Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

VL-Explore: Zero-shot Vision-Language Exploration and Target Discovery by Mobile Robots

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A robot can find targets in unknown indoor spaces using only one camera and CLIP's text–image matching, with no map, no depth sensor, and no prior target knowledge — and the paper reports over 90% success in real-world trials.

desk verdict A plausible monocular zero-shot exploration system with an honest limitations section, but the headline comparison in Table 2 is biased by post-hoc trajectory smoothing and tunable baseline success rates, so the 'consistently outperforms' claim is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08791 v2 pith:VOUF4FM4 submitted 2025-02-12 cs.RO

Yuxuan Zhang , Adnan Abdullah , Sanjeev J. Koppal , Md Jahidul Islam This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-languagenavigationzero-shotvisualservoingpathplanningGPS-deniedCLIPmobilerobotexplorationmonocularvision
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

This paper claims that a mobile robot can explore an unknown indoor space and find a specified target using nothing but a monocular RGB camera and a pretrained vision-language model (CLIP) — no map, no depth sensor, no LiDAR, and no prior knowledge of the target's location. The authors build this claim into a full pipeline, VL-Explore, that slices each camera frame into six tiles, scores each tile for navigability, target presence, and familiarity via text–image and image–image correlation, and translates those scores directly into low-level motion commands. Deployed on a custom UGV ("Open Rover") in a cluttered industrial hall and an office, the system completed 68 of 72 trial runs across the two scenes (95% and 91.7% success respectively), outperforming random-walk and wall-bounce exploration and matching Bug-family path planners that are told where the target is. The paper also introduces an evaluation metric, the Entropy Preserving Score (EPS), meant to make success-rate and path-efficiency comparisons fair between algorithms that have very different information available to them. If the claim holds, the expensive mapping and sensing stack normally required for first-time exploration can be replaced by a cheap camera plus an off-the-shelf vision-language model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the correlation middleware: each of six spatial tiles (a 2×3 grid with roughly 20% overlap) is encoded by the CLIP vision encoder into a 512-dimensional embedding, and that embedding is compared by inner product against pre-compiled text-prompt databases — positive prompts such as "a photo of a clear floor" versus negative prompts such as "a blocked scene" for navigability, and target-specific versus generic-object prompts for target confidence. Taking the highest-absolute-score match and contrasting positive against negative prompts removes the need for a manually fixed threshold, which the paper argues improves robustness to lighting drift. A third middleware, familiarity, accumulates the embeddings of already-seen places (via averaging or a rolling average), so the motion mixer can steer the robot toward unexplored area; the backend's look-around mode applies a Gaussian convolution over the 360° sweep of navigability scores to pick the next heading. This whole arrangement — six CLIP scores feeding a motion mixer with trap detection and look-around — is what carries the central claim that no map, depth, or waypoint graph is needed.

