Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Hanlin Mai
dblp:362/3047
· DBLP profile ↗
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 |
Language models and text generation · 36% Trustworthy machine learning · 32% 3D vision · 32% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computing education · 77% Computational science and engineering · 23% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Image and video processing · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Toward Engineering AGI: Benchmarking the Engineering Design Capabilities of LLMs · NeurIPS 2025 |
Computing education › STEM education
engineering design education |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Toward Engineering AGI: Benchmarking the Engineering Design Capabilities of LLMs · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › AI-generated content detection
AI-generated image detection |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Shadows Don't Lie and Lines Can't Bend! Generative Models Don't know Projective Geometry...for Now · CVPR 2024 |
Computer vision › 3D vision
projective geometry |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Shadows Don't Lie and Lines Can't Bend! Generative Models Don't know Projective Geometry...for Now · CVPR 2024 |
Image and video processing
image forensics |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Shadows Don't Lie and Lines Can't Bend! Generative Models Don't know Projective Geometry...for Now · CVPR 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
simulation-based evaluation · 1.7saliency map · 1.5geometric feature classifier · 1.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Toward Engineering AGI: Benchmarking the Engineering Design Capabilities of LLMsabstractModern engineering, spanning electrical, mechanical, aerospace, civil, and computer disciplines, stands as a cornerstone of human civilization and the foundation of our society. However, engineering design poses a fundamentally different challenge for large language models (LLMs) compared with traditional textbook-style problem solving or factual question answering. Although existing benchmarks have driven progress in areas such as language understanding, code synthesis, and scientific problem solving, real-world engineering design demands the synthesis of domain knowledge, navigation of complex trade-offs, and management of the tedious processes that consume much of practicing engineers' time. Despite these shared challenges across engineering disciplines, no benchmark currently captures the unique demands of engineering design work. In this work, we introduce EngDesign, an Engineering Design benchmark that evaluates LLMs' abilities to perform practical design tasks across nine engineering domains. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on factual recall or question answering, EngDesign uniquely emphasizes LLMs' ability to synthesize domain knowledge, reason under constraints, and generate functional, objective-oriented engineering designs. Each task in EngDesign represents a real-world engineering design problem, accompanied by a detailed task description specifying design goals, constraints, and performance requirements. EngDesign pioneers a simulation-based evaluation paradigm that moves beyond textbook knowledge to assess genuine engineering design capabilities and shifts evaluation from static answer checking to dynamic, simulation-driven functional verification, marking a crucial step toward realizing the vision of engineering Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Xingang Guo, Xiangyi Kong, Yilan Jiang, Xiayu Zhao, Zhihua Gong, Daixuan Li, Tianle Sang, Beixiao Zhu, Gregory Jun, Yingbing Huang, Yuqi Xue, Rahul Dev Kundu, Qi Jian Lim, Luke Alexander Granger, Mohamed Badr Younis, Darioush Keivan, Nippun Sabharwal, Shreyanka Sinha, Prakhar Agarwal, Kojo Vandyck, Hanlin Mai, Aditya Venkatesh, Ayush Barik, Jiankun Yang, Chongying Yue, Jingjie He, Licheng Xu, Liujun Xu, Rushabh Shetty, Ziheng Guo, Dahui Song, Manvi Jha, Weijie Liang, Weiman Yan, Bryan Zhang, Sahil Bhandary Karnoor, Rutva Pandya, Xinyi Gong, Mithesh Ballae Ganesh, Feize Shi, Ruiling Xu, Yanfeng Ouyang, Lianhui Qin, Elyse Rosenbaum, Corey Snyder, Peter J. Seiler, Geir E. Dullerud, Xiaojia Shelly Zhang, Zuofu Cheng, Pavan Kumar Hanumolu, Mayank Kulkarni, Mahdi Namazifar, Bin Hu 0002 |
NeurIPS | 25 |
| 2024 | Shadows Don't Lie and Lines Can't Bend! Generative Models Don't know Projective Geometry...for NowabstractGenerative models can produce impressively realistic images. This paper demonstrates that generated images have geometric features different from those of real images. We build a set of collections of generated images, prequalified to fool simple, signal-based classifiers into believing they are real. We then show that prequalified generated images can be identified reliably by classifiers that only look at geometric properties. We use three such classifiers. All three classifiers are denied access to image pixels, and look only at derived geometric features. The first classifier looks at the perspective field of the image, the second looks at lines detected in the image, and the third looks at relations between detected objects and shadows. Our procedure detects generated images more reliably than SOTA local signal based detectors, for images from a number of distinct generators. Saliency maps suggest that the classifiers can identify geometric problems reliably. We conclude that current generators cannot reliably reproduce geometric properties of real images. Ayush Sarkar, Hanlin Mai, Amitabh Mahapatra, Svetlana Lazebnik, David A. Forsyth, Anand Bhattad |
CVPR | 2 |