page: github.com/SeePhys/seephys-projectHugging Face: huggingface.co/datasets/SeePhys/SeePhys
Kun Xiang, Terry Jingchen Zhang, Yinya Huang, Zirong Liu, Peixin Qu, Jixi He, Yu-Jie Yuan, Jianhua Han, Hang Xu 0004, Mrinmaya Sachan, Xiaodan Liang
NeurIPS7