Evaluating Time Awareness and Cross-modal Active Perception of Large Models via 4D Escape Room Task
Authors: Yurui Dong, Ziyue Wang, Shuyun Lu, Dairu Liu, Xuechen Liu, Fuwen Luo, Peng Li, Yang Liu
Organizations: Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Dept. of Comp. Sci. & Tech., Institute for AI, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · School of Computer & Communication Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, China · College of Software, Nankai University, Tianjin, China · School of AI and Advanced Computing, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Jiangsu, China · Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have recently made rapid progress toward unified Omni models that integrate vision, language, and audio. However, existing environments largely focus on 2D or 3D visual context and vision-language tasks, offering limited support for temporally dependent auditory signals and selective cross-modal integration, where different modalities may provide complementary or interfering information, which are essential capabilities for realistic multimodal reasoning. As a result, whether models can actively coordinate modalities and reason under time-varying, irreversible conditions remains underexplored. To this end, we introduce EscapeCraft-4D, a customizable 4D environment for assessing selective cross-modal perception and time awareness in Omni models. It incorporates trigger-based auditory sources, temporally transient evidence, and location-dependent cues, requiring agents to perform spatio-temporal reasoning and proactive multimodal integration under time constraints. Building on this environment, we curate a benchmark to evaluate corresponding abilities across powerful models. Evaluation results suggest that models struggle with modality bias, and reveal significant gaps in current model's ability to integrate multiple modalities under time constraints. Further in-depth analysis uncovers how multiple modalities interact and jointly influence model decisions in complex multimodal reasoning environments.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Our EscapeCraft-4D environment setup. It incorporates auditory, visual, and time-aware clues to evaluate multimodal reasoning. The system is designed to test the abilities of agents to coordinate cross-modal perception, such as leveraging spatially grounded auditory cues and visually presented clues or making time-aware decisions under strict temporal constraints. This figure illustrates the sequencially arranged tasks according to three stages: exploration, time-aware search, and finally escape, with dynamic auditory cues playing central roles in guiding the decision-making process. The trigger system dynamically introduces time-aware clues that challenge the agent to act within limited timeframes, showcasing the integration of auditory and visual modalities.
Figure 2: Examples of our designed levels with successful runs from GPT-4o. (a) Basic game design included both auditory and visual clues. (b) Misleading levels included distractors which would play misleading auditory clues. Models should distinguish which auditory clue was genuinely useful and which was the distractor. (C) Time-aware level design included clues only visible in limited time. Models should find these clues in the time limit or the clue would disappear.
Category
Specification / Value
Forward Speed
2.0 m/s
Rotation Speed
60 ∘ /s
Grab/Trigger
0.5 s (fixed cost)
Audio Types
Examples
Ambient Sound
Wind sound from exit
Auditory Clues
Passwords or prompts
Table 1: Time-cost Configuration and Audio Categories
Level Type
Scenes
Total Objs
Avg/Scene
Difficulty-1
11
152
13.82
Difficulty-2
11
151
13.73
Difficulty-3
11
186
16.91
Difficulty-2-M
11
188
17.09
Difficulty-3-M
11
192
17.45
Difficulty-2-T
11
163
14.82
Table 2: Statistical Summary of MM-Escape4D
Models
Difficulty-1
Difficulty-2
Difficulty-3
AVG ER (%) ↑
ER (%) ↑
Steps ↓
GSR (%) ↑
GR (%)
ER (%) ↑
Steps ↓
GSR (%) ↑
GR (%)
TSR (%) ↑
TR (%)
ER (%) ↑
Prop (%) ↑
Steps ↓
GSR (%) ↑
GR (%)
TSR (%) ↑
TR (%)
Agentic Approach
GPT-4o Omni-Agent
90.91
16.82
48.52
24.58
81.82
38.82
12.75
33.66
55.30
9.15
45.45
45.45
59.27
8.39
34.73
34.85
24.09
72.73
Omni Models
Gemini3-Pro-Preview
100.00
16.82
59.25
21.95
72.73
27.73
37.12
22.67
81.82
6.42
27.27
27.27
50.36
7.82
29.69
55.11
4.52
66.67
Qwen3-Omni-Thinking
63.64
24.00
24.80
54.97
27.27
56.73
5.50
29.97
39.86
22.24
0.00
0.00
81.00
0.00
27.27
42.29
19.53
30.30
Table 3: Results of basic game setting. Prop: Prop Gain; Steps: average steps used to complete the game; GSR: Grab Success Rate, the precision of grabbing; GR: Grab Ratio, the portion of grabbing actions regarding the total consumed steps. TSR: Trigger Success Rate. TR: Trigger Ratio. Note that Difficulty-1 and Difficulty requires no prop, and the prop gain is therefore omitted, and so as TSR and TR The max allowed steps are 50, 65, 80 for Difficulty-1, -2, -3 respectively. The best score of each metrics is bolded and the second is underlined . The GPT-4o Omni Agent refers to our agentic approach built on GPT-4o models, gpt-4o for vision and language, together with gpt4o-audio-preview for audio. We use Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B version for Qwen3-Omni models in this table.
