Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Qingyang Zhao
dblp:25/10445
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Security and privacy · 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
2 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 100% | |
| Network and information security
2 papers |
Security and privacy of machine learning · 100% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Machine learning and data management · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › privacy
privacy evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Comparing Different Membership Inference Attacks With a Comprehensive Benchmark · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2025 |
Security and privacy of machine learning
membership inference |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Comparing Different Membership Inference Attacks With a Comprehensive Benchmark · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › adversarial robustness
adversarial training |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | LimeAttack: Local Explainable Method for Textual Hard-Label Adversarial Attack · AAAI 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | LimeAttack: Local Explainable Method for Textual Hard-Label Adversarial Attack · AAAI 2024 |
Security and privacy of machine learning
adversarial attack |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | LimeAttack: Local Explainable Method for Textual Hard-Label Adversarial Attack · AAAI 2024 |
Machine learning and data management
model evaluation |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Comparing Different Membership Inference Attacks With a Comprehensive Benchmark · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
membership inference · 2.6benchmarking · 2.6word importance ranking · 1.5local explainable method · 1.5beam search · 1.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Comparing Different Membership Inference Attacks With a Comprehensive BenchmarkabstractMembership inference (MI) attacks pose a significant threat to user privacy in machine learning systems. While numerous attack mechanisms have been proposed in the literature, the lack of standardized evaluation parameters and metrics has led to inconsistent and even conflicting comparison results. To address this issue and facilitate a systematic analysis of these disparate findings, we introduce MIBench, a comprehensive benchmark that includes a suite of carefully designed evaluation scenarios (ESs) and evaluation metrics to provide a consistent framework for assessing the efficacy of various MI techniques. The ESs are crafted to encompass four critical factors: intra-dataset distance distribution, inter-sample distance within the target dataset, differential distance analysis, and inference withholding ratio. In total, MIBench includes ten typical evaluation metrics and incorporates 84 distinct ESs for each dataset. Using MIBench, we conducted a thorough comparative analysis of 15 state-of-the-art MI attacks across 588 ESs, seven widely adopted datasets, and seven representative model architectures. Our analysis revealed 83 instances of Conflicting Comparison Results (CCR), providing substantial evidence for the CCR Phenomenon. We identified two CCR types: Type 1 (single-factor) and Type 2 (dual-factor). The distribution of CCR instances across the four critical factors was: inter-sample distance (40.96%), differential distance (37.35%), inference withholding ratio (19.28%), and intra-dataset distance (2.41%). All MIBench codes and evaluations are available athttps://github.com/MIBench/MIBench.github.io/blob/main/README.md. Xiaoyan Zhu 0005, Moxuan Zeng, Qingyang Zhao, Chunhui Huang, Suyu An, Yangzhong Wang, Xinghui Yue, Zhipeng He 0006, Weihao Guo, Kuo Shen, Peng Liu 0005, Lan Zhang 0008, Jianfeng Ma 0001, Yuqing Zhang 0001 |
IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. | 5 |
| 2024 | LimeAttack: Local Explainable Method for Textual Hard-Label Adversarial AttackabstractNatural language processing models are vulnerable to adversarial examples. Previous textual adversarial attacks adopt model internal information (gradients or confidence scores) to generate adversarial examples. However, this information is unavailable in the real world. Therefore, we focus on a more realistic and challenging setting, named hard-label attack, in which the attacker can only query the model and obtain a discrete prediction label. Existing hard-label attack algorithms tend to initialize adversarial examples by random substitution and then utilize complex heuristic algorithms to optimize the adversarial perturbation. These methods require a lot of model queries and the attack success rate is restricted by adversary initialization. In this paper, we propose a novel hard-label attack algorithm named LimeAttack, which leverages a local explainable method to approximate word importance ranking, and then adopts beam search to find the optimal solution. Extensive experiments show that LimeAttack achieves the better attacking performance compared with existing hard-label attack under the same query budget. In addition, we evaluate the effectiveness of LimeAttack on large language models and some defense methods, and results indicate that adversarial examples remain a significant threat to large language models. The adversarial examples crafted by LimeAttack are highly transferable and effectively improve model robustness in adversarial training. Qingyang Zhao, Weiwei Shang 0001, Yuren Wu |
AAAI | 2 |