History-Augmented Vision-Language Models for Frontier-Based Zero-Shot Object Navigation

Fatemeh Afghah; Mobin Habibpour

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

History-Augmented Vision-Language Models for Frontier-Based Zero-Shot Object Navigation

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A history-augmented vision-language model, prompted with its own recent actions, can guide frontier-based exploration to find objects in unseen indoor environments at success rates comparable to state-of-the-art zero-shot methods.

desk verdict Likely a useful incremental idea (history-augmented VLM prompting for frontier-based ObjectNav), but the 50-episode self-selected evaluation and cross-paper baseline comparison are too weak to back the 'comparable to state-of-the-art' headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16623 v1 pith:XH4RBJ2Z submitted 2025-06-19 cs.RO cs.AI

Mobin Habibpour , Fatemeh Afghah This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.AI

keywords ObjectGoalNavigationZero-shotVision-languagemodelsHistory-awarepromptingFrontier-basedexplorationSemanticvaluemapHM3DHabitatsimulator

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

The paper sets out to show that zero-shot Object Goal Navigation does not need a trained navigation policy or expensive closed models: a frozen 7-billion-parameter open vision-language model can make the key decisions if its prompt includes what the robot has just done. The proposed system feeds the last ten actions into the VLM's prompt, asks for probability scores on forward, backward, left, and right, projects those scores onto a 2D semantic value map, and uses that map to pick among geometric frontiers. The authors report a 46% success rate and 24.8% SPL on 50 HM3D episodes, placing the method near leading alternatives that use larger or closed models. If this holds, the practical upshot is that robust object search in unseen homes can be achieved by prompt engineering around an accessible open VLM, with the added benefit of resisting the repetitive loops that plague memoryless navigators.

What carries the argument

The core object is the history-augmented VLM prompt: a short, strictly formatted request to LLaVA-1.6 that includes the target name, the current view, and the last $N$ actions, and demands probability scores in $[0,1]$ for go forward, go backward, turn right, and turn left. Those scores are projected through a viewing-uncertainty model $c(d,\theta)=e^{-\lambda d}\cos^2\left(\frac{\theta}{\theta_{\mathrm{fov}}/2}\cdot\frac{\pi}{2}\right)$ into a semantic value map, fused across re-observations by confidence-weighted averaging, and combined with geometric frontiers so the agent heads to the highest-value frontier. Action history plus a fallback that repeats the last valid non-turn action is what stops oscillation. The last-piece mechanism is VLM-verified detection followed by Mobile-SAM segmentation and KNN clustering of high-value pixels to create waypoints for the low-level point-navigator VER. In short, the argument runs on a single loop: observe, prompt with history, score actions, fuse scores into a map, move; the loop's memory is what makes the VLM a stable navigator.

What would settle it

Run the same framework on the full official HM3D ObjectNav validation split, or on the exact episode list used by each baseline, and recompute SR and SPL; if the numbers fall materially below 46% and 24.8%, or below the baselines rerun on the same episodes, the paper's claim of state-of-the-art comparability would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a VLM's reasoning ability, not just its embedding similarity, can be recruited for navigation by making the prompt temporally aware. At each decision step, LLaVA-1.6 receives the current RGB view, the target category, and a rolling record of the last ten actions, and is instructed to score each candidate action while avoiding repetitions. Those scores are converted into a confidence-weighted semantic value map and overlaid on a frontier map, so exploration moves toward regions the VLM finds semantically promising. A second VLM pass verifies detected objects and, with Mobile-SAM segmentation and KNN clustering of high-value pixels, generates extra waypoints for the final approach. The paper concludes that this history-augmented prompting strategy is the reason the framework reaches 46% SR and 24.8% SPL, levels it describes as comparable to state-of-the-art zero-shot methods.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim of matching state-of-the-art results depends on the assumption that the 50 HM3D episodes chosen for evaluation fairly represent the full validation set, and that success rates quoted from other papers were measured on comparable episodes under the same stopping conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Frozen, open-source VLMs can be turned into ObjectNav planners by prompt design alone: no weights are updated and no navigation policy is learned.
Explicit action history reduces degenerate loop behavior; in the paper's 50-episode ablation, removing it drops SR from 46% to 44% and SPL from 24.8% to 23.7%.
The semantic value map lets the VLM's directional preferences be fused with geometric frontiers, so the approach inherits the coverage of frontier exploration while adding semantic bias.
Because the VLM choice is an engineering decision (LLaVA-1.6 was selected over PaliGemma and VILA), the prompting method should transfer to other open VLMs as they improve.

