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

Xiao Feng 0003

dblp:56/5122-3 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
active reasoning
0.912025
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
0.912025
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
0.912025
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
0.312025
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 From Passive to Active Reasoning: Can Large Language Models Ask the Right Questions under Incomplete Information?
abstract
While 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
ICML2