What would settle it

Place the robot in a room with a floor-to-ceiling transparent pane between it and the target, or with a single 50 cm gap between obstacles as the only passage; the paper's failure analysis predicts the robot will classify the glass interior as navigable and refuse the narrow gap because no single 2×3 tile is clear. If the robot instead consistently avoids the glass and threads the gap, the stated failure mechanism is contradicted; if it collides with the glass or loops at the gap's mouth, the central claim is confined to the texture-rich regime the authors describe.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a general-purpose vision-language model can act as the navigation brain rather than an add-on: simultaneous exploration and target discovery in an unknown 2D environment is achievable in real time with a single RGB camera when CLIP embeddings of six fixed image tiles are correlated against prompt databases and a familiarity memory to generate navigability, target-confidence, and familiarity scores. A minimal decision backend then weighs these scores — preferring navigable, unfamiliar, textured tiles and treating the target tile as top priority — and emits direct 3-DOF motion commands, with a look-around routine that performs a 360° sweep under a Gaussian convolution to choose headings and recover from dead-ends. The authors report that VL-Explore "consistently outperforms traditional map-traversal algorithms and achieves performance comparable to path-planning methods that depend on prior map and target knowledge," and they claim it is the first VLN system to achieve efficient indoor visual exploration without any depth or range information.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that CLIP's text–image correlation scores on six fixed image tiles reliably mark which regions are navigable and which hold the target in unfamiliar real scenes — a premise the paper's own failure analysis shows breaking down on transparent walls, blank surfaces, cardboard mazes, and passages narrower than a single tile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • First-time exploration and target discovery can be deployed on low-cost robots with a single camera and no mapping or localization module, since VL-Explore outputs low-level motion commands directly and needs no separate control stack.
  • A monocular, zero-shot VLN system can match path planners that are given the map and target location: on the industrial scene VL-Explore's 95% success and 0.50 mean inverse path length place it between Bug1 and Bug2, without their prior knowledge.
  • The system runs in real time on an embedded GPU — a decision delay of 252 ms and 5 FPS throughput, roughly 900% and 400% improvements over the sequential CPU baseline — making VLM-centric control practical on battery-powered robots.
  • Both added mechanisms are load-bearing: the ablation shows disabling look-around drops success from 100% to 50% on the test run, and disabling familiarity roughly halves the inverse path length, so dead-end recovery and anti-revisit memory are essential to the result.
  • The EPS metric, fitted to random-walk baselines per environment, gives a way to compare algorithms — including state-of-the-art VLN systems — that otherwise report under incompatible sensing and prerequisite conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The pipeline is VLM-agnostic in the authors' telling, so an immediate untested extension is swapping OpenCLIP for a newer multimodal VLM; if embedding geometry is the bottleneck, navigability and target scores — and the failure cases described below — should shift accordingly.
  • The fixed 2×3 tiling is the geometric bottleneck the paper itself identifies: narrow passages around 50 cm fail because a passage must dominate a whole tile, so adaptive or hierarchical tiling informed by the same embeddings is a natural testable extension.
  • The trap heuristic (less than 0.2 m travelled in 5 s) is an implicit traversability model; in large open spaces the system defaults to moving straight ahead, which suggests the method's advantage concentrates in cluttered, feature-rich scenes and would likely degrade in empty warehouses or open fields.
  • The familiarity database and the paper's own saturation remarks imply a testable long-horizon prediction: on very long missions the robot should begin revisiting areas once its embedding memory fills, unless a decay mechanism of the kind the paper suggests is added.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents VL-Explore, a navigation pipeline for zero-shot exploration and target discovery that uses a CLIP vision-language model as the core decision module, requiring only a monocular RGB camera and no prior map or target knowledge. The authors also describe Open Rover, a custom UGV platform, and evaluate the system in two real indoor environments (a large industrial scene and a mid-size office) over more than 60 trials. The comparison against simulated baselines (random walk, wall bounce, wave front, and Bug algorithms) uses trajectory length, success rate, SPL, and a newly proposed EPS metric. The central claims are that VL-Explore consistently outperforms traditional map-traversal algorithms, performs comparably to path-planning methods that rely on prior map and target knowledge, and is the first VLN system to achieve efficient indoor visual exploration without any depth or range information. The paper also includes an ablation study of the look-around and familiarity components and a candid failure analysis.