Reading between the lines

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

With only 50 episodes, the reported 2-point SR improvement from action history has no confidence interval; a direct extension would be to rerun on the full validation split and report per-episode variance, which would tell readers whether the gain is stable.
Because the method only changes the prompt and the score-fusion layer, the same history-augmented prompting could be grafted onto other zero-shot navigators that already produce frontier scores, letting readers isolate the contribution of temporal context from the contribution of frontier exploration.
Combining history-aware prompting with scene-imagination-style reasoning, where the VLM is prompted to visualize likely object locations, is a plausible path past the roughly 50% SR ceiling shared by current zero-shot methods.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper for one reason: it adds action history to the VLM prompt in zero-shot ObjectNav, which is a genuinely new trick relative to the cited baselines (L3MVN, VLFM, GAMap, ImagineNav). The system is clearly described, uses open-weights LLaVA-1.6, and the authors deserve credit for keeping the pipeline reproducible in principle. They also openly acknowledge real issues in Section III.C (VLM inconsistent with its own scene interpretation, class-level vs instance-level evaluation mismatch).

But the evidence is not strong enough to carry the central claim. The 46% SR and 24.8% SPL come from 50 episodes selected by the authors from the HM3D validation split, with baseline numbers taken from other papers that likely used different episode sets. Even if the selection were uniform, 23 successes out of 50 gives a wide confidence interval (roughly 32-61%), so the small gaps to VLFM (52.5 SR) and GAMap (53.1 SR) are within noise. The ablation that supposedly secures the core contribution is a 2-point SR drop (46 to 44) and 1.1-point SPL drop—that is not a 'substantial' drop, and there are no error bars. I also note the paper says the VLM outputs scores for 'go backward' when the action space defined earlier contains no backward action; the mapping of that score to the value map is never specified. The fallback mechanism (repeat last non-turn action) might be doing the work that the prompt is credited for, and it is not ablated on its own.

This is a legitimate system-paper idea with a plausible pipeline, but it is not at the level of a rigorous empirical claim. I would send it to peer review, but only with the expectation of major revisions: standard episode set with known distribution, error bars or at least multiple seeds, clarification of the action-score mapping, and a more careful ablations that separate the history prompt from the fallback.

Who gets value from this? Researchers working on VLM-based navigation and prompt engineering for embodied AI. It is a decent workshop paper or a related-work citation, but I would not cite the headline numbers in my own work yet.

Final recommendation: engage with it, but treat the results as preliminary.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a zero-shot Object Goal Navigation (ObjectNav) framework that integrates a vision-language model (LLaVA-1.6) into frontier-based exploration. The key idea is to give the VLM a prompt containing the current egocentric RGB view, the target object category, and a record of recent actions, so that it outputs probability scores for forward, backward, left, and right actions; these scores are projected into a 2D semantic value map that re-weights frontier selection. A final approach phase uses detection (YOLOv7/Grounding-DINO), VLM verification, Mobile-SAM segmentation, and KNN clustering to generate supplementary waypoints. The method is evaluated in Habitat on episodes from the HM3D dataset, reporting 46% SR and 24.8% SPL, which the authors claim are comparable to state-of-the-art zero-shot methods. An ablation study reports that removing the action-history mechanism decreases SR from 46% to 44% and SPL from 24.8% to 23.7%.

