Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 48 references

A frozen LLM can steer a mobile manipulator through cluttered homes by reasoning about which obstacles to move, not how to move.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-02 21:25 UTC pith:YTIFS7R2

load-bearing objection Genuinely new problem framing, but the LES metric is internally inconsistent and the zero-shot variant loses to baselines in the paper's own Table 1. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.20055 v2 pith:YTIFS7R2 submitted 2026-02-23 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CV

CoReLIN: Constraint-based Reasoning for Zero-shot Lifelong Interactive Navigation

Apoorva Vashisth (1) , Manav Kulshrestha (1) , Pranav Bakshi (2) , Damon Conover (3) , Guillaume Sartoretti (4) , Aniket Bera (1) ((1) Purdue University , (2) IIT Kharagpur (3) DEVCOM Army Research Lab (4) National University of Singapore) This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AIcs.CV
keywords lifelong interactive navigationzero-shot planninglarge language modelsscene graphsmobile manipulationnavigation among movable obstaclesconstraint-based reasoningsim-to-real transfer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper introduces Lifelong Interactive Navigation, where a mobile manipulator must complete a sequence of object-placement tasks in a cluttered, initially unknown multi-room home. The authors propose CoReLIN, a framework that uses a frozen large language model as a constraint reasoner over a structured scene graph: instead of generating low-level actions, the LLM decides which obstacles to relocate, where to place them, and where to explore next, weighing manipulation cost against the betweenness centrality of the blocked cell. They claim that this selective, cost-aware manipulation achieves the best Long-term Efficiency Score in 4–6 and 7–10 room floorplans while requiring no task-specific fine-tuning, and they demonstrate a qualitative transfer to real robot hardware. The contribution is a shift in how language models are used for embodied tasks: from action generators to high-level planners over environmental constraints.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: in sequentially presented object-placement tasks in unknown, cluttered environments of up to ten rooms, a frozen LLM that reasons over a structured scene graph of blocking relations can decide which obstacles to move and where to put them, achieving the highest Long-term Efficiency Score among compared methods in 4–6 and 7–10 room floorplans (LES 0.1945 vs 0.1714 for the best baseline; 0.1574 vs 0.0943), with zero-shot generalization and no task-specific fine-tuning. The key is to treat every blocking object as a decision point and to balance the time cost of moving it against how many shortest paths would be freed, a quantity captured by betweenness centrality.

What carries the argument

The central object is a structured scene graph E_t = (O_t, R_t) whose edges encode blocking relations, with each object node annotated by traversal cost, the set of blockers, the betweenness centrality of its grid cell, and detour cost. The LLM is prompted to resolve constraints by selecting o*, z* = argmin [cost(oi, rt, zj) − bc(n(oi))], effectively deciding "move or not, and where". A standard Dijkstra-based motion planner then executes the chosen navigate-pick-place or detour sequence. This separation of strategic reasoning from tactical control lets a frozen LLM do long-horizon planning without training.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's primary evidence is the LES ranking, but the metric is defined inconsistently: Eq. (3) in the main text normalizes TS and PoC by their minima, while Appendix C normalizes by their maxima, and neither formula reproduces the numbers in Table 1 (e.g., Ours(known) in 1–3 rooms should be ≈0.40 or ≈1.42, yet the table reports 0.33), so the normalization used for the reported rankings is undocumented.