Significance. If the comparative claims are established, the paper would make a useful contribution to vision-language navigation by demonstrating that a single monocular camera plus a frozen CLIP model can drive real-time exploration and target discovery on a physical robot, without depth sensing or pre-built maps. The strengths of the paper include the real-hardware evaluation, the modular pipeline design, the detailed failure analysis in Section 6, and the explicit reporting of the EPS fitting procedure. However, the main quantitative evidence for the headline claims rests on Table 2, and several asymmetries in the evaluation currently prevent those claims from being accepted as stated. The paper is therefore more convincing as a systems demonstration than as a rigorously established performance comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2 and Appendix D.2] The trajectory lengths for VL-Explore are post-processed with a stride-based smoother that, in the authors' own words, "reduces the projected trajectory length," whereas the simulated baseline trajectories are not corrected. Because Table 2's P.L., SPL, and EPS are all derived from path length, this asymmetric treatment inflates VL-Explore's reported efficiency relative to every baseline. Please report the raw, unsmoothed VL-Explore path lengths or apply the same smoothing procedure to the simulated baselines, and then recompute Table 2; the current numbers do not support the claim of consistent outperformance over map-traversal algorithms.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Table 2] For the randomized and wave-front baselines, the success rate R is described as "a configurable hyperparameter," and rows are reported for R = 50% and R = 80%, while VL-Explore's R is measured under a fixed 100-meter distance limit. Since SPL = R · L and EPS is a function of R and L, the comparison is not apples-to-apples: the baseline numbers are obtained by choosing the failure threshold to match arbitrary R values rather than by running all methods under the same distance budget. The evaluation should hold the failure criterion constant across methods, or report the full R–L operating curves using the actual success rates achieved by each method under identical budget constraints.
  3. [Section 5.2, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The EPS metric is defined by nine hyperparameters per environment that are fitted to the random-walk L–R curve plus a single boundary condition, and this metric is then used to compare all algorithms. This makes EPS partly circular when used to rank algorithms against random-walk-derived baselines, and the paper provides no sensitivity analysis or independent validation of the fitted hyperparameters. At a minimum, the authors should show how the EPS-based rankings change when the fitted parameters are varied, or should use a standard, non-fitted metric for the main quantitative claims.
  4. [Section 5.3 and Table 5] The P.L., SPL, and EPS values in Table 2 are point estimates without confidence intervals, despite the large trial-to-trial variability reported in Table 5 (for example, several VL-Explore trajectories have standard deviations of 10-20 meters). The claim of "consistently outperforming" baselines requires either confidence intervals or a paired statistical test across the source-target pairs, especially where the margins are small (e.g., industrial-scene Bug2 SPL 0.52 vs. VL-Explore 0.48). Without uncertainty quantification, the reported rankings cannot be considered robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eq. (2)] The simplification SPL = R · L requires p_i > l for all successful runs; the paper should state this assumption explicitly and verify it against the reported data, since Table 5 shows VL-Explore path lengths that are much smaller than the wave-front average distances, and it is not obvious that they still exceed the first-contact baseline distance.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The caption refers to "Rover Master" while the platform is called "Open Rover" throughout the rest of the paper; please unify the naming.
  3. [Section 5.4] The claim of being "the first VLN system to achieve efficient indoor visual exploration without any depth or range information" would be stronger with a more systematic comparison to prior monocular VLN systems (including those using pre-built graphs) and with a quantitative definition of "efficient" that controls for the evaluation asymmetries identified above.
  4. [Figure 11] The gray dots for VLMnav and GOAT are shown on the R–L plot without a clear description of how their reported SPL values were mapped to R and L; please clarify the mapping or remove these points from the plot, since they are not directly comparable to the present experiments.
  5. [Section 6.4] The fixed-tile slicing limitation is correctly acknowledged, but the proposed adaptive slicing remedy is not evaluated; a brief discussion of the expected benefit or a small pilot experiment would strengthen this section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: VL-Explore's claims rest on measured trajectories and external baselines, not on fitted or self-cited definitions.

full rationale

VL-Explore is an empirical systems paper. Its central comparison (Table 2, Figs. 11-12) is built from measured trajectory lengths and success counts for the physical robot, plus independently simulated trajectories for random-walk, wall-bounce, wave-front, and Bug baselines. No equation in Section 4 defines navigation performance in terms of the reported outcome; the CLIP correlation middlewares are a fixed perceptual pipeline, not parameters fitted to the test environments. The only fitted quantities are the EPS hyperparameters H in Eq. 6, fitted to random-walk L-R curves. This makes the random-walk EPS≈0 anchor partly definitional, but EPS is used as a secondary visualization/score, and the headline outperformance also rests on success rate, path length, and SPL, which are measured rather than derived from the fit. Appendix D.2's stride smoothing of SLAM-projected VL-Explore trajectories and Section 5.2's choice of R=50%/80% for randomized baselines are comparison-fairness concerns that may favor VL-Explore, but they are not circular: they do not make VL-Explore's reported result equal to an input assumption. There are no load-bearing self-citations; references to CLIP, GOAT, VLMnav, and related systems are external prior work. The limitations in Section 6 are empirical failure analyses, not hidden inputs. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central navigation behavior depends on several hand-chosen thresholds and decay factors that are not fully specified. The evaluation additionally depends on trajectory smoothing and an EPS metric fitted to baseline simulations. The main domain assumption is that CLIP scoring on fixed tiles reliably indicates navigability and target presence, which the paper itself shows is fragile for transparent, textureless, and maze-like surfaces.

