Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

NAVCON: A Cognitively Inspired and Linguistically Grounded Corpus for Vision and Language Navigation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read NAVCON claims that four cognitively motivated navigation concepts can be automatically annotated across 30,000+ instructions and paired with agent-view video, enabling interpretable vision-language navigation.

desk verdict A genuinely useful corpus for navigation-concept annotation, with solid text-annotation evidence; the video-alignment numbers are optimistically reported and need held-out validation before they are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13026 v2 pith:LSZHA7IG submitted 2024-12-17 cs.CL cs.CV

Karan Wanchoo , Xiaoye Zuo , Hannah Gonzalez , Soham Dan , Georgios Georgakis , Dan Roth , Kostas Daniilidis , Eleni Miltsakaki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.CV
keywords Vision-and-LanguageNavigationconceptssilverannotationsR2RRxRconceptclassificationvideogroundingembodiedAI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

NAVCON claims that four cognitively motivated navigation concepts — situate yourself, move along a path, change direction, and change region — are sufficient to describe the content of natural-language navigation instructions, and that these concepts can be annotated automatically at scale. The paper builds a corpus of 236,316 phrase-level concept annotations across 30,815 R2R and RxR instructions, and pairs 19,074 instructions with 2.7 million agent-view video frames. Human evaluation reports 95.49% textual overlap accuracy and 95.82% concept-class accuracy for the silver annotations, and 88.62% exact-match accuracy for video clips after extending the extraction window by 5%. The paper argues that this resource supports interpretable, grounded vision-language navigation models rather than black-box alignment.

What carries the argument

The carrying machinery is the four-concept taxonomy plus the silver-annotation pipeline built from it. The concepts are SIT (situate yourself), MOVE (move along a path), CD (change direction), and CR (change region), each linked to a neural system: place cells, head-direction cells, boundary cells, and locomotion/path integration. The pipeline uses Stanza constituency parses to find 348 root verbs, narrows them by human review to 81 unambiguous navigation verbs mapped to the four classes, extracts each root's syntactic children as the phrase span, cleans the output, and tags every word in BIO format. For video, NAVCON uses RxR word timestamps, interpolates missing ones, renders agent poses in the Habitat simulator, and extends each clip window by 5% of the sequence to compensate for delayed pose changes.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of instructions from a VLN dataset not used in building NAVCON (e.g., Touchdown, REVERIE, or ALFRED) and ask annotators to mark every navigation concept and its head verb; if a substantial fraction of concepts are headed by verbs outside the 81-verb list, the claim that the four concepts cover most navigation instructions would be refuted. A simpler check is to apply the released NAVCON annotation tool to such instructions and measure the missing-concept rate against human annotations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a small taxonomy of four navigation concepts, grounded in neurobiological evidence about how brains represent place, heading, boundaries, and path integration, accounts for the linguistic substance of VLN instructions. The paper operationalizes the taxonomy through 81 root navigation verbs extracted from constituency parses, retrieves verb phrases and their syntactic children, and produces silver annotations for 236,316 concept instantiations. It further claims that these annotations are reliable enough to train a Navigation Concept Classifier that reaches 96.53% exact phrase-and-concept accuracy on unseen instructions, and that few-shot GPT-4o reaches 82.12% accuracy on the same task using only NAVCON examples. Finally, the paper claims that the paired video clips give each concept a temporal visual grounding, making NAVCON the first resource of its kind at this scale.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the human-curated list of 81 root navigation verbs is complete and each verb maps unambiguously to one of the four concept classes; if a common navigation verb is missing or mis-assigned, every phrase annotation, classifier training label, and video pairing built on it inherits the error, and the paper does not publish the full list for external inspection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NAVCON gives VLN researchers an intermediate representation of navigation concepts, so model behavior can be inspected at the level of 'turn,' 'enter,' or 'stand in front of' instead of only whole trajectories.
  • The trained Navigation Concept Classifier can annotate unseen instructions at 96.53% exact phrase-and-concept accuracy, making new silver annotations cheap to produce.
  • Because each concept annotation is paired with agent-view video frames, the corpus supports direct supervision of cross-modal text-to-vision alignment.
  • Few-shot GPT-4o reaches 82.12% accuracy with only three NAVCON examples, suggesting large language models can assist annotation expansion beyond the curated verb list.
  • The 5% window extension result implies that a substantial fraction of concept-video misalignments come from systematic timestamp errors, not from the concept annotation itself.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The four-concept taxonomy likely transfers to instruction-following domains beyond indoor navigation (e.g., street-level direction following or household manipulation), since the underlying spatial predicates are not dataset-specific; applying the 81-verb list to Touchdown or ALFRED instructions would test this.
  • Because the pipeline anchors every annotation on a root verb, concepts expressed without a verb — such as 'through the door' alone — may be systematically under-annotated; measuring concept coverage in verb-free clauses would quantify this gap.
  • The unlisted 81-verb taxonomy is the key asset; publishing it in full would let other groups reproduce and audit the annotation pipeline, and would make the 'four concepts cover most instructions' claim directly testable.
  • If word-timestamp alignment were corrected rather than patched with a 5% window, exact-match clip accuracy could rise materially above 88.62%, and the same correction could improve other timestamp-dependent RxR resources.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents NAVCON, a silver-annotated corpus built from 30,815 English R2R and RxR VLN instructions. Four concept classes (SIT, MOVE, CD, CR) are defined from cognitive neuroscience, and linguistic instantiations are extracted via a manually curated list of 81 root navigation verbs and their syntactic children, yielding 236,316 concept annotations. For 19,074 RxR instructions, the annotations are paired with video frames rendered in Habitat, producing 2.7 million concept-paired frames. Quality is assessed through human evaluation of 300 textual annotations and 100 video clips, a DistilBERT navigation concept classifier (96.53% exact concept-phrase accuracy), and GPT-4o few-shot experiments (82.12%).