What would settle it

Recompute LES for the 4–6-room bin from the reported SR, TS, and PoC using Eq. (3): Ours(known) gives (97.73/100) / ((1911.97/665.64)·(1.25/1.00)) ≈ 0.27, not the reported 0.1945; any normalization that reproduces Table 1 must be stated explicitly, and if a correct formula changes the ranking order, the central claim of best LES fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • In cluttered homes and warehouses, robots can complete sequential placement tasks without performing exhaustive cleanups first, saving time while keeping future routes open.
  • Zero-shot deployment: a frozen, off-the-shelf LLM suffices; no task-specific fine-tuning or per-environment training is needed, so the approach can transfer to new floorplans and real hardware.
  • The cost-benefit rule favors moving obstacles at structural bottlenecks (high betweenness centrality), so a small number of well-chosen manipulations can restore connectivity in large environments where detouring or full cleanup collapses in efficiency.
  • The framework recasts the role of LLMs in embodied AI from action-sequence generation to constraint-based planning, a design that could extend to other tasks requiring long-horizon reasoning about environment state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors' known-map variant is what drives the headline LES advantage; the fully unknown variant trails several baselines in 4–6 rooms, suggesting that partial observability, not reasoning, is the current bottleneck and that better exploration is the most direct path to a deployable system.
  • Because the paper assumes floorplan topology is known and only contents are unknown, a truly novel environment where room adjacency itself must be discovered remains untested; the framework would need simultaneous topology-and-content exploration.
  • The LES metric's normalization is inconsistent between the main text (Eq. 3, min-normalized) and Appendix C (max-normalized), and neither reproduces Table 1's values; until this is resolved, the reported rankings should be treated as provisional.
  • The betweenness-centrality heuristic could be replaced or augmented by a learned predictor of connectivity gain, which might remove the need for full graph computation in real time and extend the approach to richer 3D semantics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Lifelong Interactive Navigation, in which a mobile manipulator must complete a sequence of object-placement tasks in an unknown, cluttered environment, moving obstacles when they block all routes. The proposed method, CoReLIN, uses a frozen LLM to reason over a structured scene graph, deciding which obstacles to move, where to place them, and where to explore next; a standard Dijkstra planner and pick-and-place primitives execute the decisions. The authors introduce a new composite metric, the Long-term Efficiency Score (LES), combining success rate, timesteps, and a new Price of Clutter (PoC) measure. Evaluation in ProcTHOR-10k is reported in Table 1 for two variants of the method (known-map and unknown-map), along with four baselines, and a qualitative hardware demonstration on a Boston Dynamics Spot is presented. The central claim is that the method achieves the highest LES in unknown, cluttered environments with zero-shot generalization.

Significance. The problem formulation is timely and the idea of using an LLM as a high-level constraint reasoner over a structured scene graph, rather than as a low-level action generator, is a reasonable design choice. The hardware demonstration and the inclusion of detailed prompts in Appendix I are useful elements that support reproducibility. However, as presented, the central empirical claim is not supported by the paper's own data. The LES definition is internally inconsistent and cannot reproduce the reported table entries, and the only variant that achieves the advertised LES advantage is the ground-truth-map variant, not the zero-shot unknown-environment variant that the abstract and introduction emphasize. These issues undermine the main contribution and make the significance of the results impossible to assess without substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3), Appendix C, Table 1] The LES definition is inconsistent and irreproducible. Main-text Eq. (3) defines LES = (SR/max SR)/((TS/min TS)·(PoC/min PoC)), while Appendix C defines it with max denominators for TS and PoC. Neither matches Table 1. For example, for Ours (known) in 1–3 rooms, SR=94.55, TS=1044.55, PoC=1.50: Eq. (3) gives ≈0.40, Appendix C gives ≈1.58, but Table 1 reports 0.3322. Since every headline ranking in the paper is expressed in LES, the central comparison is not auditable. The authors must state exactly which normalization was used, provide the formula that matches the table, and ideally release the computation script.
  2. [§4.2, Table 1, Appendices D.5–D.6] The paper's central zero-shot claim is contradicted by its own data. The abstract and §1 claim that CoReLIN, an LLM reasoning over a scene graph with active perception, achieves the highest LES in unknown, cluttered environments. However, Table 1 reports two variants. Only Ours (known), which receives ground-truth knowledge of the full map, obstacle positions, and object locations at episode start, achieves the advertised LES values (0.1945 in 4–6 rooms and 0.1574 in 7–10 rooms). The variant that actually operates under the stated unknown-environment, active-perception setting, Ours (unk), obtains LES 0.0598 in 4–6 rooms (vs. 0.1707 for Always Interact and 0.1714 for Clean+S/P) and 0.0344 in 7–10 rooms (vs. 0.0943 for Always Interact). Thus the headline claim is supported only by removing the 'unknown' premise from the method being evaluated. This is a claim/evidence mismatch that must b
  3. [§4.2, Tables 1–5] No statistical uncertainty is reported for any of the experimental results. The test set consists of 100 environments (about 30 per floorplan bin), and the method relies on a stochastic proprietary LLM, yet SR, TS, PoC, and LES are all given as single point estimates. Several comparisons that drive the conclusions are extremely close: for example, in 4–6 rooms Always Interact (LES 0.1707) and Clean+S/P (LES 0.1714) differ by 0.4%, which is far below any plausible noise level given the small sample size. Without multiple seeds, confidence intervals, or significance tests, the claimed improvements (20–50%, 3–6×) are not statistically substantiated. This is load-bearing because the primary evidence is a set of small-margin LES differences.
  4. [Eq. (2), Eq. (3), Appendix B] The evaluation metric is not independent of the method's objective. The authors introduce PoC and LES, and the planner's cost-benefit rule explicitly favors moving high-betweenness obstacles to drop zones that improve global connectivity — i.e., the policy is optimized, in part, to reduce the same PoC term that dominates LES. This does not by itself invalidate the comparison, but it makes LES a partially self-referential measure. The paper should either provide an external, pre-existing measure of environment quality or report standard navigation metrics (e.g., SPL, STS) alongside LES so that readers can separate task performance from the metric the method was designed to optimize.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract vs. §1] The abstract states 'outperforms best baseline by 16% under standard metrics and LES,' while §1 claims 'improving over the strongest non-learned baseline by 20–50%, and outperforming prior interactive navigation methods by 3–6×.' These numbers should be reconciled and tied to specific rows in Table 1.
  2. [§4.4] The navigable area is reported as '≈50.0m^3'; this should be m^2 (or the volume should be defined consistently).
  3. [Appendix F] The text says 'The results are summarized in Tab. 5,' but the table containing the obstacle-density comparison is Table 7 in the supplementary material. Please update the cross-reference.
  4. [Eq. (1) and §3] The scene graph is described as a directed graph, but the blocking relation C_ij in Eq. (1) is defined as symmetric ('blocks the shortest path') and the graph representation is not fully specified. Clarify whether the graph is directed and whether blocking relations are always mutual.
  5. [Betweenness centrality] The normalization constant Z in the betweenness-centrality formula is never defined. Since the LLM receives this value as an attribute, the exact normalization should be specified for reproducibility.
  6. [Appendix H.2] The occupancy threshold τ=400 is described as 'selected empirically,' but no sensitivity analysis is provided. A single sentence on how this value was chosen and how performance varies with it would improve confidence in the hardware experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: frozen LLM, no fitted LES, no load-bearing self-citations; metric/policy alignment is an evaluation-design issue, not a derivation loop.

