Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

OpenMap: Instruction Grounding via Open-Vocabulary Visual-Language Mapping

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read OpenMap, a zero-shot open-vocabulary visual-language map, claims to ground free-form navigation instructions to specific 3D instances more accurately than prior open-vocabulary maps by requiring both structural and semantic consensus for…

desk verdict A clean zero-shot pipeline that likely improves open-vocabulary mapping and instruction grounding, but evaluation-side gaps and a feature-space mismatch stop the SOTA claim from being fully settled. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01723 v1 pith:GN2JQQQH submitted 2025-08-03 cs.RO

Danyang Li , Zenghui Yang , Guangpeng Qi , Songtao Pang , Guangyong Shang , Qiang Ma , Zheng Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords instructiongroundingopen-vocabularymapping3Dinstancesegmentationvision-languagemodelslargelanguageembodiednavigationzero-shotlearningsemantic
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

OpenMap is a zero-shot open-vocabulary visual-language map that turns a stream of RGB-D observations into 3D instance-level embeddings, then uses those embeddings to ground natural-language navigation instructions. The paper's claim is that merging 2D instance masks across viewpoints is reliable only when a structural consensus rate and a vision-language feature similarity both agree, and that letting an LLM produce unconstrained instance descriptions and reason over nearby objects yields better first-attempt target retrieval than prior open-vocabulary maps that restrict output vocabularies or ignore context. On ScanNet200, OpenMap reports 14.3 average precision for zero-shot instance segmentation compared to 12.0 for the closest zero-shot baseline, and on Matterport3D it reports 49.6% first-attempt success compared to 40.9% for a leading graph-based method. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a no-training route to connecting free-form language with specific objects in incremental navigation settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the structural-semantic consensus rate: for two masks, the ratio of viewpoints that can support merging them (their point clouds are contained in a single encompassing mask) to viewpoints that observe both, multiplied by the cosine similarity of their vision-language features. The paper merges masks when this product exceeds a threshold, iterating with decreasing observer-count thresholds, then aggregates features from the most complete masks. The second mechanism is a two-round instruction-to-instance grounding loop: an LLM converts a free-form instruction into an open-vocabulary target description, the map returns top-8 candidate instances by feature similarity, and a second LLM pass chooses the target using the candidates' locations and surrounding objects.

What would settle it

Take a scene with known instance labels and a set of small, reflective, or partially occluded objects, vary the viewpoint, and compute the same-instance and different-instance cosine similarities of the mask features used in the merging criterion. If the two distributions overlap substantially, over-merging or fragmentation occurs and OpenMap's reported gains would not transfer to those objects; equivalently, track merge precision and recall on those objects as the consensus threshold varies over 0.5 to 0.7.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that instruction grounding can be decomposed into two steps that each fix a specific failure: during mapping, treating structural consensus and semantic similarity as joint gatekeepers for mask merging stops both over-merging of adjacent distinct objects and fragmentation of large objects; during grounding, letting the LLM describe the target without a predefined label set and then choosing among the top candidates using a second LLM pass with surrounding-object context resolves ambiguous instructions such as “the chair near the table.” With these two mechanisms, a pipeline built from off-the-shelf 2D segmentation and pretrained vision-language models matches or beats methods that use supervised 3D masks or predefined instance vocabularies, and in the zero-shot comparison it reports the best numbers on both benchmarks tested.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that a mask pair with similar vision-language features and mutually observable point clouds is almost always the same real-world object; if small, reflective, or occluded objects have unstable features across views, the merge step mislabels them and the error propagates into the LLM grounding stage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The construction of 3D instance-level semantic maps no longer requires training on 3D data or supervised mask proposals; off-the-shelf 2D segmentation plus a vision-language model suffices.
  • Merging decisions based on both structure and semantics should reduce both over-segmentation of large objects and false merging of spatially close but semantically distinct objects, the failure modes the paper identifies in proximity-based and structure-only baselines.
  • LLM outputs for instruction parsing need not be restricted to a fixed instance lexicon, so instructions with implicit goals such as “I am thirsty” can be expanded into attribute-rich descriptions that match instance features.
  • Retrieval success on the first attempt, the metric most relevant to real navigation, improves by grounding the final selection in spatial context rather than raw similarity alone.
  • Because the map is built incrementally from RGB-D frames, it can be used in exploration settings where the full scene point cloud is not available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to use the target instance's aggregated embedding as a goal representation for an object-goal navigation policy, allowing the grounding step and the low-level navigation controller to share the same feature space.
  • If the cross-view feature stability holds beyond indoor scans, the same consensus criterion could transfer to outdoor or dynamic environments, where viewpoint and lighting changes are larger; this is a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • The two-stage grounding pattern—coarse retrieval by similarity, then contextual disambiguation by an LLM—is a general way to attach open-vocabulary grounding to any map that provides instance features and locations, not just the one constructed here.
  • A quantitative feature-stability diagnostic, measuring same-instance feature similarity across views against different-instance similarity, would tell whether the reported mapping results are limited by mask quality or by feature drift; the paper currently shows only a qualitative distribution.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. OpenMap proposes a zero-shot, open-vocabulary visual-language mapping pipeline for embodied instruction grounding. It merges 2D instance masks across views using a product of structural consensus (Eq. 1) and semantic similarity (Eq. 2) against a threshold (Eq. 3), then aggregates CLIP features from the most complete masks. For grounding, an LLM first parses a free-form instruction into an unrestricted target description, retrieves top-K candidates by CLIP similarity, and then selects the final instance in a second LLM round that uses spatial context from the map. Experiments on ScanNet200 instance segmentation and Matterport3D target retrieval report improvements over zero-shot baselines (MaskClustering, OVIR-3D) and retrieval baselines (NLMap, VLMap, ConceptGraphs), with ablations supporting the two proposed components.