Models
Time-Aware
Misleading Levels
TCSS ↑
MAT ↓
AMR ↓
D2-M-ER ↑
D3-M-ER ↑
D2-M-Steps ↓
D3-M-Steps ↓
Agentic Approach
GPT-4o Omni-Agent
67.95%
63.64%
100.00%
72.73%
63.64%
40.55
60.09
Omni Models
Qwen3-Omni-Thinking
55.87%
59.09%
23.08%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
66.00
81.00
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
47.04%
40.91%
22.22%
63.64%
63.64%
28.82
53.82
Table 4: Comprehensive Experimental Results on MM-Escape4D. (I) Performance on Time-aware Levels measured by TCSS. (II) Robustness against Misleading Auditory cues: MAT refers to ratio of scenes where m isleading a udio was t riggered; AMR represents the ratio of scenes where the agent was deceived given that the misleading cue was triggered, within 3 following steps. Dn-M-ER and Dn-M-Step denote the Escape Rate and average steps for Difficulty-n Misleading levels. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underline , respectively.
Figure 3: Path density analysis for different levels in our MM-Escape4D benchmark. Exits of different scenes are aligned as mentioned in Section 5.1 The heatmaps represent the log-normalized density ( log(1+density) ) of agent positions, with blue gradients for successful runs and red for failed ones. The dashed contours represent the spatial distribution of key items (e.g., recorders for auditory clues and boxes).
Figure 4: Analysis of Ambient Sound via Audio and No-Audio settings. (A-B) Path density heatmaps showing trajectory concentrations, using the same spatial aligning method as in Figure 3 . (C) Delta distributions for sign-aligned metrics ( Steps, Timer, Frechet, PathLen ); the red median lines below zero indicate the superiority of the audio condition. (D) The winning rate of audio guidance across nine navigation metrics. Metrics where lower values are better: Steps , Time , PathLen , Turn , and Frechet . Efficiency metrics where higher values are preferred: ProgEff , PathEff , and Mono . (E) Mean distance-to-exit over normalized episode progress; the shaded area represents ±1 standard deviation. (F) Kaplan-like survival plot showing the percentage of models that have not yet reached the 1.5m exit threshold. Statistical significance for AUC and endpoint success is determined via paired Wilcoxon tests ( ∗p<0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference).
Figure 5: Paired HII comparison under auditory conditioning for Difficulty-2 and Difficulty-3. Each row corresponds to one difficulty level. Left column: unpaired success vs fail comparison in audio-active segments. Middle and right columns: paired audio vs non-audio comparison within success and fail runs. Each dot is one run-level HIInorm ; lines connect paired points from the same run; error bars show mean ± standard deviation. The figure shows consistent concentration increase during audio-active periods, while success vs fail separation in audio periods is significant in Difficulty-2 and not significant in Difficulty-3.
Test
HII
JS Distance
Visual Effects
Difficulty
PA vs NAs
PA vs NAf
Pauds/f
Pnon−auds/f
PL1,AvsNA,Ssf
PJSD,AvsNA,Fsf
Pbox↔pathMantel
Difficulty-1
–
–
–
0.3612
–
–
–
Difficulty-2
0.0004*
0.0215*
0.0088*
0.2388
0.00033*
0.00033*
–
Difficulty-3
0.0039*
0.0028*
0.4001
0.3568
0.00033*
0.00033*
0.0047*
* Note: P<0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference.
Table 5: P-values for the hypothesis tests used .
Test Symbol
Test Type
What Is Being Tested
PAvsNAAUC
Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank Appendix C.2
Whether audio changes the mid-trajectory distance-to-exit behavior between Difficulty-1 audio and non-audio settings (AUC on normalized progress window).
PAvsNAend
Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank Appendix C.2
Whether audio changes endpoint not-reached status between Difficulty-1 audio and non-audio settings (Kaplan-like endpoint comparison).
PL1perm , PJSDperm
Point-label permutation test Appendix C.3
Whether the density between difficulty-1 audio/non-audio settings changes significantly using L1 and JS distance.
PS/FAvsNA
Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank Appendix C.2
Within successful/failed runs, whether HII behaviors change among audio/non-audio segments.
Pauds/f / Pnon-auds/f
Mann-Whitney U test Appendix C.1
Whether audio-active-segment/non-audio-segment HII differs between success and fail runs.
PJSD,AvsNA,S/Fsf
Paired sign-flip permutation Appendix C.5
Whether density between audio and non-audio segments changes significantly within successful/failed runs using JS distance.
Table 6: Tests used for analysis.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Models
GPT-4o Omni Agent
Gemini3-Pro-Preview
Qwen3-Omni-Thinking
Scores: CIO(GSR)
37.08 (8.39)
53.75 (7.82)
27.55 (0.00)
Appendix
Table 7: Consistency compared with GSR on Difficulty-3.