full rationale

CoReLIN's decision rule (cost-benefit over betweenness centrality, Eq. 2, plus LLM reasoning over the scene graph) is a hand-specified policy executed by a frozen LLM; the paper does not train on, fit, or derive LES. LES (Eq. 3, App. C) is a composite of measured SR/TS/PoC, and the reported LES values are measurements, not predictions obtained by plugging the method's own parameters into its definition. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the evaluation data and then renamed a prediction; the static manipulation cost e=5 is a stated hyperparameter with a sensitivity ablation. The reference list contains no self-citations, so there is no self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. The closest concern is that the planner's betweenness-centrality objective and the PoC component of LES both reward removing structurally central obstacles, and the dataset deliberately places clutter at high-betweenness nodes; that alignment makes the evaluation favorable to the method's design goals but does not make the SR/TS/PoC measurements tautological - indeed, the partially observed variant Ours (unk) ranks below Always Interact and Clean+S/P on LES in 4-10 rooms, showing the metric does not force the headline result. Separately, the paper's LES formulas are inconsistent (main text uses TS/min(TS) and PoC/min(PoC), Appendix C uses max denominators) and neither reproduces Table 1; this is a serious auditability/correctness problem, but it is not a circular derivation. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a hand-set manipulation cost e, an empirically chosen occupancy threshold, and domain assumptions about known floorplans, reliable pick-place primitives, and trustworthy LLM outputs. The PoC metric uses an ad hoc cap/exclusion rule. No new physical entities are introduced; the new constructs are problem formulations and metrics, which are evaluated directly in the text.