Significance. If the reported results hold, OpenMap is a useful step toward open-vocabulary instance mapping and instruction grounding: it combines off-the-shelf models without 3D training, releases code, and includes ablations and hyperparameter sensitivity studies. The main strengths are the clear pipeline, the use of strong baseline comparisons, and the public code. However, the headline claims rest on evaluation details and a load-bearing merge criterion whose quantitative reliability is not yet demonstrated; these need to be addressed before the results can be taken as definitive.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (2)–(3); §4.4, Table 3] The semantic similarity rate for merging is computed with OVSAM features, while the instance embeddings queried during grounding are aggregated from CLIP features. The paper offers only a single qualitative figure (Fig. 3) and an ablation that removes the semantic term; it does not quantitatively show that OVSAM cosine similarity is a reliable same-instance signal across viewpoints, object sizes, or occlusion levels, nor that OVSAM and CLIP agree on the masks that are merged. Because merge errors directly change the candidate instances available to the grounding module, the retrieval gains in Table 2 depend on this unvalidated step. Please add distributions of same-instance vs different-instance cosine similarity from Eq. (2), stratified by relevant factors, and an analysis of OVSAM-CLIP agreement on merged masks.
  2. [§4.1 and §4.3, Table 2] The target-retrieval evaluation is based on 20 scenes and 'subsets' of instructions from R2R-CE, VLMap, and ALFRED, but the paper does not state how many instructions of each type were used, how they were selected, or whether the identical instruction set was presented to every baseline. Since the success rate is highly sensitive to instruction difficulty, the 8.7-point gap over ConceptGraphs could be influenced by the particular subset. Please specify the instruction construction, provide per-type and per-scene results, and release the test set for reproducibility.
  3. [§4.2, Tables 1 and 2; §4.4, Tables 5 and 6] All headline results are single-run point estimates without error bars or significance statements. The grounding pipeline uses GPT-4, which is stochastic, and the 2D mask proposals may add variability, so the differences of 14.3 vs 12.0 AP and 49.6 vs 40.9 SR need variance estimates from multiple runs or at least a statement on the number of runs and seeds used before claims of consistent improvement can be supported.
  4. [§4.4, Tables 5 and 6] The consensus threshold tau_merge and the candidate number K_n are selected by sweeping on the same ScanNet200 validation and Matterport3D subsets on which the headline results are reported, so the reported numbers are in-sample bests. Although the sensitivity ranges are small (AP 14.0±0.34, SR 47.7±1.9), the paper should state explicitly whether these hyperparameters were fixed before the evaluation or were chosen on a separate development set, and should confirm that the ranking over baselines is preserved across the swept range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] References [45] and [46] are duplicates of the same paper (Yuan et al., Open-Vocabulary SAM); please unify and cite consistently.
  2. [§4.1 and §4.3] HOV-SG [38] is listed as a baseline in Section 4.1 but is missing from Table 2; if results are unavailable for comparison, please state this explicitly.
  3. [§4.4] The table rows use non-rendered symbols (e.g., checkmarks and crosses are invisible in the manuscript text), making the ablation conditions difficult to interpret; please ensure the final PDF renders these correctly.
  4. [§1] In the Introduction, 'a OpenMap-enhanced' should be 'an OpenMap-enhanced'.
  5. [§3.3] Consider introducing a consistent abbreviation for the grounding module to avoid confusion between 'OpenMap' as the full framework and 'OpenMap-assisted instance selection' as a component.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the core mapping and grounding pipeline is an algorithmic construction evaluated on external benchmarks, with only incidental self-citations and transparent hyperparameter sweeps.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The merge criterion (Eq. 3) is a thresholded product of a geometric consensus rate (Eq. 1) and a cosine similarity (Eq. 2); neither quantity is defined in terms of the evaluation metric (AP or SR). Instances are formed by iterative merging and then scored against ScanNet200 ground truth, so the headline 14.3 AP and 49.6% SR are externally measured outcomes, not identities. The instruction grounding module uses an LLM to parse free-form text and re-ranks a fixed set of CLIP-feature candidates; success is determined by 1m proximity to GT, an independent criterion. The closest thing to a circularity concern is that tau_merge=0.6 and Kc=8 were selected by small sweeps on the same benchmarks (Tables 5-6), but the paper reports the sweeps openly and shows the results vary by only 0.34 AP and 1.9% SR over the tested ranges, and even the worst swept value (13.7 AP) still beats the zero-shot baseline (12.0 AP). This is standard hyperparameter selection, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Self-citations ([16], [17], [18], [41], [42]) appear in related-work or system-setting contexts and are not load-bearing: the structural consensus step explicitly follows MaskClustering [44] and no uniqueness theorem or author-imported constraint is invoked. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