free parameters (5)
  • Trap detection threshold = 0.2 m in 5 s
    Empirically chosen in Sec 4.4; triggers backoff and look-around, shaping trajectories and success rates.
  • Familiarity decay factor lambda = not stated
    Controls rolling-average forgetting in the familiarity middleware (Sec 4.3); value chosen by hand but not reported.
  • Standard deviation threshold = not stated
    Filters texture-less tiles that the VLM misclassifies (Sec 4.1, Sec 6.1); threshold value not reported.
  • EPS hyperparameters H = not stated, fitted to random-walk simulations
    k, t, p for f1, f2, f3 are fitted to the L-R curve from random-walk simulation plus a boundary condition (Sec 5.2); used to draw EPS equipotential lines and support information-efficiency claims.
  • Trajectory smoothing stride = not stated
    Introduced in Appendix D to reduce SLAM-projected trajectory length; directly affects reported SPL and path-length metrics for VL-Explore.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CLIP text-image correlation scores on six fixed tiles are reliable indicators of navigable space and target presence.
    The entire pipeline in Sec 4.2 and Sec 4.4 assumes these scores generalize to unseen test rooms; Sec 6.1-6.4 document failures on textureless, transparent, and maze surfaces.
  • domain assumption Tile-wise pixel standard deviation is a valid proxy for VLM output reliability.
    Sec 4.1 and Sec 6.1 use a low-std heuristic to discard ambiguous tiles; no validation of the proxy is provided.
  • domain assumption SLAM-derived trajectories plus stride smoothing accurately estimate true travel distance.
    Appendix D uses two-pass SLAM and a stride parameter to clean zig-zag artifacts; if the smoothed path under-reports distance, the efficiency comparison is biased.
  • domain assumption The familiarity database, built from averaged CLIP embeddings, corresponds to previously visited physical locations.
    Sec 4.3 merges embeddings without pose information; it assumes embedding proximity implies spatial proximity well enough to guide exploration.
invented entities (2)
  • Entropy Preserving Score (EPS)
    purpose: A proposed evaluation metric that maps success rate and inverse path length onto a 0-1 information scale.
    EPS is defined using hyperparameters fitted to in-house random-walk simulations (Sec 5.2) and has no external validation or formal definition of entropy; it is a new scoring device specific to this paper.
  • RoboSim2D
    purpose: A custom 2D simulation framework to compare map-traversal and Bug algorithms on LiDAR maps.
    Introduced in Sec 5.2; no code or release is provided, so results cannot be independently reproduced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VL-Explore: Zero-shot Vision-Language Exploration and Target Discovery by Mobile Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOUF4FM4

@misc{pith2026250208791,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VL-Explore: Zero-shot Vision-Language Exploration and Target Discovery by Mobile Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOUF4FM4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08791}
}
read the original abstract

Vision-language navigation (VLN) has emerged as a promising paradigm, enabling mobile robots to perform zero-shot inference and execute tasks without specific pre-programming. However, current systems often separate map exploration and path planning, with exploration relying on inefficient algorithms due to limited (partially observed) environmental information. In this paper, we present a novel navigation pipeline named "VL-Explore" for simultaneous exploration and target discovery in unknown environments, leveraging the capabilities of a vision-language model named CLIP. Our approach requires only monocular vision and operates without any prior map or knowledge about the target. For comprehensive evaluations, we designed a functional prototype of a UGV (unmanned ground vehicle) system named "Open Rover", a customized platform for general-purpose VLN tasks. We integrated and deployed the VL-Explore pipeline on Open Rover to evaluate its throughput, obstacle avoidance capability, and trajectory performance across various real-world scenarios. Experimental results demonstrate that VL-Explore consistently outperforms traditional map-traversal algorithms and achieves performance comparable to path-planning methods that depend on prior map and target knowledge. Notably, VL-Explore offers real-time active navigation without requiring pre-captured candidate images or pre-built node graphs, addressing key limitations of existing VLN pipelines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08791 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Existing VLN systems generally use VLMs as a com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of an ongoing exploration and target discovery task by the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our Open Rover platform designed for VL-Explore is shown: (a) Back view, showing the single board computer (SBC) and electronics stack including a brushless motor speed controller, a flight controller with IMU, and a power distribution board; (b) Front view, showing the camera for zero-shot navigation; (c) An alternative design, demonstrating the flexibility of this platform, configured with revised wheels, chassis,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The wheel hub and suspension design are shown on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The proposed pipeline comprises three main stages. The frontend processes raw input frames, divides them into tiles, and encodes these tiles into embeddings—numerical vectors representing semantic meanings; In our implimen￾tation, the CLIP vision encoder is employed as…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Detailed examples of the proposed correlation middlewares are illustrated; the circled cross symbol denotes the inner product of broadcasted vectors. (a) A navigable clean floor is encoded and correlated with the navigability database, where green rows (positive prompt…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Rendering of a look around operation overlaid on a birds-eye view of the robot; it was able to identify navigable paths (blue bars) apart from obstacles (red bars) based on the proposed visual perception pipeline. The candidate headings are annotated as Ci. After the l…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualizations of look-around operations during a demonstrative task; candidate directions are depicted as dashed lines ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The environment used for real world exploration and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Performance of VL-Explore compared to map-traversal methods ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Sample results of autonomous exploration and target discovery by VL-Explore compared to Bug algorithms. The trajectories of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ablation study of the proposed VL-Explore system; (a) Comparative results with all systems enabled; (b) Results with the look-around subsystem disabled, the robot either completes the task with no turn-around, or directly fail when being trapped, yielding a higher PL …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Trajectories of all results reported in the experiment section (part.1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Trajectories of all results reported in the experiment section (part.2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Spatiotemporal Knowledge Graphs as Persistent Scene Memory for Embodied Question Answering

