EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jayjun Lee
dblp:356/8918
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 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
2 papers |
Motion planning and robot control · 32% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 16% Trustworthy machine learning · 16% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › plan execution
failure recovery |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | RACER: Rich Language-Guided Failure Recovery Policies for Imitation Learning · ICRA 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
imitation learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | RACER: Rich Language-Guided Failure Recovery Policies for Imitation Learning · ICRA 2025 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot learning › manipulation learning
language-conditioned manipulation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | RACER: Rich Language-Guided Failure Recovery Policies for Imitation Learning · ICRA 2025 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | RACER: Rich Language-Guided Failure Recovery Policies for Imitation Learning · ICRA 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Do Vision-Language Models Represent Space and How? Evaluating Spatial Frame of Reference under Ambiguities · ICLR 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
spatial reasoning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Do Vision-Language Models Represent Space and How? Evaluating Spatial Frame of Reference under Ambiguities · ICLR 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › evaluation of language models
multilingual evaluation |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Do Vision-Language Models Represent Space and How? Evaluating Spatial Frame of Reference under Ambiguities · ICLR 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
vision-language model · 1.7supervisor-actor framework · 0.9evaluation protocol · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Do Vision-Language Models Represent Space and How? Evaluating Spatial Frame of Reference under AmbiguitiesabstractSpatial expressions in situated communication can be ambiguous, as their meanings vary depending on the frames of reference (FoR) adopted by speakers and listeners. While spatial language understanding and reasoning by vision-language models (VLMs) have gained increasing attention, potential ambiguities in these models are still under-explored. To address this issue, we present the COnsistent Multilingual Frame Of Reference Test (COMFORT), an evaluation protocol to systematically assess the spatial reasoning capabilities of VLMs. We evaluate nine state-of-the-art VLMs using COMFORT. Despite showing some alignment with English conventions in resolving ambiguities, our experiments reveal significant shortcomings of VLMs: notably, the models (1) exhibit poor robustness and consistency, (2) lack the flexibility to accommodate multiple FoRs, and (3) fail to adhere to language-specific or culture-specific conventions in cross-lingual tests, as English tends to dominate other languages. With a growing effort to align vision-language models with human cognitive intuitions, we call for more attention to the ambiguous nature and cross-cultural diversity of spatial reasoning. Fengyuan Hu, Jayjun Lee, Freda Shi, Parisa Kordjamshidi, Joyce Y. Chai, Ziqiao Ma 0001 |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2025 | RACER: Rich Language-Guided Failure Recovery Policies for Imitation LearningabstractDeveloping robust and correctable visuomotor policies for robotic manipulation is challenging due to the lack of self-recovery mechanisms from failures and the limitations of simple language instructions in guiding robot actions. To address these issues, we propose a scalable data generation pipeline that automatically augments expert demonstrations with failure recovery trajectories and fine-grained language annotations for training. We then introduce Rich languAge-guided failure reCovERy (RACER), a supervisor-actor frame-work, which combines failure recovery data with rich language descriptions to enhance robot control. RACER features a vision-language model (VLM) that acts as an online supervisor, providing detailed language guidance for error correction and task execution, and a language-conditioned visuomotor policy as an actor to predict the next actions. Our experimental results show that RACER outperforms the state-of-the-art Robotic View Transformer (RVT) on RLbench across various evaluation settings, including standard long-horizon tasks, dynamic goal-change tasks and zero-shot unseen tasks, achieving superior performance in both simulated and real world environments. Videos and code are available at: https://rich-language-failure-recovery.github.io. Yinpei Dai, Jayjun Lee, Nima Fazeli, Joyce Y. Chai |
ICRA | 2 |