Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Siqu Ou
dblp:408/2601
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
active reasoning |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | 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 |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | When Seeing Is not Enough: Revealing the Limits of Active Reasoning in MLLMs · ACL (1) 2026 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | When Seeing Is not Enough: Revealing the Limits of Active Reasoning in MLLMs · ACL (1) 2026 |
Computer vision › Vision and language
multimodal reasoning |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | When Seeing Is not Enough: Revealing the Limits of Active Reasoning in MLLMsabstractMultimodal 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 |