OpenMap's central result rests on pretrained segmentation and vision-language models, assumed accurate camera poses, and a set of manually chosen or benchmark-tuned thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced. The number of free parameters and the strength of the pretrained-model assumptions are the main hidden costs behind the zero-shot claim.

free parameters (7)
  • tau_obs = 0.3
    Observability threshold for deciding when a mask's point cloud is visible in an image; hand-set in Section 4.1.
  • tau_cont = 0.8
    Containment threshold for determining whether one mask spatially encompasses another; hand-set in Section 4.1.
  • tau_merge = 0.6
    Product threshold in Eq. 3 for merging two masks; selected from a sweep on ScanNet200, with 0.6 giving the highest AP (Section 4.4, Table 5).
  • initial_observer_threshold = top 5% of mask pairs, decreasing by 5% per iteration
    Controls which mask pairs are prioritized for merging in each iteration of the consensus aggregation; chosen by design, not data-fitted.
  • K_c = 8
    Number of top candidate instances passed to the LLM selection stage; selected from a sweep on Matterport3D, with 8 giving the best SR (Section 4.4, Table 6).
  • K_n = 5
    Number of neighboring instances within a 2-meter radius used to provide spatial context in the LLM selection stage; hand-set in Section 4.1.
  • top_M_masks = not specified in manuscript
    The completeness-guided feature aggregation follows OpenMask3D and selects the M best-covering masks with multi-level crops, but M is not reported, so the final instance embedding depends on an undocumented quantity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pretrained 2D segmentation (CropFormer) produces complete masks for objects in novel indoor scenes.
    The pipeline depends on clean 2D entity masks; if CropFormer over-segments or under-segments, the structural consensus and final instance features inherit the errors. Invoked in Section 4.1, Implementation Details.
  • domain assumption CLIP and OVSAM features are stable across viewpoints for the same instance and discriminative for nearby distinct instances.
    Eq. 2 uses cosine similarity of these features as a merge criterion; no quantitative cross-view stability evidence is provided. Invoked in Section 3.2 and Fig. 3.
  • domain assumption Known camera poses and aligned RGB-D frames are available during exploration.
    Back-projection and mutual observability computations assume accurate poses; pose error is not modeled. Invoked in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 can turn free-form instructions into target descriptions and disambiguate candidates from spatial context.
    The two-round grounding protocol in Section 3.3 has no failure analysis; retrieval success is contingent on LLM reasoning matching the scene layout.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth instance labels in ScanNet200 and Matterport3D are correct enough for AP and SR evaluation.
    The qualitative results note a ground-truth merge of tray items causing false negatives, so annotation noise exists; no label-quality correction is applied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OpenMap: Instruction Grounding via Open-Vocabulary Visual-Language Mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GN2JQQQH

