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

Chao-Zeng Ma

dblp:429/9719 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Compilers and program optimization · 50% Software testing · 50%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computing education · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
code generation
1.012026
ARBench: Algorithmic Reasoner or API Alchemist? Evaluating LLMs Beyond API Calls · AAAI 2026
Computing education
programming education
1.012026
ARBench: Algorithmic Reasoner or API Alchemist? Evaluating LLMs Beyond API Calls · AAAI 2026
Compilers and program optimization
code generation
1.012026
Dynamic-Static Synergistic Selection Method for Candidate Code Solutions with Generated Test Cases · AAAI 2026
Software testing
test generation
1.012026
Dynamic-Static Synergistic Selection Method for Candidate Code Solutions with Generated Test Cases · AAAI 2026

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

benchmark construction · 3.0API usage analysis · 3.0static analysis · 1.0dynamic analysis · 1.0abstract syntax tree analysis · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 ARBench: Algorithmic Reasoner or API Alchemist? Evaluating LLMs Beyond API Calls
abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in code generation. Like human programmers, LLMs tend to call high-level APIs and libraries to program efficiently. However, this shortcut may hinder LLMs from learning the essential algorithm reasoning, leading instead to rote memorization of API usage. As a result, LLMs often struggle to generalize to new or domain-specific algorithms that lack ready-made library support. In this work, we propose ARBench, a novel benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ ability to generate machine learning algorithms from scratch, beyond merely invoking high-level APIs. It emphasizes algorithmic reasoning and implementation, distinguishing genuine understanding from superficial API usage. It covers fundamental and advanced machine learning tasks, rigorously assessing current LLMs’ capacity to implement these algorithms from scratch. Our evaluation reveals the strengths and weaknesses of state-of-the-art LLMs in algorithmic reasoning and generalization, offering valuable insights to guide future research and development.
Renbiao Liu, Chao-Zeng Ma, Hui Sun 0003, Xin-Ye Li, Ming Li 0005
AAAI2
2026 Dynamic-Static Synergistic Selection Method for Candidate Code Solutions with Generated Test Cases
abstract
Large language models (LLMs) show significant improvement in code generation. A common practice is sampling multiple candidate codes to increase the likelihood of producing an accurate solution. However, effectively identifying the best candidate from the pool is a significant challenge. Although existing code consensus methods attempt to solve this issue, they suffer from a critical problem: relying on test cases generated by LLMs, which can be flawed or provide incomplete coverage. This problem can result in erroneous validations, causing correct code to fail flawed tests and preventing the detection of functional differences in candidate code solutions. To address these issues, we present the Dynamic-Static Synergistic Selection Method, a novel framework that combines two complementary analytical approaches. First, it uses the abstract syntax tree (AST) to detect and filter candidate solutions and test cases. Second, the method statically analyzes the quality of the solutions and then dynamically validates functional consistency based on the execution results of the extracted inputs, thereby neutralizing the impact of faulty tests. Extensive experiments demonstrate that this synergistic approach significantly outperforms existing methods, substantially enhancing the correctness of the selected code.
Renbiao Liu, Jiang-Tian Xue, Chao-Zeng Ma, Hui Sun 0003, Xin-Ye Li, Ming Li 0005
AAAI3