Significance. If the video-pairing accuracy is confirmed out-of-sample, NAVCON would be a useful and novel resource: it is the first large-scale text-video concept corpus for VLN, it has a clear conceptual taxonomy, it is released under CC BY-SA, and it provides strong text-annotation quality evidence (95.49% span accuracy and 95.82% concept-class accuracy in Table 4) plus a trained classifier and GPT-4o baseline. The open release and the inclusion of a human evaluation are concrete strengths. The main unresolved point is the unbiased estimation of concept-video alignment accuracy, which is central to the paper's multimodal claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4, Table 5] The reported improvement in exact-match video-clip accuracy from 73.63% to 88.62% is an in-sample result: the 5% window extension was chosen by analyzing the same 100 clips (from 10 instructions) on which the post-extension accuracy is then measured. Because the context also reports that about 44% of movement clips contained no pose change, the word-timestamp misalignment is systematic rather than a random noise source, and a single global extension tuned on the evaluation set cannot be assumed to generalize. The central multimodal contribution of NAVCON is precisely the concept-video pairing, so an unbiased estimate (e.g., a held-out set of instructions, nested validation, or at least a cross-validated choice of the extension parameter) is required before the alignment accuracy claim is accepted.
  2. [Section 4.1] The entire silver-annotation pipeline rests on the human-curated list of 81 root navigation verbs and their assignment to the four concept classes, but the paper does not publish the full list or the assignment. A missing or misassigned frequent verb would propagate through phrase extraction, NCC training, and video pairing; the 3.39% missing rate in Table 4 bounds the overall effect but does not indicate which verbs or concept classes account for the misses. The authors should release the complete verb list and concept mapping with the corpus, and report per-verb coverage in NAVCON, so that users can audit and extend the taxonomy.
  3. [Section 5.1, Table 6] It is not stated whether the NCC evaluation is performed on a held-out split or on the training split; the phrase 'cross validation evaluation' is ambiguous and no validation protocol is described. Because the BIO labels are generated by the same verb-list pipeline used to create the training data, train/test overlap would make the 96.53% exact-phrase accuracy uninformative as evidence of generalization to unseen instructions. Please specify the exact split, report per-fold results, and, if possible, evaluate on instructions whose root verbs are underrepresented in training.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains '30, 0000 instructions' and 'approximately 30, 0000 instructions'; these should read '30,815 instructions' or '30,000' with a corrected numeral.
  2. [Section 7 vs. Table 3] The conclusion states 'The corpus counts 200K language instantiations,' but Table 3 and Section 4.1 report 236,316 annotations; the number should be made consistent.
  3. [Table 4] The column header 'Overlap Textual Span Concept Class' is hard to parse; the table would be clearer with separate columns for textual-span accuracy and concept-class accuracy, or with a caption explaining the two percentages.
  4. [Section 4.2] The human evaluation reports two annotators but no inter-annotator agreement statistic; reporting Cohen's kappa or similar would strengthen the reliability claim.
  5. [Section 5.2, Table 7] The table title says 'Evaluation of Generations by GPT-4 model' while the text refers to GPT-4o; the model name should be consistent.
  6. [References] The reference to Zhu et al. in the introduction is incomplete ('W Zhu, Y Qi, ... arxiv 2021.'); it should be formatted with a full title and publication venue.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Video-alignment accuracy is partially in-sample: the 5% window extension was tuned on the same 100 clips used to report 88.62%, but the text-annotation claims rest on independent human evaluation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4, Table 5]
    "We found that around 44% of clips classified as movement (i.e. "move" and "change region") did not have any changes in their corresponding pose sequences. We analyzed the problematic clips and found that extending the extraction time window by 5% of the entire video sequence length increased the prediction accuracy from 73.6% to 88.6% (see Table 5)."