@misc{pith2026250801723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OpenMap: Instruction Grounding via Open-Vocabulary Visual-Language Mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GN2JQQQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01723}
}
read the original abstract

Grounding natural language instructions to visual observations is fundamental for embodied agents operating in open-world environments. Recent advances in visual-language mapping have enabled generalizable semantic representations by leveraging vision-language models (VLMs). However, these methods often fall short in aligning free-form language commands with specific scene instances, due to limitations in both instance-level semantic consistency and instruction interpretation. We present OpenMap, a zero-shot open-vocabulary visual-language map designed for accurate instruction grounding in navigation tasks. To address semantic inconsistencies across views, we introduce a Structural-Semantic Consensus constraint that jointly considers global geometric structure and vision-language similarity to guide robust 3D instance-level aggregation. To improve instruction interpretation, we propose an LLM-assisted Instruction-to-Instance Grounding module that enables fine-grained instance selection by incorporating spatial context and expressive target descriptions. We evaluate OpenMap on ScanNet200 and Matterport3D, covering both semantic mapping and instruction-to-target retrieval tasks. Experimental results show that OpenMap outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in zero-shot settings, demonstrating the effectiveness of our method in bridging free-form language and 3D perception for embodied navigation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Floren- cia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Boyuan Chen, Fei Xia, Brian Ichter, Kanishka Rao, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Michael S Ryoo, Austin Stone, and Daniel Kappler. 2023. Open-vocabulary queryable scene representations for real world planning. In ICRA

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Runnan Chen, Youquan Liu, Lingdong Kong, Xinge Zhu, Yuexin Ma, Yikang Li, Yuenan Hou, Yu Qiao, and Wenping Wang. 2023. Clip2scene: Towards label- efficient 3d scene understanding by clip. In CVPR

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Jiafei Duan, Samson Yu, Hui Li Tan, Hongyuan Zhu, and Cheston Tan. 2022. A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Sheng Fan, Rui Liu, Wenguan Wang, and Yi Yang. 2024. Navigation instruction generation with bev perception and large language models. In ECCV

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Golnaz Ghiasi, Xiuye Gu, Yin Cui, and Tsung-Yi Lin. 2022. Scaling open- vocabulary image segmentation with image-level labels. In European conference on computer vision

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Qiao Gu, Ali Kuwajerwala, Sacha Morin, Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Bipasha Sen, Aditya Agarwal, Corban Rivera, William Paul, Kirsty Ellis, Rama Chellappa, et al. 2024. Conceptgraphs: Open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for perception and planning. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Agrim Gupta, Piotr Dollar, and Ross Girshick. 2019. Lvis: A dataset for large vocabulary instance segmentation. In CVPR

    work page 2019

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    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)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Jiacui Huang, Hongtao Zhang, Mingbo Zhao, and Zhou Wu. 2024. Ivlmap: Instance-aware visual language grounding for consumer robot navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19336 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Tianyu Huang, Bowen Dong, Yunhan Yang, Xiaoshui Huang, Rynson WH Lau, Wanli Ouyang, and Wangmeng Zuo. 2023. Clip2point: Transfer clip to point cloud classification with image-depth pre-training. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    2023

  4. [12]

    Zhening Huang, Xiaoyang Wu, Xi Chen, Hengshuang Zhao, Lei Zhu, and Joan Lasenby. 2024. Openins3d: Snap and lookup for 3d open-vocabulary instance segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision

    2024

  5. [13]

    Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision- language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In International conference on machine learning

