Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Donghui Quan
dblp:372/6865
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 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 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 |
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Logic in computer science · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › representation language
knowledge representation formalisms |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | A Theory of Formalisms for Representing Knowledge · AAAI 2025 |
Logic in computer science
semantics |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | A Theory of Formalisms for Representing Knowledge · AAAI 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
translation · 1.7recursion theory · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | A Theory of Formalisms for Representing KnowledgeabstractThere has been a longstanding dispute over which formalism is the best for representing knowledge in AI. The well-known “declarative vs. procedural controversy” is concerned with the choice of utilizing declarations or procedures as the primary mode of knowledge representation. The ongoing debate between symbolic AI and connectionist AI also revolves around the question of whether knowledge should be represented implicitly (e.g., as parametric knowledge in deep learning and large language models) or explicitly (e.g., as logical theories in traditional knowledge representation and reasoning). To address these issues, we propose a general framework to capture various knowledge representation formalisms in which we are interested. Within the framework, we find a family of universal knowledge representation formalisms, and prove that all universal formalisms are recursively isomorphic. Moreover, we show that all pairwise intertranslatable formalisms that admit the padding property are also recursively isomorphic. These imply that, up to an offline compilation, all universal (or natural and equally expressive) representation formalisms are in fact the same, which thus provides a partial answer to the aforementioned dispute. Heng Zhang 0006, Guifei Jiang, Donghui Quan |
AAAI | 3 |