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

Shujun Cao

dblp:421/7183 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 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
Trustworthy machine learning · 67% Vision and language · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
1.012026
Looking Beyond the One: Operationalizing and Eliciting Visual Ambiguity in VLLMs · ACL (1) 2026
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
representation probing
1.012026
Looking Beyond the One: Operationalizing and Eliciting Visual Ambiguity in VLLMs · ACL (1) 2026
Computer vision › Vision and language
visual question answering
1.012026
Looking Beyond the One: Operationalizing and Eliciting Visual Ambiguity in VLLMs · ACL (1) 2026

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

multi-focus decoding · 1.0hidden state probing · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Looking Beyond the One: Operationalizing and Eliciting Visual Ambiguity in VLLMs
abstract
Visual questions are often ambiguous: the same image-question pair may admit multiple valid answers depending on which region is referenced.However, current Visual Question Answering (VQA) systems typically collapse this ambiguity, committing to a single interpretation during decoding and evaluation.In this work, we study visual question ambiguity from a grounded, region-centric perspective.We operationalize ambiguity as the existence of multiple distinct answer-supporting regions in an image, each independently yielding a valid answer.This formulation makes ambiguity observable without requiring exhaustive multi-answer annotations.Based on this definition, we conduct a systematic empirical study of state-of-the-art Visual Large Language Models (VLLMs).We find that, under default decoding, VLLMs consistently under-report ambiguity-even when multiple valid visual groundings are present.Importantly, probing model hidden states reveals that ambiguity-related signals are already encoded in their internal representations, despite not being reliably expressed in outputs.Finally, we show that selectively activating multi-focus answering based on these signals can recover additional valid answers while avoiding excessive hallucination.Together, our results suggest that ambiguity in VQA is not merely an annotation artifact or capability limitation, but a property that VLLMs internally recognize yet often fail to surface under standard decoding assumptions.
Yuchong Chen, Bowei Zou, Yifan Fan, Shujun Cao, Yu Hong 0001
ACL (1)6
2026 MFHS: Mutual consistency learning-based foundation model integrates hypergraph for semi-supervised medical image segmentation
Zhaichao Tang, Yonghao Wu, Ruixiang Zhai, Xuanhe Dong, Zikang Du, Shujun Cao
Pattern Recognit.7