Sungjae Lee

Author directory

Yonsei

Other people with similar names: Sungjae Lee, Sungjae Lee (POSTECH)

Unverified author pages with similar names: Sungjae Lee


2025

Escape rooms present a unique cognitive challenge that demands exploration-driven planning: with the sole instruction to escape the room, players must actively search their environment, collecting information, and finding solutions through repeated trial and error. Motivated by this, we introduce VisEscape, a benchmark of 20 virtual escape rooms specifically designed to evaluate AI models under these challenging conditions, where success depends not only on solving isolated puzzles but also on iteratively constructing and refining spatial-temporal knowledge of a dynamically changing environment. On VisEscape, we observe that even state-of-the-art multi-modal models generally fail to escape the rooms, showing considerable variation in their progress and problem-solving approaches. We find that integrating memory management and reasoning contributes to efficient exploration and enables successive hypothesis formulation and testing, thereby leading to significant improvements in dynamic and exploration-driven environments.

2024

Visual arguments, often used in advertising or social causes, rely on images to persuade viewers to do or believe something. Understanding these arguments requires selective vision: only specific visual stimuli within an image are relevant to the argument, and relevance can only be understood within the context of a broader argumentative structure. While visual arguments are readily appreciated by human audiences, we ask: are today’s AI capable of similar understanding?We present VisArgs, a dataset of 1,611 images annotated with 5,112 visual premises (with regions), 5,574 commonsense premises, and reasoning trees connecting them into structured arguments. We propose three tasks for evaluating visual argument understanding: premise localization, premise identification, and conclusion deduction.Experiments show that 1) machines struggle to capture visual cues: GPT-4-O achieved 78.5% accuracy, while humans reached 98.0%. Models also performed 19.5% worse when distinguishing between irrelevant objects within the image compared to external objects. 2) Providing relevant visual premises improved model performance significantly.