    The 5% extension is a free parameter chosen by analyzing the same 100 clips whose alignment accuracy is then reported as 88.62%. The evaluation set is used both to select the correction and to measure the corrected accuracy, so the improvement from 73.63% to 88.62% is an in-sample fit rather than an out-of-sample estimate. The paper does not hold out clips to validate the 5% value, nor does it report inter-annotator agreement on the exact-match judgement. This makes the video-pairing quality claim partially circular, though it does not affect the independently human-evaluated text annotations.

full rationale

The text-annotation side of NAVCON is not circular: the 81 root navigation verbs are human-curated, and the silver annotation quality is checked by two independent human annotators on 300 sampled instances, yielding concrete missing/incorrect rates (Table 4). The NCC and GPT-4o experiments are secondary validations and do not carry the corpus claim by themselves; no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem appears. The one genuine circular element is the video-clip alignment evaluation in Section 4.4: the 5% window extension was selected by analyzing the very same 100 clips on which the 88.62% exact-match accuracy is reported. That number is therefore not an unbiased estimate of alignment quality, and since the paired video frames are a headline contribution of NAVCON, this in-sample tuning is material. Overall, the central linguistic-resource claim retains independent support, so the score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The corpus depends on two hand-set elements: the four-concept taxonomy (a domain postulate) and the 81-verb lexicon (a curated list). The numeric free parameter with the most direct effect on a reported metric is the 5% video window extension, which was adjusted on the evaluation set. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Video window extension factor = 5% of video sequence length
    In Section 4.4, the authors extended the time window by 5% to improve exact-match accuracy from 73.63% to 88.62% on the same 100 evaluation clips, a post-hoc adjustment tuned to the evaluation set.
  • Root navigation verb set = 81 verbs (full list not published; 5 examples shown)
    Human-curated list of 81 root verbs mapped to the four concepts; the annotation extraction depends entirely on this list, but the full list is not provided for independent verification.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four concepts (SIT, MOVE, CD, CR) are the core navigation concepts sufficient for naturally occurring navigation instructions.
    Motivated by cognitive neuroscience (place cells, head direction cells, boundary cells, path integration); the paper assumes these four categories capture the concepts expressed in instructions without empirical justification that the set is complete.
  • domain assumption Stanza constituency parser yields accurate syntactic parses of navigation instructions.
    Section 4.1: the pipeline relies on the parser to identify root verbs and verb phrases; parse errors propagate to annotations.
  • domain assumption Word-timestamp mappings in RxR are sufficiently accurate for video alignment (after interpolation and window extension).
    Sections 4.3 and 4.4: alignment relies on timestamps; the paper acknowledges inaccurate mappings and applies post-hoc fixes including interpolation and a 5% window extension.
invented entities (1)
  • Four navigation concept classes (SIT, MOVE, CD, CR)
    purpose: Annotation taxonomy for instructions; the basis of the corpus
    Postulated as the core navigation concepts; support comes from in-paper human evaluation and classifier scores, not from an external benchmark or falsifiable prediction outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NAVCON: A Cognitively Inspired and Linguistically Grounded Corpus for Vision and Language Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSZHA7IG