    2021

  6. [14]

    Jacob Krantz, Erik Wijmans, Arjun Majumdar, Dhruv Batra, and Stefan Lee

  7. [15]

    Xin Lai, Yuhui Yuan, Ruihang Chu, Yukang Chen, Han Hu, and Jiaya Jia. 2023. Mask-attention-free transformer for 3d instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    2023

  8. [16]

    Danyang Li, Jingao Xu, Zheng Yang, Qiang Ma, Li Zhang, and Pengpeng Chen

  9. [17]

    Danyang Li, Jingao Xu, Zheng Yang, Qian Zhang, Qiang Ma, Li Zhang, and Peng- peng Chen. 2022. Motion inspires notion: Self-supervised visual-LiDAR fusion for environment depth estimation. In Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference on mobile systems, application...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Danyang Li, Yishujie Zhao, Jingao Xu, Shengkai Zhang, Longfei Shangguan, and Zheng Yang. 2024. EdgeSLAM2: Rethinking edge-assisted visual SLAM with on-chip intelligence. In IEEE INFOCOM 2024-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications

    2024

  11. [19]

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International conference on machine learning

    2022

  12. [20]

    Feng Liang, Bichen Wu, Xiaoliang Dai, Kunpeng Li, Yinan Zhao, Hang Zhang, Peizhao Zhang, Peter Vajda, and Diana Marculescu. 2023. Open-vocabulary semantic segmentation with mask-adapted clip. In CVPR

    2023

  13. [21]

    Rui Liu, Xiaohan Wang, Wenguan Wang, and Yi Yang. 2023. Bird’s-eye-view scene graph for vision-language navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    2023

  14. [22]

    Yuxing Long, Wenzhe Cai, Hongcheng Wang, Guanqi Zhan, and Hao Dong. 2024. InstructNav: Zero-shot System for Generic Instruction Navigation in Unexplored Environment. In 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning

    2024

  15. [23]

    Qi Lu, Jason Kuen, Shen Tiancheng, Gu Jiuxiang, Guo Weidong, Jia Jiaya, Lin Zhe, and Yang Ming-Hsuan. 2023. High-Quality Entity Segmentation. In ICCV

    2023

  16. [24]

    Shiyang Lu, Haonan Chang, Eric Pu Jing, Abdeslam Boularias, and Kostas Bekris

  17. [25]

    Phuc Nguyen, Tuan Duc Ngo, Evangelos Kalogerakis, Chuang Gan, Anh Tran, Cuong Pham, and Khoi Nguyen. 2024. Open3dis: Open-vocabulary 3d instance segmentation with 2d mask guidance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2024

  18. [26]

    Sang-Min Park and Young-Gab Kim. 2023. Visual language navigation: A survey and open challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    In Conference on Robot Learning

    Ovir-3d: Open-vocabulary 3d instance retrieval without training on 3d data. In Conference on Robot Learning

  20. [28]

    Lu Qi, Jason Kuen, Tiancheng Shen, Jiuxiang Gu, Wenbo Li, Weidong Guo, Jiaya Jia, Zhe Lin, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. 2023. High Quality Entity Segmentation. In ICCV

    2023

  21. [29]

    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 ICML

    2021

  22. [30]

    Songyou Peng, Kyle Genova, Chiyu Jiang, Andrea Tagliasacchi, Marc Pollefeys, Thomas Funkhouser, et al. 2023. Openscene: 3d scene understanding with open vocabularies. In CVPR

    2023

  23. [31]

    Jonas Schult, Francis Engelmann, Alexander Hermans, Or Litany, Siyu Tang, and Bastian Leibe. 2023. Mask3d: Mask transformer for 3d semantic instance segmentation. In ICRA

    2023

  24. [32]

    Mohit Shridhar, Jesse Thomason, Daniel Gordon, Yonatan Bisk, Winson Han, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Dieter Fox. 2020. Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks. In IEEE/CVF CVPR

    2020

  25. [33]

    David Rozenberszki, Or Litany, and Angela Dai. 2022. Language-grounded indoor 3d semantic segmentation in the wild. In ECCV

    2022

  26. [34]

