Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Siqu Ou

dblp:408/2601 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—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 · 39% Trustworthy machine learning · 30% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 30%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
active reasoning
1.012026
When Seeing Is not Enough: Revealing the Limits of Active Reasoning in MLLMs · ACL (1) 2026
Computer vision › Vision and language › vision-language model
multimodal large language model
1.012026
When Seeing Is not Enough: Revealing the Limits of Active Reasoning in MLLMs · ACL (1) 2026
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
1.012026
When Seeing Is not Enough: Revealing the Limits of Active Reasoning in MLLMs · ACL (1) 2026
Computer vision › Vision and language
multimodal reasoning
0.312026
When Seeing Is not Enough: Revealing the Limits of Active Reasoning in MLLMs · ACL (1) 2026

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

benchmark evaluation · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 When Seeing Is not Enough: Revealing the Limits of Active Reasoning in MLLMs
abstract
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown strong capabilities across a broad range of benchmarks. However, most existing evaluations focus on passive inference, where models perform step-by-step reasoning under complete information. This setup is misaligned with real-world use, where seeing is not enough. This raises a fundamental question: Can MLLMs actively acquire missing evidence under incomplete information? To bridge this gap, we require the MLLMs to actively acquire missing evidence and iteratively refine decisions under incomplete information, by selecting a target image from a candidate pool without task-specific priors. To support systematic study, we propose GuessBench, a benchmark with both perception-oriented and knowledge-oriented images for evaluating active reasoning in MLLMs. We evaluate 20 superior MLLMs and find that performance on active reasoning lags far behind it on passive settings, indicating substantial room for improvement. Further analysis identifies fine-grained perception and timely decision-making as key challenges. Ablation studies show that perceptual enhancements benefit smaller models, whereas thinking-oriented methods provide consistent gains across model sizes. These results suggest promising directions for future research on multimodal active reasoning.
Pingjie Wang, Siqu Ou, Yanfeng Wang 0001, Yu Wang 0027
ACL (1)4