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

Yu-Chien Tang

dblp:46/11210 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0009-5935-4966ORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 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
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 87% Language models and text generation · 13%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › large language model trustworthiness
large language model robustness
1.012026
Obedience or Vigilance? How Large Language Models React to Malicious Multiple-Choice Options (Student Abstract) · AAAI 2026
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
1.012026
Obedience or Vigilance? How Large Language Models React to Malicious Multiple-Choice Options (Student Abstract) · AAAI 2026
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › natural language understanding › question answering
multiple-choice question answering
0.312026
Obedience or Vigilance? How Large Language Models React to Malicious Multiple-Choice Options (Student Abstract) · AAAI 2026

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

option injection · 1.0black-box auditing · 1.0prompt chaining · 0.9large language model · 0.9collaborative agents · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Obedience or Vigilance? How Large Language Models React to Malicious Multiple-Choice Options (Student Abstract)
abstract
When evaluating large language models (LLMs) for question answering tasks, a common protocol is multiple-choice question-answering (MCQA), where the model selects from a fixed set of choices. In contemporary robustness testing, researchers typically perturb instructions or introduce confusion into factual statements; however, model behavior also hinges on choice compliance: whether models remain within the canonical set A-D. We formalize this setting by asking whether the model continues to respect the interface's rules when the problem presents a tempting alternative. Our approach is interface-preserving: we append a single selectable option E while keeping the question and A-D unchanged. Then, we introduce three types of malicious option injection to assess LLMs' robustness. Experimental results highlight the vulnerability of LLMs on contradict type content of the additional option E. Our evaluation framework can effectively serve as a low-cost audit of rule adherence on existing datasets and black-box models, surfaces off-policy items, and supports interpretable model comparison for deployment.
Yow-Fu Liou, Yu-Chien Tang, An-Zi Yen
AAAI2
2026 ConceptKT: A Benchmark for Concept-Level Deficiency Prediction in Knowledge Tracing
Yu-Chen Kang, Yu-Chien Tang, An-Zi Yen
LREC2
2025 Template-Based Financial Report Generation in Agentic and Decomposed Information Retrieval
abstract
Tailoring structured financial reports from companies' earnings releases is crucial for understanding financial performance and has been widely adopted in real-world analytics. However, existing summarization methods often generate broad, high-level summaries, which may lack the precision and detail required for financial reports that typically focus on specific, structured sections. While Large Language Models (LLMs) hold promise, generating reports adhering to predefined multi-section templates remains challenging. This paper investigates two LLM-based approaches popular in industry for generating templated financial reports: an agentic information retrieval (IR) framework and a decomposed IR approach, namely AgenticIR and DecomposedIR. The AgenticIR utilizes collaborative agents prompted with the full template. In contrast, the DecomposedIR approach applies a prompt chaining workflow to break down the template and reframe each section as a query answered by the LLM using the earnings release. To quantitatively assess the generated reports, we evaluated both methods in two scenarios: one using a financial dataset without direct human references, and another with a weather-domain dataset featuring expert-written reports. Experimental results show that while AgenticIR may excel in orchestrating tasks and generating concise reports through agent collaboration, DecomposedIR statistically significantly outperforms AgenticIR approach in providing broader and more detailed coverage in both scenarios, offering reflection on the utilization of the agentic framework in real-world applications.
Yong-En Tian, Yu-Chien Tang, Kuang-Da Wang, An-Zi Yen, Wen-Chih Peng
SIGIR2