    Ayça Takmaz, Elisabetta Fedele, Robert W Sumner, Marc Pollefeys, Federico Tombari, and Francis Engelmann. 2023. Openmask3d: Open-vocabulary 3d instance segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13631 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bill Triggs, Philip F McLauchlan, Richard I Hartley, and Andrew W Fitzgibbon

  28. [36]

    Jingwen Sun, Jing Wu, Ze Ji, and Yu-Kun Lai. 2024. A survey of object goal navigation. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Zihan Wang, Xiangyang Li, Jiahao Yang, Yeqi Liu, and Shuqiang Jiang. 2023. Gridmm: Grid memory map for vision-and-language navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International conference on computer vision

    2023

  30. [38]

    Abdelrhman Werby, Chenguang Huang, Martin Büchner, Abhinav Valada, and Wolfram Burgard. 2024. Hierarchical open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for language-grounded robot navigation. In First Workshop on Vision-Language Mod- els for Navigation and Manipulation at ICRA 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Jianzong Wu, Xiangtai Li, Shilin Xu, Haobo Yuan, Henghui Ding, Yibo Yang, Xia Li, Jiangning Zhang, Yunhai Tong, Xudong Jiang, et al. 2024. Towards open vocabulary learning: A survey. IEEE TPAMI (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Hongcheng Wang, Andy Guan Hong Chen, Xiaoqi Li, Mingdong Wu, and Hao Dong. 2023. Find what you want: Learning demand-conditioned object attribute space for demand-driven navigation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Jingao Xu, Hao Cao, Danyang Li, Kehong Huang, Chen Qian, Longfei Shangguan, and Zheng Yang. 2020. Edge assisted mobile semantic visual SLAM. In IEEE INFOCOM 2020-IEEE Conference on computer communications

    2020

  34. [42]

    2022.{SwarmMap}: Scaling up real-time collaborative visual {SLAM} at the edge

    Jingao Xu, Hao Cao, Zheng Yang, Longfei Shangguan, Jialin Zhang, Xiaowu He, and Yunhao Liu. 2022.{SwarmMap}: Scaling up real-time collaborative visual {SLAM} at the edge. In 19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 22)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Karmesh Yadav, Ram Ramrakhya, Santhosh Kumar Ramakrishnan, Theo Gervet, John Turner, Aaron Gokaslan, Noah Maestre, Angel Xuan Chang, Dhruv Batra, Manolis Savva, et al. 2023. Habitat-matterport 3d semantics dataset. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision an...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Wansen Wu, Tao Chang, Xinmeng Li, Quanjun Yin, and Yue Hu. 2024. Vision- language navigation: a survey and taxonomy. Neural Computing and Applications (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Haobo Yuan, Xiangtai Li, Chong Zhou, Yining Li, Kai Chen, and Chen Change Loy. 2024. Open-vocabulary SAM: Segment and recognize twenty-thousand classes interactively. In European Conference on Computer Vision

    2024

  38. [46]

    Haobo Yuan, Xiangtai Li, Chong Zhou, Yining Li, Kai Chen, and Chen Change Loy. 2024. Open-Vocabulary SAM: Segment and Recognize Twenty-thousand Classes Interactively. In ECCV

    2024

  39. [47]

    Jingyi Zhang, Jiaxing Huang, Sheng Jin, and Shijian Lu. 2024. Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Mi Yan, Jiazhao Zhang, Yan Zhu, and He Wang. 2024. Maskclustering: View consensus based mask graph clustering for open-vocabulary 3d instance segmen- tation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2024

  41. [52]

    Chaoyang Zhu and Long Chen. 2024. A survey on open-vocabulary detection and segmentation: Past, present, and future.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

    2024

  42. [2000]

    In Vision Algorithms: Theory and Practice: International Workshop on Vision Algorithms Corfu, Greece, September 21–22, 1999 Proceedings

    Bundle adjustment—a modern synthesis. In Vision Algorithms: Theory and Practice: International Workshop on Vision Algorithms Corfu, Greece, September 21–22, 1999 Proceedings

    1999

  43. [2020]

    In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVIII 16

    Beyond the nav-graph: Vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVIII 16

    2020

  44. [2023]

    IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing (2023)

    Leovr: Motion-inspired visual-lidar fusion for environment depth estima- tion. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.