Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Henrike Beyer
dblp:405/3873
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0001-7654-4755ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 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 |
Language models and text generation · 87% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 13% |
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
large language model reasoning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Lexical Recall or Logical Reasoning: Probing the Limits of Reasoning Abilities in Large Language Models · ACL (1) 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › evaluation of language models › reasoning evaluation
logical reasoning evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Lexical Recall or Logical Reasoning: Probing the Limits of Reasoning Abilities in Large Language Models · ACL (1) 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
puzzle solving |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Lexical Recall or Logical Reasoning: Probing the Limits of Reasoning Abilities in Large Language Models · ACL (1) 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
probing · 0.9benchmark construction · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Lexical Recall or Logical Reasoning: Probing the Limits of Reasoning Abilities in Large Language ModelsabstractDespite the increasing interest in the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), existing work shows limitations in assessing logic abilities independently from lexical memory. We address this gap with Mystery-Zebra. This robust two-part benchmark (4,290 puzzles) challenges the logic abstraction abilities of LLMs in two setups: (1) a lexical obfuscation setup tests the dependence of LLMs on lexical content based on two canonical grid puzzles widely spread on the Internet; (2) a set of new grid puzzles in 42 different sizes and 12 difficulty levels tests how the formal difficulty degree of a puzzle affects LLMs.We test open and closed-weight LLMs on both parts of the benchmark. The results on part two suggest that model sizes up to 70B parameters have only a minor influence when solving newly generated puzzles, while performance mainly relates to the number of items in the puzzle. The results on the first part of the benchmark suggest that the applied obfuscation strategies help to mitigate effects of logic puzzles being part of LLM training data, showing a drastic drop in performance for obfuscated versions of well-known puzzles. In addition we conduct a case-study on the first part of the benchmark predicting the position of single items, unveiling that the reasoning abilities of LLMs are mainly limited to a few consecutive steps of reasoning. Henrike Beyer, Chris Reed 0001 |
ACL (1) | 1 |