Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Xiao Feng 0003
dblp:56/5122-3
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0008-0205-3276ORCID · verified
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 |
Language models and text generation · 61% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 39% |
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 |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | From Passive to Active Reasoning: Can Large Language Models Ask the Right Questions under Incomplete Information? · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model reasoning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | From Passive to Active Reasoning: Can Large Language Models Ask the Right Questions under Incomplete Information? · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model evaluation
reasoning benchmark |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | From Passive to Active Reasoning: Can Large Language Models Ask the Right Questions under Incomplete Information? · ICML 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
commonsense reasoning |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | From Passive to Active Reasoning: Can Large Language Models Ask the Right Questions under Incomplete Information? · ICML 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
tree-based search · 0.9post-training · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | From Passive to Active Reasoning: Can Large Language Models Ask the Right Questions under Incomplete Information?abstractWhile existing benchmarks probe the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) across diverse domains, they predominantly assess passive reasoning, providing models with all the information needed to reach a solution. By contrast, active reasoning—where an LLM must interact with external systems to acquire missing evidence or data—has received little systematic attention. To address this shortfall, we present AR-Bench, a novel benchmark designed explicitly to evaluate an LLM’s active reasoning skills. AR-Bench comprises three task families—detective cases, situation puzzles, and guessing numbers—that together simulate real-world, agentic scenarios and measure performance across commonsense, logical, and symbolic reasoning challenges.
Empirical evaluation on AR-Bench demonstrates that contemporary LLMs exhibit pronounced difficulties with active reasoning: they frequently fail to acquire or leverage the information needed to solve tasks. This gap highlights a stark divergence between their passive and active reasoning abilities. Moreover, ablation studies indicate that even advanced strategies, such as tree-based searching or post-training approaches, yield only modest gains and fall short of the levels required for real-world deployment.
Collectively, these findings highlight the critical need to advance methodology for active reasoning, e.g., incorporating interactive learning, real-time feedback loops, and environment-aware objectives for training.
The benchmark is publicly available at: https://github.com/tmlr-group/AR-Bench. Zhanke Zhou, Xiao Feng 0003, Zhaocheng Zhu, Jiangchao Yao, Oluwasanmi Koyejo, Bo Han 0003 |
ICML | 2 |