Significance. If the reported results were obtained under the same protocol as the baselines and the ablation were statistically supported, the paper would make a useful contribution by showing that explicitly providing action history to a VLM can mitigate oscillation in zero-shot ObjectNav and by presenting a modular system built from open-source components. The authors are transparent about the computational constraints that led to a 50-episode evaluation, and they use only publicly available models, which aids reproducibility. However, the evaluation as presented does not yet support the headline claim of state-of-the-art comparability: the episode subset is not specified, no error bars are given, and the ablation difference is within sampling noise. The core idea is plausible and the system is clearly described, but the evidence is currently insufficient to establish the central claims.

major comments (3)

[Section III.A and Table I] The headline comparison is not statistically grounded. The method is evaluated on 50 episodes 'selected from the full validation set' with no description of the selection procedure, while baseline SR/SPL values are taken from the original papers, which typically report on the full validation split. If the selected episodes are not representative of the same distribution, the point estimates are not comparable to those baselines. Even under uniform random sampling, 23 successes out of 50 gives a 95% Wilson interval of roughly 33% to 60% for SR, which overlaps the reported values for VLFM (52.5%), GAMap (53.1%), and ImagineNav (53.0%). To support the 'comparable to state-of-the-art' claim, the authors should evaluate on the same standard episode set as the baselines, or provide a clearly defined stratified sampling procedure, report confidence intervals, and make the episode list or seed available. The absence of error bars throughout Tables I and II makes the performance differences uninterpretable.
[Section II-B and Listing 1] There is an internal inconsistency in the action space. Section II defines the agent's action space as 'move forward', 'turn left', 'turn right', 'look up'/'look down', and 'stop'. However, Section II-B states that the VLM produces probability scores for 'forward, backward, left, right', and Listing 1 explicitly asks the VLM to score 'go backward'. The paper does not explain how the 'go backward' score is used: is it discarded, mapped to a 180-degree turn, or projected onto the value map in some other way? Without this clarification, the value-map construction and the resulting navigation behavior are not reproducible. The authors should either remove 'go backward' from the prompt or specify exactly how its score is processed.
[Section III.B and Table II] The ablation study does not support the claim that action history is crucial. Removing the history mechanism changes SR from 46% to 44% (a difference of one success out of 50 episodes) and SPL from 24.8% to 23.7%. With no error bars, no multiple seeds, and no significance test, this difference is within the sampling noise of a 50-episode evaluation and cannot be described as a 'substantial performance drop' or as confirming the critical role of the history component. The authors should provide confidence intervals, run multiple episode subsets or seeds, and temper the language accordingly.

minor comments (7)

[Section II-C] The history length is given only as 'e.g., N=10'; please provide the exact value used in the final experiments and justify it, ideally with a sensitivity analysis.
[Section II-D and Eq. (1)] The hyperparameters λ, the detection confidence threshold (>0.8), and the semantic value threshold (>0.8) are free choices; please state how they were selected and whether the results are sensitive to their values.
[References] Reference [13] is cited in the text as 'PaliGemma' but the cited paper is 'Pali' (arXiv:2209.06794); either cite the correct PaliGemma paper or fix the name.
[Throughout] The name 'LLaVA-1.6' appears as 'LLaV A-1.6' with an extraneous space; please correct this typo consistently.
[Section III.C] The paper notes that the VLM sometimes suggests actions inconsistent with its own scene interpretation, but it does not quantify how often this occurs or how it affects navigation metrics; a brief quantitative analysis would strengthen the evaluation.
[Section I] The claim 'We are among the first to explicitly use history-augmented prompts' is not substantiated with a concrete comparison to prior work on memory- or history-based prompting in VLM navigation; please provide a more precise positioning.
[Table I] Table I would benefit from a column indicating the number of episodes used in each baseline evaluation, since cross-paper comparisons are only meaningful if the evaluation protocols and episode distributions match.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the method is an empirical system evaluated against external simulator and baselines, with no fitted target-derived quantity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an engineering pipeline: frozen LLaVA-1.6 scores egocentric views prompted with target and history; these scores are projected into a value map (Eq. 1-3), fused with frontier geometry, and acted on by VER; success is measured externally via Habitat's 1-meter stop condition and SPL (Eq. 4). No parameter is fitted to the reported SR/SPL, and the ablation (full vs. w/o action history) removes a component rather than reconstructing the metric from the component's definition. The comparison with baselines uses numbers 'from respective papers' on possibly different episode subsets; that is an evaluation-fairness and statistical concern, not circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations: references to LLaVA, VER, YOLOv7/Grounding-DINO/Mobile-SAM, and baseline methods supply components or comparison points, while the paper's claimed novelty (history-aware prompting) is directly implemented and tested, not assumed from a citation. Thus no circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on two hand-chosen components: the VLM prompting scheme (including history length and thresholds) and the uncertainty projection model. None of these are fitted to the benchmark, but they are also not justified by experiments. The method builds on pretrained models (LLaVA, YOLOv7, Mobile-SAM, VER) treated as black boxes.