    cs.RO 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A training-free pipeline constructs a spatiotemporal knowledge graph from egocentric video, enabling low-latency, explainable embodied question answering.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A compre- hensive study of recent path-planning techniques in dynamic environments for autonomous robots

    Nour AbuJabal, Mohammed Baziyad, Raouf Fareh, Brahim Brahmi, Tamer Rabie, and Maamar Bettayeb. A compre- hensive study of recent path-planning techniques in dynamic environments for autonomous robots. Sensors, 24(24), 2024. ISSN 1424-8220. doi: 10.3390/s24248089. URL https: //www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/24/8089

    work page doi:10.3390/s24248089 2024

  2. [2]

    Turtlebot 3 as a Robotics Education Platform, pages 170–181

    Robin Amsters and Peter Slaets. Turtlebot 3 as a Robotics Education Platform, pages 170–181. Springer International Publishing, 01 2020. ISBN 978-3-030-26944-9

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Chang, Devendra Singh Chap- lot, Alexey Dosovitskiy, Saurabh Gupta, Vladlen Koltun, Jana Kosecka, Jitendra Malik, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Mano- lis Savva, and Amir R

    Peter Anderson, Angel X. Chang, Devendra Singh Chap- lot, Alexey Dosovitskiy, Saurabh Gupta, Vladlen Koltun, Jana Kosecka, Jitendra Malik, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Mano- lis Savva, and Amir R. Zamir. On evaluation of embod- ied navigation agents. CoRR, abs/1807.06757, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06757

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Vision-and-language navigation: In- terpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments, 2018

    Peter Anderson, Qi Wu, Damien Teney, Jake Bruce, Mark Johnson, Niko S ¨underhauf, Ian Reid, Stephen Gould, and Anton van den Hengel. Vision-and-language navigation: In- terpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1711.07280

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Long-term exploration in unknown dynamic environments

    Rodrigue Bonnevie, Daniel Duberg, and Patric Jensfelt. Long-term exploration in unknown dynamic environments. In 2021 7th International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA) , pages 32–37. IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Matthew Chang, Theophile Gervet, Mukul Khanna, Sriram Yenamandra, Dhruv Shah, So Yeon Min, Kavit Shah, and Chris Paxton et. al. GOAT: GO to Any Thing, 2023. ArXiv: 2311.06430

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Spatialvlm: Endow- ing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabili- ties

    Boyuan Chen, Zhuo Xu, Sean Kirmani, Brain Ichter, Dorsa Sadigh, Leonidas Guibas, and Fei Xia. Spatialvlm: Endow- ing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabili- ties. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 14455–14465, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A behavioral approach to visual navigation with graph lo- calization networks

    Kevin Chen, Juan Pablo de Vicente, Gabriel Sepulveda, Fei Xia, Alvaro Soto, Marynel Vazquez, and Silvio Savarese. A behavioral approach to visual navigation with graph lo- calization networks. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, FreiburgimBreisgau, Germany, June 2019. doi: 10.15607/RSS.2019.XV .010. 14

    doi:10.15607/rss.2019.xv 2019

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    CLIP- nav: Using CLIP for zero-shot vision-and-language naviga- tion

    Vishnu Sashank Dorbala, Gunnar Sigurdsson, Robinson Pi- ramuthu, Jesse Thomason, and Gaurav S Sukhatme. CLIP- nav: Using CLIP for zero-shot vision-and-language naviga- tion. In Workshop on Language and Robotics at CoRL 2022, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Cows on pasture: Base- lines and benchmarks for language-driven zero-shot object navigation

    Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Ludwig Schmidt, and Shuran Song. Cows on pasture: Base- lines and benchmarks for language-driven zero-shot object navigation. 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 23171–23181,

    2023

  3. [11]

    Clip on wheels: Zero- shot object navigation as object localization and exploration

    Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Ludwig Schmidt, and Shuran Song. Clip on wheels: Zero- shot object navigation as object localization and exploration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10421, 3(4):7, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fan, Matteo Palieri, Mykel J