@misc{pith2026241213026,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NAVCON: A Cognitively Inspired and Linguistically Grounded Corpus for Vision and Language Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSZHA7IG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13026}
}
read the original abstract

We present NAVCON, a large-scale annotated Vision-Language Navigation (VLN) corpus built on top of two popular datasets (R2R and RxR). The paper introduces four core, cognitively motivated and linguistically grounded, navigation concepts and an algorithm for generating large-scale silver annotations of naturally occurring linguistic realizations of these concepts in navigation instructions. We pair the annotated instructions with video clips of an agent acting on these instructions. NAVCON contains 236, 316 concept annotations for approximately 30, 0000 instructions and 2.7 million aligned images (from approximately 19, 000 instructions) showing what the agent sees when executing an instruction. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive resource of navigation concepts. We evaluated the quality of the silver annotations by conducting human evaluation studies on NAVCON samples. As further validation of the quality and usefulness of the resource, we trained a model for detecting navigation concepts and their linguistic realizations in unseen instructions. Additionally, we show that few-shot learning with GPT-4o performs well on this task using large-scale silver annotations of NAVCON.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13026 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Outline of processing steps for the generation of NAVCON annotations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of navigation concepts in NAVCON. Instruction counts and percentages for more than 10 instances per instruction have been omitted from the charts for visual clarity. Concept Annotated Phrases Percentage Situate 65,765 28% Move 98,418 42% Change Direction 51,798 22% Change Region 20,335 9% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of concept-clip alignments in NAVCON. Timesteps progress from left to right. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Navigation Concept Classifier (NCC) training and validation characteristics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dong An, Yuankai Qi, Yangguang Li, Yan Huang, Liang Wang, Tieniu Tan, and Jing Shao. 2023. Bevbert: Topo-metric map pre-training for language-guided navigation. International Conference on Computer Vision

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Dong An, Hanqing Wang, Wenguan Wang, Zun Wang, Yan Huang, Keji He, and Liang Wang. 2024. Etpnav: Evolving topological planning for vision-language navigation in continuous environments. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    2024

  3. [3]

    Peter Anderson, Ayush Shrivastava, Joanne Truong, Arjun Majumdar, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, and Stefan Lee. 2021. Sim-to-real transfer for vision-and-language navigation. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 671--681. PMLR

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Peter Anderson, Qi Wu, Damien Teney, Jake Bruce, Mark Johnson, Niko S \"u nderhauf, Ian Reid, Stephen Gould, and Anton Van Den Hengel. 2018. Vision-and-language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3674--3683

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Valts Blukis, Dipendra Misra, Ross A Knepper, and Yoav Artzi. 2018. Mapping navigation instructions to continuous control actions with position-visitation prediction. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 505--518. PMLR

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Angel Chang, Angela Dai, Thomas Funkhouser, Maciej Halber, Matthias Niessner, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Andy Zeng, and Yinda Zhang. 2017. Matterport3d: Learning from rgb-d data in indoor environments. International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Howard Chen, Alane Suhr, Dipendra Misra, Noah Snavely, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Touchdown: Natural language navigation and spatial reasoning in visual street environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12538--12547

