Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Joanna Matthiesen
dblp:380/6288
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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 |
Vision and language · 50% Language models and text generation · 50% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computing education · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
mathematical reasoning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Evaluating Large Vision-and-Language Models on Children's Mathematical Olympiads · NeurIPS 2024 |
Computer vision › Vision and language
vision-language model |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Evaluating Large Vision-and-Language Models on Children's Mathematical Olympiads · NeurIPS 2024 |
Computing education
mathematics education |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Evaluating Large Vision-and-Language Models on Children's Mathematical Olympiads · NeurIPS 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
benchmark evaluation · 1.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Evaluating Large Vision-and-Language Models on Children's Mathematical OlympiadsabstractRecent years have seen a significant progress in the general-purpose problem solving abilities of large vision and language models (LVLMs), such as ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.; some of these breakthroughs even seem to enable AI models to outperform human abilities in varied tasks that demand higher-order cognitive skills. Are the current large AI models indeed capable of generalized problem solving as humans do? A systematic analysis of AI capabilities for joint vision and text reasoning, however, is missing in the current scientific literature. In this paper, we make an effort towards filling this gap, by evaluating state-of-the-art LVLMs on their mathematical and algorithmic reasoning abilities using visuo-linguistic problems from children's Olympiads. Specifically, we consider problems from the Mathematical Kangaroo (MK) Olympiad, which is a popular international competition targeted at children from grades 1-12, that tests children's deeper mathematical abilities using puzzles that are appropriately gauged to their age and skills. Using the puzzles from MK, we created a dataset, dubbed SMART-840, consisting of 840 problems from years 2020-2024. With our dataset, we analyze LVLMs power on mathematical reasoning; their responses on our puzzles offer a direct way to compare against that of children. Our results show that modern LVLMs do demonstrate increasingly powerful reasoning skills in solving problems for higher grades, but lack the foundations to correctly answer problems designed for younger children. Further analysis shows that there is no significant correlation between the reasoning capabilities of AI models and that of young children, and their capabilities appear to be based on a different type of reasoning than the cumulative knowledge that underlies children's mathematical skills. Anoop Cherian, Kuan-Chuan Peng, Suhas Lohit, Joanna Matthiesen, Kevin A. Smith 0001, Josh Tenenbaum |
NeurIPS | 4 |