Instruction Prompt
You find yourself locked inside a room, and your ultimate goal is to escape the room. i.e. the room escape game.
You can explore the room, interact with objects, inspect items, and resolve puzzles. You can adopt the following actions to explore the room and interact with objects:
Operation Prompt
- move_forward: float, ranged between [-10, 10]. This is the number of meters you want to move forward (negative value means moving backward).
- rotate_right: float, ranged between [-180, 180]. This is the number of degrees you want to turn right (negative value means turn left).
Appendix
Table 8: The System Prompt
Interaction Result
{interaction_result}
===
Inventory
The items in your bag usable include:
{bag_desc}
===
Appendix
Table 9: The Step Prompt
Consistency Evaluation Prompt
You are a reasoning consistency evaluator for a multimodal agent benchmark. Your task is to determine whether the agent’s intention (described in the “rationale”) matches the actual interaction result (described in the “response”).
Specifically, you are given:
- The agent’s rationale for why it attempted an interaction, describing its goal or belief about the current environment.
- The response from the environment after the interaction, which includes the actual result (e.g., what item was interacted with and what was obtained).
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) suffer from cross-modal hallucinations, where one modality inappropriately influences generation about another, leading to fabricated output. This exposes a more fundamental deficiency in modality-interaction control. To address this, we propose Modality-Adaptive Decoding (MAD), a training-free method that adaptively weights modality-specific decoding branches based on task requirements. MAD leverages the model's inherent ability to self-assess modality relevance by querying which modalities are needed for each task. The extracted modality probabilities are then used to adaptively weight contrastive decoding branches, enabling the model to focus on relevant information while suppressing cross-modal interference. Extensive experiments on CMM and AVHBench demonstrate that MAD significantly reduces cross-modal hallucinations across multiple audio-visual language models (7.8% and 2.0% improvements for VideoLLaMA2-AV, 8.7% and 4.7% improvements for Qwen2.5-Omni). Our approach demonstrates that explicit modality awareness through self-assessment is crucial for robust multimodal reasoning, offering a principled extension to existing contrastive decoding methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/top-yun/MAD
Sangyun Chung, Se Yeon Kim, Youngchae Chee +1
Integrated Vision Language Lab, KAIST, South Korea
Current Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can process diverse sensory inputs, yet their reasoning remains heavily biased toward a dominant modality, resulting in brittle cross-modal reasoning. We introduce C3PO, a benchmark of 3,404 samples spanning video, audio, image, and text, evaluating two abilities: information composition (fusing dispersed evidence) and counterfactual conflict (resolving deliberate contradictions). C3PO's paired IC/CC structure and four-tier design enable targeted diagnosis of when and why cross-modal reasoning fails. Built through a fully automatic pipeline using 25 logically grounded templates, C3PO reveals that while humans achieve 88.64% accuracy, the best model (Gemini-3.1-Pro) reaches only 73.17%, with open-source models collapsing under conflict. Through attention probes, we find 86-95% of failures stem from modality dominance: models commit to one modality while ignoring contradictory evidence, concentrating 87-95% of attention on text. Mid-layer attention entropy predicts correctness-sustained exploration succeeds, premature collapse fails. The 56-point accuracy gap between equally complex templates reveals that performance depends on modalities' structural roles in conflict resolution, not combinations. These findings show multimodal perception does not guarantee robust reasoning; architectures must enable sustained cross-modal attention to avoid premature
Recent advancements in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) pursue omni-perception capabilities, yet integrating robust sensory grounding with complex reasoning remains a challenge, particularly for underrepresented regions. In this report, we introduce the research preview of MERaLiON2-Omni (Alpha), a 10B-parameter multilingual omni-perception tailored for Southeast Asia (SEA). We present a progressive training pipeline that explicitly decouples and then integrates "System 1" (Perception) and "System 2" (Reasoning) capabilities. First, we establish a robust Perception Backbone by aligning region-specific audio-visual cues (e.g., Singlish code-switching, local cultural landmarks) with a multilingual LLM through orthogonal modality adaptation. Second, to inject cognitive capabilities without large-scale supervision, we propose a cost-effective Generate-Judge-Refine pipeline. By utilizing a Super-LLM to filter hallucinations and resolve conflicts via a consensus mechanism, we synthesize high-quality silver data that transfers textual Chain-of-Thought reasoning to multimodal scenarios. Comprehensive evaluation on our newly introduced SEA-Omni Benchmark Suite reveals an Efficiency-Stability Paradox: while reasoning acts as a non-linear amplifier for abstract tasks (boosting mathematical and instruction-following performance significantly), it introduces instability in low-level sensory processing. Specifically, we identify Temporal Drift in long-context audio, where extended reasoning desynchronizes the model from acoustic timestamps, and Visual Over-interpretation, where logic overrides pixel-level reality. This report details the architecture, the data-efficient training recipe, and a diagnostic analysis of the trade-offs between robust perception and structured reasoning.
Longyin Zhang, Shuo Sun, Yingxu He +15
Institute for Infocomm Research (I2R), A*STAR, Singapore