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Jiaqi Chen, Bingqian Lin, Ran Xu, Zhenhua Chai, Xiaodan Liang, and Kwan-Yee K Wong. 2024. Mapgpt: Map-guided prompting for unified vision-and-language navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07314

    arXiv 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Shizhe Chen, Pierre-Louis Guhur, Makarand Tapaswi, Cordelia Schmid, and Ivan Laptev. 2022. Learning from unlabeled 3d environments for vision-and-language navigation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 638--655. Springer

    2022

  2. [10]

    Vishnu Sashank Dorbala, Gunnar Sigurdsson, Robinson Piramuthu, Jesse Thomason, and Gaurav S Sukhatme. 2022. Clip-nav: Using clip for zero-shot vision-and-language navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.16649

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Ludwig Schmidt, and Shuran Song. 2023. Cows on pasture: Baselines and benchmarks for language-driven zero-shot object navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, page...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Chen Gao, Xingyu Peng, Mi Yan, He Wang, Lirong Yang, Haibing Ren, Hongsheng Li, and Si Liu. 2023. Adaptive zone-aware hierarchical planner for vision-language navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14911--14920

    2023

  5. [13]

    Georgios Georgakis, Karl Schmeckpeper, Karan Wanchoo, Soham Dan, Eleni Miltsakaki, Dan Roth, and Kostas Daniilidis. 2022. Cross-modal map learning for vision and language navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Pierre-Louis Guhur, Makarand Tapaswi, Shizhe Chen, Ivan Laptev, and Cordelia Schmid. 2021. Airbert: In-domain pretraining for vision-and-language navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1634--1643

    2021

  7. [15]

    Chenguang Huang, Oier Mees, Andy Zeng, and Wolfram Burgard. 2023. Visual language maps for robot navigation. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 10608--10615. IEEE

    2023

  8. [16]

    Aishwarya Kamath, Peter Anderson, Su Wang, Jing Yu Koh, Alexander Ku, Austin Waters, Yinfei Yang, Jason Baldridge, and Zarana Parekh. 2023. A new path: Scaling vision-and-language navigation with synthetic instructions and imitation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Byeonghwi Kim, Suvaansh Bhambri, Kunal Pratap Singh, Roozbeh Mottaghi, and Jonghyun Choi. 2021. Agent with the big picture: Perceiving surroundings for interactive instruction following. In Embodied AI Workshop CVPR

    2021

  10. [18]

    Thomas Kollar, Stefanie Tellex, Deb Roy, and Nicholas Roy. 2010. Toward understanding natural language directions. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pages 259--266. IEEE

    2010

  11. [19]

    Jacob Krantz and Stefan Lee. 2022. Sim-2-sim transfer for vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Jacob Krantz, Erik Wijmans, Arjun Majumdar, Dhruv Batra, and Stefan Lee. 2020. Beyond the nav-graph: Vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Alexander Ku, Peter Anderson, Roma Patel, Eugene Ie, and Jason Baldridge. 2020. Room-Across-Room : Multilingual vision-and-language navigation with dense spatiotemporal grounding. In Conference on Empirical Methods for Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Chengzu Li, Chao Zhang, Simone Teufel, Rama Sanand Doddipatla, and Svetlana Stoyanchev. 2024. Semantic map-based generation of navigation instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19603

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Jialu Li, Hao Tan, and Mohit Bansal. 2021. Improving cross-modal alignment in vision language navigation via syntactic information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.09580

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kevin Lynch. 1964. The image of the city. MIT press

    1964

  17. [25]

    Arjun Majumdar, Ayush Shrivastava, Stefan Lee, Peter Anderson, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2020. Improving vision-and-language navigation with image-text pairs from the web. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 259--274. Springer

    2020

  18. [26]

    Cynthia Matuszek, Dieter Fox, and Karl Koscher. 2010. Following directions using statistical machine translation. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pages 251--258. IEEE

    2010

  19. [27]

    So Yeon Min, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Pradeep Ravikumar, Yonatan Bisk, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2021. Film: Following instructions in language with modular methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07342