    Muhammad Fadhil Ginting, Sung-Kyun Kim, David D. Fan, Matteo Palieri, Mykel J. Kochenderfer, and Ali akbar Agha- mohammadi. SEEK: Semantic reasoning for object goal nav- igation in real world inspection tasks. In Proc. of Robotics: Science and Systems, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    End-to-end navigation with vlms: Transforming spatial reasoning into question-answering

    Dylan Goetting, Himanshu Gaurav Singh, and Antonio Lo- quercio. End-to-end navigation with vlms: Transforming spatial reasoning into question-answering. In Workshop on Language and Robot Learning: Language as an Interface , 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Loc-zson: Language-driven object- centric zero-shot object retrieval and navigation

    Tianrui Guan, Yurou Yang, Harry Cheng, Muyuan Lin, Richard Kim, Rajasimman Madhivanan, Arnie Sen, and Dinesh Manocha. Loc-zson: Language-driven object- centric zero-shot object retrieval and navigation. ArXiv, abs/2405.05363, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.05363

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hahnel, R

    D. Hahnel, R. Triebel, W. Burgard, and S. Thrun. Map build- ing with mobile robots in dynamic environments. In 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.03CH37422) , volume 2, pages 1557–1563 vol.2,

    2003

  8. [16]

    A real-time map merging strategy for ro- bust collaborative reconstruction of unknown environments

    Carlos Alberto Vel ´asquez Hern ´andez and Flavio Au- gusto Prieto Ortiz. A real-time map merging strategy for ro- bust collaborative reconstruction of unknown environments. Expert Systems with Applications, 145:113109, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Visual language maps for robot navigation

    Chenguang Huang, Oier Mees, Andy Zeng, and Wolfram Burgard. Visual language maps for robot navigation. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 10608–10615. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Open- clip, July 2021

    Gabriel Ilharco, Mitchell Wortsman, Ross Wightman, Cade Gordon, Nicholas Carlini, Rohan Taori, Achal Dave, Vaishaal Shankar, Hongseok Namkoong, John Miller, Han- naneh Hajishirzi, Ali Farhadi, and Ludwig Schmidt. Open- clip, July 2021. If you use this software, please cite it as below

    2021

  11. [19]

    Winclip: Zero- /few-shot anomaly classification and segmentation

    Jongheon Jeong, Yang Zou, Taewan Kim, Dongqing Zhang, Avinash Ravichandran, and Onkar Dabeer. Winclip: Zero- /few-shot anomaly classification and segmentation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 19606–19616, June 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Review of autonomous mobile robots for the warehouse environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08333, 2024

    Russell Keith and Hung Manh La. Review of autonomous mobile robots for the warehouse environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08333, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    O. Khatib. Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. In Proceedings. 1985 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , volume 2, pages 500–505, 1985. doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.1985.1087247

    1985

  14. [22]

    Autonomous exploration in a cluttered environ- ment for a mobile robot with 2d-map segmentation and ob- ject detection

    Hyungseok Kim, Hyeongjin Kim, Seonil Lee, and Hyeon- beom Lee. Autonomous exploration in a cluttered environ- ment for a mobile robot with 2d-map segmentation and ob- ject detection. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3): 6343–6350, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    D. A. Sasi Kiran, Kritika Anand, Chaitanya Kharyal, Gulshan Kumar, Nandiraju Gireesh, Snehasis Banerjee, Ruddra dev Roychoudhury, Mohan Sridharan, Brojeshwar Bhowmick, and Madhava Krishna. Spatial relation graph and graph convolutional network for object goal navigation,

  16. [24]

    Beyond the nav-graph: Vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments

    Jacob Krantz, Erik Wijmans, Arjun Majumdar, Dhruv Batra, and Stefan Lee. Beyond the nav-graph: Vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments. ArXiv, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Cornav: Autonomous agent with self-corrected planning for zero-shot vision-and- language navigation

    Xiwen Liang, Liang Ma, Shanshan Guo, Jianhua Han, Hang Xu, Shikui Ma, and Xiaodan Liang. Cornav: Autonomous agent with self-corrected planning for zero-shot vision-and- language navigation. In Findings of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics ACL 2024, pages 12538–12...