free parameters (3)
  • Manipulation effort e = 5.00 s (default)
    Hand-set in §3 based on 'empirical observation' that pick/place dominates travel time; directly weights cost(oi, rt, zj) and controls how often the LLM moves obstacles. Ablated e=1..20.
  • Occupancy threshold tau = 400 points (hardware)
    Empirically selected in Appendix H.2 to classify grid nodes as free/occupied from point-cloud density; affects the traversability graph used by the LLM planner.
  • History length h = not stated (evaluated 1–9)
    The amount of prior scene-graph context fed to the LLM is an unstated default in the main experiments; Table 3 shows LES varies substantially with h (e.g., 0.36 to 0.40 in 1–3 rooms).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Known floor plan: number of rooms and their topological adjacencies are given a priori; only room contents and traversability must be discovered.
    §3: 'we assume that the general floor plan is known, but that room contents are unknown at first.' If false, the exploration problem is significantly different.
  • domain assumption Pick-and-place is a reliable primitive with sufficient free space at designated drop zones.
    §3 low-level planning: 'we treat pick-place as a reliable primitive ... assume designated objects have sufficient free space for placement.' This delegates manipulation failures away from the evaluated policy.
  • domain assumption LLM outputs on serialized scene graphs are sufficiently correct and repeatable to be used without sampling or verification.
    The framework issues a single LLM decision per step (§3); no confidence checks, retries, or self-consistency are reported, and proprietary LLM stochasticity is not addressed.
  • ad hoc to paper PoC remains a finite, comparable metric when occluded endpoints are excluded and infinite distances are capped at 10x the maximum finite shortest-path length.
    Appendix B introduces the cap/exclusion rule; it changes PoC values and hence LES, but no sensitivity analysis on the cap is provided.
  • domain assumption Betweenness centrality on the currently discovered grid graph is a valid proxy for global connectivity gain from obstacle removal.
    Used in Eq. (2) and in scene-graph attributes; since unknown regions are never assumed passable, bc is computed on partial maps.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CoReLIN: Constraint-based Reasoning for Zero-shot Lifelong Interactive Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTIFS7R2

@misc{pith2026260220055,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CoReLIN: Constraint-based Reasoning for Zero-shot Lifelong Interactive Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTIFS7R2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.20055}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Robot navigation typically assumes an obstacle-free path exists between start and goal. In real environments, however, clutter may block all routes. We introduce Lifelong Interactive Navigation, where a mobile robot with manipulation capabilities must move objects to forge paths and complete sequential object-placement tasks. Because environment modifications persist, decisions impact future navigability and task difficulty. We propose CoReLIN, an LLM-driven constraint-based reasoning framework with active perception. CoReLIN reasons over a structured scene graph to decide which objects to relocate, where to place them, and where to explore next. A standard motion planner executes reliable navigation and manipulation primitives. To evaluate long-horizon behavior, we introduce 2 new metrics - Long-term Efficiency Score (LES), a unified metric capturing success, execution efficiency, environment optimality, captured by Price of Clutter. In ProcTHOR-10k, CoReLIN outperforms best baseline by 16% under standard metrics and LES, and transfers to real-world hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.20055 by (2) IIT Kharagpur (3) DEVCOM Army Research Lab (4) National University of Singapore), Aniket Bera (1) ((1) Purdue University, Apoorva Vashisth (1), Damon Conover (3), Guillaume Sartoretti (4), Manav Kulshrestha (1), Pranav Bakshi (2).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Demonstration of our approach deployed on the Boston Dynamics Spot robot. The left image shows the region of the environment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of our constraint-based planning framework for interactive navigation. At each timestep, our agent receives observa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example dataset generation process. In this instance, we consider a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Lifetime Efficiency Score (LES) plott for floorplans ranging from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Point-cloud–driven environment mapping during real-world deployment. We visualize the evolution of the robot’s perception [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Our system prompt for the Large Language Model in our constraint-based planning framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Our developer prompt for the Large Language Model in our constraint-based planning framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Navigation world models.2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 15791–15801, 2024

    Amir Bar, Gaoyue Zhou, Danny Tran, Trevor Darrell, and Yann LeCun. Navigation world models.2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 15791–15801, 2024. 1, 2

    2025

  2. [2]

    Heuristic motion planning with movable obstacles

    Thomas Chadzelek, Jens Eckstein, and Elmar Sch ¨omer. Heuristic motion planning with movable obstacles. InCana- dian Conference on Computational Geometry, 1996. 3

    1996

  3. [3]

    Chen and Yong Koo Hwang

    Pang C. Chen and Yong Koo Hwang. Practical path plan- ning among movable obstacles.Proceedings. 1991 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 444–449 vol.1, 1991. 3

    1991

  4. [4]

    Procthor: Large-scale embodied ai using procedural genera- tion.ArXiv, abs/2206.06994, 2022