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dipendra Misra, Andrew Bennett, Valts Blukis, Eyvind Niklasson, Max Shatkhin, and Yoav Artzi. 2018. Mapping instructions to actions in 3d environments with visual goal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.00786

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    John O'Keefe and Jonathan Dostrovsky. 1971. The hippocampus as a spatial map: preliminary evidence from unit activity in the freely-moving rat. Brain research

    1971

  22. [30]

    Yuankai Qi, Qi Wu, Peter Anderson, Xin Wang, William Yang Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. 2020. Reverie: Remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learni...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Manolis Savva, Abhishek Kadian, Oleksandr Maksymets, Yili Zhao, Erik Wijmans, Bhavana Jain, Julian Straub, Jia Liu, Vladlen Koltun, Jitendra Malik, et al. 2019. Habitat: A platform for embodied ai research. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Dhruv Shah, B a \.z ej Osi \'n ski, Sergey Levine, et al. 2023. Lm-nav: Robotic navigation with large pre-trained models of language, vision, and action. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 492--504. PMLR

    2023

  27. [35]

    Sheng Shen, Liunian Harold Li, Hao Tan, Mohit Bansal, Anna Rohrbach, Kai-Wei Chang, Zhewei Yao, and Kurt Keutzer. 2021. How much can clip benefit visionand-language tasks? arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.06383, 3

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Mohit Shridhar, Jesse Thomason, Daniel Gordon, Yonatan Bisk, Winson Han, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Dieter Fox. 2020 a . Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre C \^o t \'e , Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2020 b . Alfworld: Aligning text and embodied environments for interactive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Trygve Solstad, Charlotte N Boccara, Emilio Kropff, May-Britt Moser, and Edvard I Moser. 2008. Representation of geometric borders in the entorhinal cortex. Science, 322(5909):1865--1868

    2008

  31. [39]

    Jeffrey S Taube. 2007. The head direction signal: origins and sensory-motor integration. Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 30:181--207

    2007

  32. [40]

    Jeffrey S Taube, Stephane Valerio, and Ryan M Yoder. 2013. Is navigation in virtual reality with fmri really navigation? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(7):1008--1019

    2013

  33. [41]

    Stefanie Tellex, Thomas Kollar, Steven Dickerson, Matthew Walter, Ashis Banerjee, Seth Teller, and Nicholas Roy. 2011. Understanding natural language commands for robotic navigation and mobile manipulation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 25

    2011

  34. [42]

    Su Wang, Ceslee Montgomery, Jordi Orbay, Vighnesh Birodkar, Aleksandra Faust, Izzeddin Gur, Natasha Jaques, Austin Waters, Jason Baldridge, and Peter Anderson. 2022. Less is more: Generating grounded navigation instructions from landmarks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer...

    2022

  35. [43]

    Xin Wang, Wenhan Xiong, Hongmin Wang, and William Yang Wang. 2018. Look before you leap: Bridging model-free and model-based reinforcement learning for planned-ahead vision-and-language navigation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 37--53

    2018

  36. [44]

    Yue Zhang, Quan Guo, and Parisa Kordjamshidi. 2021. Towards navigation by reasoning over spatial configurations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.06839

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Yue Zhang and Parisa Kordjamshidi. 2022. Explicit object relation alignment for vision and language navigation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, pages 322--331

    2022

  38. [46]

    Yue Zhang and Parisa Kordjamshidi. 2023. Vln-trans, translator for the vision and language navigation agent. In The 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Diagnosing vision-and-language navigation: What really matters

    W Zhu, Y Qi, P Narayana, K Sone, S Basu, XE Wang, Q Wu, M Eckstein, and WY Wang. Diagnosing vision-and-language navigation: What really matters. arxiv 2021. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.16561

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Yi Zhu, Yue Weng, Fengda Zhu, Xiaodan Liang, Qixiang Ye, Yutong Lu, and Jianbin Jiao. 2021. Self-motivated communication agent for real-world vision-dialog navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1594--1603

    2021

  41. [49]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  42. [50]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.