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

Qinzhen Li

dblp:71/10180 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · conflict

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Theory of computation · 2 · 1 first-author · 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.

Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design
information design
0.912025
Credit Rating Design Under Adverse Selection · EC 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
learning in games
0.812024
Learning to Rank under Strategic "Brush Wars" · EC 2024
Information retrieval › ranking
learning to rank
0.212024
Learning to Rank under Strategic "Brush Wars" · EC 2024
Information retrieval
ranking
0.212024
Learning to Rank under Strategic "Brush Wars" · EC 2024

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

online learning · 1.5game theory · 1.5adverse selection modeling · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Credit Rating Design Under Adverse Selection
abstract
Credit ratings are essential in capital markets, serving as a bridge to reduce information asymmetry between firms and investors. However, the prevalent issuer-pay model creates a potential conflict of interest: since CRAs are paid by the issuers, they may have incentives to inflate ratings to retain clients, compromising the credibility of ratings and threatening market stability. This concern is often linked to the observed discrepancies between solicited ratings (for paying firms) and unsolicited ratings (for non-paying firms), as documented in empirical studies.
Jussi Keppo, Qinzhen Li
EC3
2024 Learning to Rank under Strategic "Brush Wars"
abstract
We consider a dynamic learning and ranking problem of a digital platform. Uninformed of the products' intrinsic qualities, the platform strives to design a sequential ranking policy that learns from historical traffic data while accounting for potential manipulation by sellers to inflate their performances, which we refer to as "brushing." Are there effective yet simple ranking algorithms to combat the sellers' brushing activities?
Qinzhen Li, Hongfan (Kevin) Chen
EC1