    Matt Deitke, Eli VanderBilt, Alvaro Herrasti, Luca Weihs, Jordi Salvador, Kiana Ehsani, Winson Han, Eric Kolve, Ali Farhadi, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. Procthor: Large-scale embodied ai using procedural genera- tion.ArXiv, abs/2206.06994, 2022. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance.IEEE Robotics Autom

    Dieter Fox, Wolfram Burgard, and Sebastian Thrun. The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance.IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag., 4:23–33, 1997. 2

    1997

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    Cognitive mapping and planning for visual navigation.International Journal of Computer Vision, 128:1311 – 1330, 2017

    Saurabh Gupta, Varun Tolani, James Davidson, Sergey Levine, Rahul Sukthankar, and Jitendra Malik. Cognitive mapping and planning for visual navigation.International Journal of Computer Vision, 128:1311 – 1330, 2017. 2

    2017

  8. [8]

    Botao He, Guofei Chen, Wenshan Wang, Ji Zhang, Cor- nelia Fermuller, and Yiannis Aloimonos. Interactive- far:interactive, fast and adaptable routing for navigation among movable obstacles in complex unknown environ- ments.2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 5402–5409, 2024. 3

    2024

  9. [9]

    Ai2-thor: An interactive 3d environment for visual ai.ArXiv, abs/1712.05474, 2017

    Eric Kolve, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Winson Han, Eli VanderBilt, Luca Weihs, Alvaro Herrasti, Matt Deitke, Kiana Ehsani, Daniel Gordon, Yuke Zhu, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Abhi- nav Kumar Gupta, and Ali Farhadi. Ai2-thor: An interactive 3d environment for visual ai.ArXiv, abs/1712.05474, 2017. 1, 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Visual graph memory with unsuper- vised representation for visual navigation.2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 15870–15879, 2021

    Obin Kwon, Nuri Kim, Yunho Choi, Hwiyeon Yoo, Jeongho Park, and Songhwai Oh. Visual graph memory with unsuper- vised representation for visual navigation.2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 15870–15879, 2021. 2

    2021

  11. [11]

    Hier- archical decision theoretic planning for navigation among movable obstacles

    Martin Levihn, Jonathan Scholz, and Mike Stilman. Hier- archical decision theoretic planning for navigation among movable obstacles. InWorkshop on the Algorithmic Foun- dations of Robotics, 2012. 3

    2012

  12. [12]

    Memonav: Working memory model for visual navigation.2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 17913– 17922, 2024

    Hongxin Li, Zeyu Wang, Xu Yang, Yu-Ren Yang, Shuqi Mei, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Memonav: Working memory model for visual navigation.2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 17913– 17922, 2024. 2

    2024

  13. [13]

    Planning long dy- namically feasible maneuvers for autonomous vehicles.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 28:933 – 945,

    Maxim Likhachev and Dave Ferguson. Planning long dy- namically feasible maneuvers for autonomous vehicles.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 28:933 – 945,

  14. [14]

    Multi-object navigation with dynamically learned neural implicit representations.2023 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 10970–10981, 2022

    Pierre Marza, La ¨etitia Matignon, Olivier Simonin, and Christian Wolf. Multi-object navigation with dynamically learned neural implicit representations.2023 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 10970–10981, 2022. 3

    2023

  15. [15]

    Mat ´ıas Mattamala, Jonas Frey, Piotr Libera, Nived Chebrolu, Georg Martius, Cesar Cadena, Marco Hutter, and Maurice F. Fallon. Wild visual navigation: fast traversability learn- ing via pre-trained models and online self-supervision.Au- tonomous Robots, 49, 2024. 1

    2024

  16. [16]

    Visual representations for se- mantic target driven navigation.2019 International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8846–8852,

    Arsalan Mousavian, Alexander Toshev, Marek Fiser, Jana Kosecka, and James Davidson. Visual representations for se- mantic target driven navigation.2019 International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8846–8852,

    2019

  17. [17]

    van der Stappen, and Mark H

    Dennis Nieuwenhuisen, A.F. van der Stappen, and Mark H. Overmars. An effective framework for path planning amidst movable obstacles. InWorkshop on the Algorithmic Founda- tions of Robotics, 2006. 3

    2006

  18. [18]

    Kei Okada, Atsushi Haneda, Hiroyuki Nakai, Masayuki Inaba, and Hirochika Inoue. Environment manipulation planner for humanoid robots using task graph that gener- ates action sequence.2004 IEEE/RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566), 2:1174–1179 vol.2, 2004. 3