    2024

  18. [26]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.13031

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Instructnav: Zero-shot system for generic instruction navigation in unexplored environment

    Yuxing Long, Wenzhe Cai, Hongcheng Wang, Guanqi Zhan, and Hao Dong. Instructnav: Zero-shot system for generic instruction navigation in unexplored environment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04882, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dynamic path planning for a mobile automaton with limited information on the environment

    Vladimir Lumelsky and Alexander Stepanov. Dynamic path planning for a mobile automaton with limited information on the environment. IEEE transactions on Automatic control , 31(11):1058–1063, 1986

    1986

  21. [29]

    Active mapping and robot exploration: A survey

    Iker Lluvia, Elena Lazkano, and Ander Ansuategi. Active mapping and robot exploration: A survey. Sensors, 21(7): 2445, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Doze: A dataset for open-vocabulary zero-shot ob- ject navigation in dynamic environments

    Ji Ma, Hongming Dai, Yao Mu, Pengying Wu, Hao Wang, Xiaowei Chi, Yang Fei, Shanghang Zhang, and Chang Liu. Doze: A dataset for open-vocabulary zero-shot ob- ject navigation in dynamic environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19007, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Slam toolbox: Slam for the dynamic world

    Steve Macenski and Ivona Jambrecic. Slam toolbox: Slam for the dynamic world. Journal of Open Source Software, 6 (61):2783, 2021. doi: 10.21105/joss.02783

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Path- planning strategies for a point mobile automaton moving amidst unknown obstacles of arbitrary shape

    Vladimir J Lumelsky and Alexander A Stepanov. Path- planning strategies for a point mobile automaton moving amidst unknown obstacles of arbitrary shape. Algorithmica, 2(1):403–430, 1987

    1987

  25. [33]

    Learning hierarchical relationships for object-goal navigation

    Anwesan Pal, Yiding Qiu, and Henrik Christensen. Learning hierarchical relationships for object-goal navigation. InCon- ference on Robot Learning, pages 517–528. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Analysis of random walk models in swarm robots for area exploration *

    Bao Pang, Jiahui Qi, Chengjin Zhang, Yong Song, and Runtao Yang. Analysis of random walk models in swarm robots for area exploration *. In IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EMERGING TOPICS IN COMPUTATIONAL INTEL- LIGENCE, pages 2484–2489, 12 2019. doi: 10.1109/ ROBIO49542.2019.8961844. 15

    2019

  27. [35]

    A dynamical theory of the electro- magnetic field

    James Clerk Maxwell. A dynamical theory of the electro- magnetic field. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So- ciety of London, 155:459–512, 1865

  28. [36]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

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

    2021

  29. [37]

    Lm- nav: Robotic navigation with large pre-trained models of lan- guage, vision, and action

    Dhruv Shah, Bła ˙zej Osi ´nski, Sergey Levine, et al. Lm- nav: Robotic navigation with large pre-trained models of lan- guage, vision, and action. In Conference on robot learning, pages 492–504. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    The obstacle detection and obstacle avoid- ance algorithm based on 2-d lidar

    Yan Peng, Dong Qu, Yuxuan Zhong, Shaorong Xie, Jun Luo, and Jason Gu. The obstacle detection and obstacle avoid- ance algorithm based on 2-d lidar. In 2015 IEEE inter- national conference on information and automation , pages 1648–1653. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Allen Taflove and Susan C. Hagness. Computational elec- trodynamics: the finite-difference time-domain method , vol- ume 67–106. Artech House, 2nd edition, 06 2000. ISBN 1-58053-076-1

    2000

  32. [40]

    Autonomous robotic exploration by incremental road map construction

    Chaoqun Wang, Wenzheng Chi, Yuxiang Sun, and Max Q- H Meng. Autonomous robotic exploration by incremental road map construction. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 16(4):1720–1731, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Autonomous navigation system of indoor mobile robots using 2d lidar

    Jian Sun, Jie Zhao, Xiaoyang Hu, Hongwei Gao, and Jiahui Yu. Autonomous navigation system of indoor mobile robots using 2d lidar. Mathematics, 11(6):1455, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Vlfm: Vision-language fron- tier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation, 2023

    Naoki Yokoyama, Sehoon Ha, Dhruv Batra, Jiuguang Wang, and Bernadette Bucher. Vlfm: Vision-language fron- tier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.03275

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zero-shot object goal visual navigation

    Qianfan Zhao, Lu Zhang, Bin He, Hong Qiao, and Zhiy- ong Liu. Zero-shot object goal visual navigation. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2025–2031. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Visual semantic navigation using scene priors

    Wei Yang, Xiaolong Wang, Ali Farhadi, Abhinav Gupta, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. Visual semantic navigation using scene priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.06543, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Esc: Ex- ploration with soft commonsense constraints for zero-shot object navigation