free parameters (4)

lambda distance decay factor
Hand-chosen decay constant in Eq. (1) for confidence, c(d,theta)=e^{-lambda*d}*cos^2(...). Its value is not reported and no sensitivity analysis is given.
Action history length N = 10
The prompt includes the last N actions; N=10 is stated in Section II-C with no justification or ablation of different history lengths.
Detection confidence threshold = 0.8
Object detection triggers entry to goal navigation only when confidence exceeds 0.8 (Section II-D); no sensitivity analysis.
Semantic value threshold for clustering = 0.8
Only pixels with value > 0.8 are clustered into waypoints (Section II-D); no sensitivity analysis.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption VLM action scores provide spatially meaningful semantic guidance when projected through Eq. (1).
The entire method depends on treating LLaVA's raw probability-like outputs as reliable directional evidence for object search; no calibration or validation is shown.
ad hoc to paper The confidence model in Eq. (1) is an appropriate model of observation reliability.
This functional form is introduced without derivation or ablation, yet it controls how VLM scores spread onto the value map.
domain assumption Frontier extraction and the VER low-level navigator work correctly under the Habitat environment.
These are pretrained or standard components (cited [15], [16]); the paper relies on their correct integration without additional validation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of History-Augmented Vision-Language Models for Frontier-Based Zero-Shot Object Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XH4RBJ2Z

@misc{pith2026250616623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: History-Augmented Vision-Language Models for Frontier-Based Zero-Shot Object Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XH4RBJ2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16623}
}

read the original abstract

Object Goal Navigation (ObjectNav) challenges robots to find objects in unseen environments, demanding sophisticated reasoning. While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) show potential, current ObjectNav methods often employ them superficially, primarily using vision-language embeddings for object-scene similarity checks rather than leveraging deeper reasoning. This limits contextual understanding and leads to practical issues like repetitive navigation behaviors. This paper introduces a novel zero-shot ObjectNav framework that pioneers the use of dynamic, history-aware prompting to more deeply integrate VLM reasoning into frontier-based exploration. Our core innovation lies in providing the VLM with action history context, enabling it to generate semantic guidance scores for navigation actions while actively avoiding decision loops. We also introduce a VLM-assisted waypoint generation mechanism for refining the final approach to detected objects. Evaluated on the HM3D dataset within Habitat, our approach achieves a 46% Success Rate (SR) and 24.8% Success weighted by Path Length (SPL). These results are comparable to state-of-the-art zero-shot methods, demonstrating the significant potential of our history-augmented VLM prompting strategy for more robust and context-aware robotic navigation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16623 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Visualization of VLM scoring and uncertainty. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Example of decision loop that could be prevented by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

AREA3D: Active Reconstruction Agent with Unified Feed-Forward 3D Perception and Vision-Language Guidance
cs.CV 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

AREA3D fuses feed-forward 3D confidence and vision-language region reasoning to select informative viewpoints, improving sparse-view 3D reconstruction quality.
HOMI: Ultra-Fast EdgeAI platform for Event Cameras
cs.AR 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