    2004

  19. [19]

    Habitat: A platform for embodied ai research.2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 9338–9346, 2019

    Manolis Savva, Abhishek Kadian, Oleksandr Maksymets, Yili Zhao, Erik Wijmans, Bhavana Jain, Julian Straub, Jia Liu, Vladlen Koltun, Jitendra Malik, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Habitat: A platform for embodied ai research.2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 9338–9346, 2019. 2

    2019

  20. [20]

    In-sight: Interac- tive navigation through sight.2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 7794–7800, 2024

    Philipp Schoch, Fan Yang, Yuntao Ma, Stefan Leuteneg- ger, Marco Hutter, and Quentin Leboutet. In-sight: Interac- tive navigation through sight.2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 7794–7800, 2024. 3

    2024

  21. [21]

    Scene graph contrastive learning for embodied navigation.2023 IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 10850–10860, 2023

    Kunal Pratap Singh, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, and Aniruddha Kembhavi. Scene graph contrastive learning for embodied navigation.2023 IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 10850–10860, 2023. 2

    2023

  22. [22]

    Towards long-horizon vision- language navigation: Platform, benchmark and method

    Xinshuai Song, Weixing Chen, Yang Liu, Weikai Chen, Guanbin Li, and Liang Lin. Towards long-horizon vision- language navigation: Platform, benchmark and method. 2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12078–12088, 2024. 1

    2025

  23. [23]

    Planning among movable obstacles with artificial constraints.The International Jour- nal of Robotics Research, 27(11-12):1295–1307, 2008

    Mike Stilman and James Kuffner. Planning among movable obstacles with artificial constraints.The International Jour- nal of Robotics Research, 27(11-12):1295–1307, 2008. 3

    2008

  24. [24]

    Mike Stilman and James J. Kuffner. Navigation among movable obstacles: real-time reasoning in complex envi- ronments.4th IEEE/RAS International Conference on Hu- manoid Robots, 2004., 1:322–341 V ol. 1, 2004. 3

    2004

  25. [25]

    Li, Jian Chen, and Mingkui Tan

    Xinyu Sun, Peihao Chen, Jugang Fan, Thomas H. Li, Jian Chen, and Mingkui Tan. Fgprompt: Fine- grained goal prompting for image-goal navigation.ArXiv, abs/2310.07473, 2023. 3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Chang, Zsolt Kira, Vladlen Koltun, Jitendra Malik, Manolis Savva, and Dhruv Batra

    Andrew Szot, Alexander Clegg, Eric Undersander, Erik Wi- jmans, Yili Zhao, John Turner, Noah Maestre, Mustafa Mukadam, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Oleksandr Maksymets, Aaron Gokaslan, Vladim ´ır V ondruvs., Sameer Dharur, Franziska Meier, Wojciech Galuba, Angel X. Chang, Zsolt Kira, Vladlen Koltun, Jitendra Malik, Manolis Savva, and Dhruv Batra. Habitat 2.0: ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Spin: Simultaneous perception, interaction and navigation.2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18133–18142, 2024

    Shagun Uppal, Ananye Agarwal, Haoyu Xiong, Kenneth Shaw, and Deepak Pathak. Spin: Simultaneous perception, interaction and navigation.2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18133–18142, 2024. 3

    2024

  28. [28]

    Active perception for visual-language navigation.International Journal of Com- puter Vision, 131(3):607–625, 2023

    Hanqing Wang, Wenguan Wang, Wei Liang, Steven CH Hoi, Jianbing Shen, and Luc Van Gool. Active perception for visual-language navigation.International Journal of Com- puter Vision, 131(3):607–625, 2023. 2

    2023

  29. [29]

    Mo-ddn: A coarse-to-fine attribute-based exploration agent for multi-object demand- driven navigation.ArXiv, abs/2410.03488, 2024

    Hongchen Wang, Peiqi Liu, Wenzhe Cai, Mingdong Wu, Zhengyu Qian, and Hao Dong. Mo-ddn: A coarse-to-fine attribute-based exploration agent for multi-object demand- driven navigation.ArXiv, abs/2410.03488, 2024. 3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Camp: Causal multi-policy planning for in- teractive navigation in multi-room scenes

    Xiaohan Wang, Yuehu Liu, Xinhang Song, Beibei Wang, and Shuqiang Jiang. Camp: Causal multi-policy planning for in- teractive navigation in multi-room scenes. InNeural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 2023. 2, 3, 5

