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

Zexi Kuang

dblp:410/3131 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 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
Information extraction and text analysis · 60% Reinforcement learning · 32% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 8%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
document understanding
1.012026
TexOCR: Advancing Document OCR Models for Compilable Page-to-LaTeX Reconstruction · ACL (1) 2026
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reward design
reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards
1.012026
TexOCR: Advancing Document OCR Models for Compilable Page-to-LaTeX Reconstruction · ACL (1) 2026
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › fact-checking
scientific claim verification
0.912025
SciVer: Evaluating Foundation Models for Multimodal Scientific Claim Verification · ACL (1) 2025
Information retrieval
retrieval-augmented generation
0.912025
SciVer: Evaluating Foundation Models for Multimodal Scientific Claim Verification · ACL (1) 2025
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
foundation model evaluation
0.312025
SciVer: Evaluating Foundation Models for Multimodal Scientific Claim Verification · ACL (1) 2025

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

retrieval-augmented generation · 1.7error analysis · 1.7benchmark construction · 1.7supervised fine-tuning · 1.0reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 TexOCR: Advancing Document OCR Models for Compilable Page-to-LaTeX Reconstruction
abstract
Existing document OCR largely targets plain text or Markdown, discarding the structural and executable properties that make LaTeX essential for scientific publishing.We study page-level reconstruction of scientific PDFs into compilable LaTeX and introduce TEX-OCR-Bench, a benchmark, and TEXOCR-Train, a large-scale training corpus, for this task.TEXOCR-Bench features a multi-dimensional evaluation suite that jointly assesses transcription fidelity, structural faithfulness, and endto-end compilability.Leveraging TEXOCR-Train, we train a 2B-parameter model, TEX-OCR, using supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) with verifiable rewards derived from LaTeX unit tests that directly enforce compilability and referential integrity.Experiments across 21 frontier models on TEXOCR-Bench show that existing systems frequently violate key document invariants, including consistent section structure, correct float placement, and valid label-reference links, which undermines compilation reliability and downstream usability.Our analysis further reveals that RL with verifiable rewards yields consistent improvements over SFT alone, particularly on structural and compilation metrics.
Chengye Wang, Zexi Kuang, Yilun Zhao 0001
ACL (1)3
2025 SciVer: Evaluating Foundation Models for Multimodal Scientific Claim Verification
abstract
We introduce SCIVER, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the ability of foundation models to verify claims within a multimodal scientific context.SCIVER consists of 3,000 expert-annotated examples over 1,113 scientific papers, covering four subsets, each representing a common reasoning type in multimodal scientific claim verification.To enable fine-grained evaluation, each example includes expert-annotated supporting evidence.We assess the performance of 21 state-of-the-art multimodal foundation models, including o4mini, Gemini-2.5-Flash,Llama-3.2-Vision, and Qwen2.5-VL.Our experiment reveals a substantial performance gap between these models and human experts on SCIVER.Through an in-depth analysis of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and human-conducted error evaluations, we identify critical limitations in current open-source models, offering key insights to advance models' comprehension and reasoning in multimodal scientific literature tasks.
Chengye Wang, Yifei Shen 0006, Zexi Kuang, Arman Cohan, Yilun Zhao 0001
ACL (1)3