HOMI is an end-to-end event-camera AI platform achieving 94% DVS Gesture accuracy and 1000 fps throughput on a Xilinx Zynq UltraScale+ FPGA with 33% LUT utilization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Frontiernet: Learning visual cues to explore,

B. Sun, H. Chen, S. Leutenegger, C. Cadena, M. Pollefeys, and H. Blum, “Frontiernet: Learning visual cues to explore,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04597, 2025

arXiv 2025
[2]

Vision-and-language navigation today and to- morrow: A survey in the era of foundation models,

Y . Zhang, Z. Ma, J. Li, Y . Qiao, Z. Wang, J. Chai, Q. Wu, M. Bansal, and P. Kordjamshidi, “Vision-and-language navigation today and to- morrow: A survey in the era of foundation models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07035, 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

Object goal navigation using data regularized q-learning,

N. Gireesh, D. S. Kiran, S. Banerjee, M. Sridharan, B. Bhowmick, and M. Krishna, “Object goal navigation using data regularized q-learning,” in 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1092–1097

work page 2022
[4]

Clip-nav: Using clip for zero-shot vision-and-language nav- igation,

V . S. Dorbala, G. Sigurdsson, R. Piramuthu, J. Thomason, and G. S. Sukhatme, “Clip-nav: Using clip for zero-shot vision-and-language nav- igation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.16649 , 2022

arXiv 2022
[5]

A survey of object goal navigation,

J. Sun, J. Wu, Z. Ji, and Y .-K. Lai, “A survey of object goal navigation,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,

N. Yokoyama, S. Ha, D. Batra, J. Wang, and B. Bucher, “Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 42–48

2024
[7]

GAMap: Zero-Shot Object Goal Navigation with Multi-Scale Geometric-Affordance Guidance

S. Yuan, H. Huang, Y . Hao, C. Wen, A. Tzes, and Y . Fang, “Gamap: Zero-shot object goal navigation with multi-scale geometric-affordance guidance,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23978

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[8]

Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever, “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,”

Show all 28 references

[9]

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

S. Y . Gadre, M. Wortsman, G. Ilharco, L. Schmidt, and S. Song, “Clip on wheels: Zero-shot object navigation as object localization and exploration,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2203.10421, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:247594857

2022 arXiv
[10]

Zson: Zero-shot object-goal navigation using multimodal goal embeddings,

A. Majumdar, G. Aggarwal, B. Devnani, J. Hoffman, and D. Batra, “Zson: Zero-shot object-goal navigation using multimodal goal embeddings,”
[11]

Habitat challenge 2023,

K. Yadav, J. Krantz, R. Ramrakhya, S. K. Ramakrishnan, J. Yang, A. Wang, J. Turner, A. Gokaslan, V .-P. Berges, R. Mootaghi, O. Maksymets, A. X. Chang, M. Savva, A. Clegg, D. S. Chaplot, and D. Batra, “Habitat challenge 2023,” https://aihabitat.org/challenge/2023/, 2023

2023
[12]

Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,

H. Liu, C. Li, Y . Li, and Y . J. Lee, “Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2310.03744

2024 arXiv
[13]

Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model,

X. Chen, X. Wang, S. Changpinyo, A. Piergiovanni, P. Padlewski, D. Salz, S. Goodman, A. Grycner, B. Mustafa, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, J. Puigcerver, N. Ding, K. Rong, H. Akbari, G. Mishra, L. Xue, A. Thapliyal, J. Bradbury, W. Kuo, M. Seyedhosseini, C. Jia, B. K. Ayan, C. Riqu...
[14]

Nvila: Efficient frontier visual language models,

Z. Liu, L. Zhu, B. Shi, Z. Zhang, Y . Lou, S. Yang, H. Xi, S. Cao, Y . Gu, D. Li et al. , “Nvila: Efficient frontier visual language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04468, 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

Frontier based exploration for autonomous robot,

A. Topiwala, P. Inani, and A. Kathpal, “Frontier based exploration for autonomous robot,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806. 03581