    Kaiwen Zhou, Kaizhi Zheng, Connor Pryor, Yilin Shen, Hongxia Jin, Lise Getoor, and Xin Eric Wang. Esc: Ex- ploration with soft commonsense constraints for zero-shot object navigation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 42829–42842. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    A [desc.] photo of a (state) {object}

    Jiawen Zhu and Guansong Pang. Toward generalist anomaly detection via in-context residual learning with few-shot sam- ple prompts. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2024. 16 Appendix A. Frame Slicing Strategies To enhance the...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Fast, accurate thin-structure obstacle detection for au- tonomous mobile robots

    Chen Zhou, Jiaolong Yang, Chunshui Zhao, and Gang Hua. Fast, accurate thin-structure obstacle detection for au- tonomous mobile robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Work- shops, pages 1–10, 2017

    2017

  40. [50]

    A (meaningless) photo

    Selective integration enables a prompt to bypass cer- tain levels of the template hierarchy, thereby allowing precise customization. For instance, a prompt such as “A (meaningless) photo” should not be followed by any {object}. This is achieved by terminating the prompt early,...

  41. [51]

    A photo with no {context|texture|information}

    In-place expansion facilitates the collective definition of similar short prompts by using a vertical bar syntax (i.e. |) to separate terms. This feature is particularly effective when used in conjunction with selective integration. For example, the prompt “ A photo with no {c...

  42. [52]

    This metric reflects the system’s ability to promptly react to environ- mental changes, such as avoiding obstacles and main- taining safe navigation

    Decision delay measures the time elapsed between cap- turing a frame from the robot’s camera and issuing a cor- responding motion command to the motors. This metric reflects the system’s ability to promptly react to environ- mental changes, such as avoiding obstacles and main-...

  43. [53]

    Limited computational resources neces- 17 Table 4

    Throughput quantifies the number of frames processed per second, directly influencing the smoothness of the robot’s motion. Limited computational resources neces- 17 Table 4. Performance margins of the navigation pipeline of VL- Explore at different optimization levels. The ac...

  44. [54]

    The LiDAR serves as a virtual kill switch during operation, detecting obstacles in the robot’s intended path

    Emulation of a proximity kill-switch. The LiDAR serves as a virtual kill switch during operation, detecting obstacles in the robot’s intended path. It monitors the motion commands sent to the wheels to infer the robot’s planned trajectory and checks for potential obstructions ...

  45. [55]

    Mapping is performed offline using recorded LiDAR and odome- try data, with subsequent trajectory analysis to evaluate navigation efficiency and overall performance

    Visualization of map and robot trajectory. Mapping is performed offline using recorded LiDAR and odome- try data, with subsequent trajectory analysis to evaluate navigation efficiency and overall performance. We uti- lize the SLAM Toolbox [31] to generate maps and tra- jectori...

  46. [56]

    A 2D map generated using LiDAR data is employed to simulate and evaluate traditional range sensor-based map traversal and path-planning algorithms for performance compar- ison

    Comparison with simulated algorithms. A 2D map generated using LiDAR data is employed to simulate and evaluate traditional range sensor-based map traversal and path-planning algorithms for performance compar- ison. The LiDAR data collected during VL-Explore ex- periments was u...

  47. [57]

    Random Walk: Starts with a given heading, then ran- domly selects a new heading when an obstacle is encoun- tered

  48. [58]

    Wall Bounce: Starts at a given heading, then bounces off obstacles based on the normal vector of the impact point

  49. [59]

    A detailed explanation is provided below

    Wave Front: Starts as a Gaussian probability distribu- tion, then spreads outwards and bounces off obstacles. A detailed explanation is provided below. Additionally, we compare the following Bug Algo- rithms [28, 29]:

  50. [60]

    Bug0: Moves straight toward the target until encounter- ing an obstacle, then follows the obstacle boundary until it can resume a direct path to the target

  51. [61]

    After looping an ob- stacle, travels to the point with the minimum distance on the loop

    Bug1: Heads towards the target when possible, other- wise, circumnavigates the obstacle. After looping an ob- stacle, travels to the point with the minimum distance on the loop. 18

  52. [62]

    Wave Front

    Bug2: Circumnavigates obstacles upon encountering until it crosses the direct line from the start to the tar- get (the m-line), then resumes a straight path toward the target. E.1. Wave Front Simulation The “Wave Front” simulation is a custom-developed pack- age to serve as a ...

  53. [2003]

    doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2003.1241816

    2003 arXiv

  54. [2022]

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.02219

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.