2018
[16]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06794

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06794

arXiv
[17]

On evalu- ation of embodied navigation agents,

P. Anderson, A. Chang, D. S. Chaplot, A. Dosovitskiy, S. Gupta, V . Koltun, J. Kosecka, J. Malik, R. Mottaghi, M. Savvaet al., “On evalu- ation of embodied navigation agents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06757 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[18]

Yolov7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors,

C.-Y . Wang, A. Bochkovskiy, and H.-Y . M. Liao, “Yolov7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors,”
[19]

Ver: Scaling on-policy rl leads to the emergence of navigation in embodied rearrangement,

E. Wijmans, I. Essa, and D. Batra, “Ver: Scaling on-policy rl leads to the emergence of navigation in embodied rearrangement,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 7727–7740, 2022

2022
[20]

Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection,

S. Liu, Z. Zeng, T. Ren, F. Li, H. Zhang, J. Yang, Q. Jiang, C. Li, J. Yang, H. Su, J. Zhu, and L. Zhang, “Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05499

2024 arXiv
[21]

Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications,

C. Zhang, D. Han, Y . Qiao, J. U. Kim, S.-H. Bae, S. Lee, and C. S. Hong, “Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.14289

2023 arXiv
[22]

L3mvn: Leveraging large language models for visual target navigation,

B. Yu, H. Kasaei, and M. Cao, “L3mvn: Leveraging large language models for visual target navigation,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 3554–3560

2023
[23]

Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

T.-Y . Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, L. Bourdev, R. Girshick, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, C. L. Zitnick, and P. Dollár, “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0312

2015 arXiv
[24]

Bridging zero-shot object navigation and foundation models through pixel-guided navigation skill,

W. Cai, S. Huang, G. Cheng, Y . Long, P. Gao, C. Sun, and H. Dong, “Bridging zero-shot object navigation and foundation models through pixel-guided navigation skill,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 5228–5234

2024
[27]

Imaginenav: Prompting vision- language models as embodied navigator through scene imagination,

X. Zhao, W. Cai, L. Tang, and T. Wang, “Imaginenav: Prompting vision- language models as embodied navigator through scene imagination,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09874 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[2021]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020

arXiv
[2022]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.02696

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.02696

arXiv
[2023]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.12403

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.12403

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Frontiernet: Learning visual cues to explore,

B. Sun, H. Chen, S. Leutenegger, C. Cadena, M. Pollefeys, and H. Blum, “Frontiernet: Learning visual cues to explore,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04597, 2025

arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

Vision-and-language navigation today and to- morrow: A survey in the era of foundation models,

Y . Zhang, Z. Ma, J. Li, Y . Qiao, Z. Wang, J. Chai, Q. Wu, M. Bansal, and P. Kordjamshidi, “Vision-and-language navigation today and to- morrow: A survey in the era of foundation models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07035, 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Object goal navigation using data regularized q-learning,

N. Gireesh, D. S. Kiran, S. Banerjee, M. Sridharan, B. Bhowmick, and M. Krishna, “Object goal navigation using data regularized q-learning,” in 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1092–1097

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Clip-nav: Using clip for zero-shot vision-and-language nav- igation,

V . S. Dorbala, G. Sigurdsson, R. Piramuthu, J. Thomason, and G. S. Sukhatme, “Clip-nav: Using clip for zero-shot vision-and-language nav- igation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.16649 , 2022

arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

A survey of object goal navigation,

J. Sun, J. Wu, Z. Ji, and Y .-K. Lai, “A survey of object goal navigation,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,

N. Yokoyama, S. Ha, D. Batra, J. Wang, and B. Bucher, “Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 42–48

2024

[7] [7]

GAMap: Zero-Shot Object Goal Navigation with Multi-Scale Geometric-Affordance Guidance

S. Yuan, H. Huang, Y . Hao, C. Wen, A. Tzes, and Y . Fang, “Gamap: Zero-shot object goal navigation with multi-scale geometric-affordance guidance,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23978

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever, “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,”