    2023

  31. [31]

    An interactive navigation method with effect-oriented affordance.2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16446–16456, 2024

    Xiaohan Wang, Yuehu Liu, Xinhang Song, Yuyi Liu, Six- ian Zhang, and Shuqiang Jiang. An interactive navigation method with effect-oriented affordance.2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16446–16456, 2024. 3

    2024

  32. [32]

    Gordon T. Wilfong. Motion planning in the presence of mov- able obstacles.Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelli- gence, 3:131–150, 1988. 3

    1988

  33. [33]

    Xia, Amir Zamir, Zhi-Yang He, Alexander Sax, Jitendra Malik, and Silvio Savarese

    F. Xia, Amir Zamir, Zhi-Yang He, Alexander Sax, Jitendra Malik, and Silvio Savarese. Gibson env: Real-world per- ception for embodied agents.2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9068– 9079, 2018. 2, 3

    2018

  34. [34]

    Trajectory diffusion for objectgoal naviga- tion.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, 2024

    Xinyao Yu, Sixian Zhang, Xinhang Song, Xiaorong Qin, and Shuqiang Jiang. Trajectory diffusion for objectgoal naviga- tion.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, 2024. 3

    2024

  35. [35]

    Pushing it out of the way: Interactive visual naviga- tion.2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 9863–9872, 2021

    Kuo-Hao Zeng, Luca Weihs, Ali Farhadi, and Roozbeh Mot- taghi. Pushing it out of the way: Interactive visual naviga- tion.2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 9863–9872, 2021. 2, 3, 6

    2021

  36. [36]

    Navidiffusor: Cost-guided diffusion model for visual navigation.2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 11994–12001,

    Yiming Zeng, Hao Ren, Shuhang Wang, Junlong Huang, and Hui Cheng. Navidiffusor: Cost-guided diffusion model for visual navigation.2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 11994–12001,

    2025

  37. [37]

    Peanut: Predicting and navigating to unseen targets.2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 10892– 10901, 2022

    Albert Zhai and Shenlong Wang. Peanut: Predicting and navigating to unseen targets.2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 10892– 10901, 2022

    2023

  38. [38]

    Hierarchical object-to-zone graph for object navigation.2021 IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 15110–15120, 2021

    Sixian Zhang, Xinhang Song, Yubing Bai, Weijie Li, Yakui Chu, and Shuqiang Jiang. Hierarchical object-to-zone graph for object navigation.2021 IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 15110–15120, 2021. 2

    2021

  39. [39]

    Imagine before go: Self-supervised generative map for object goal navigation.2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16414–16425, 2024

    Sixian Zhang, Xinyao Yu, Xinhang Song, Xiaohan Wang, and Shuqiang Jiang. Imagine before go: Self-supervised generative map for object goal navigation.2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16414–16425, 2024. 3

    2024

  40. [40]

    Lim, Abhinav Kumar Gupta, Li Fei-Fei, and Ali Farhadi

    Yuke Zhu, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Eric Kolve, Joseph J. Lim, Abhinav Kumar Gupta, Li Fei-Fei, and Ali Farhadi. Target- driven visual navigation in indoor scenes using deep rein- forcement learning.2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 3357–3364, 2016. 2 To Move or Not to Move: Constraint-based Planning Enables Zero-Shot Gen...

    2017

  41. [41]

    picks up the obstacle usingPickupObject,

  42. [42]

    navigates to and places it at the nearest drop zone that doesnotblock any path in the free-space graph (com- puted using ground-truth map),

  43. [43]

    Ground-truth reasoning:The baseline has complete ac- cess to all traversability information and all valid receptacle surfaces

    recomputes the shortest path and continues. Ground-truth reasoning:The baseline has complete ac- cess to all traversability information and all valid receptacle surfaces. Thus it can deterministically choose a placement that is globally non-blocking. Characteristics: • Removes all obstacles on the path, regardless of the con- sideration for long-term task...

    2088

  44. [44]

    captures front-camera RGB-D observations,

  45. [45]

    runs YOLO+SAM to update scene graph entries,

  46. [46]

    updates the reachable grid nodes using depth-based oc- cupancy,

  47. [47]

    queries the LLM for the next high-level action (navigate, pick-and-place, or explore),

  48. [48]

    executes the corresponding low-level command through thebosdynAPI. This forms a tight perception–reasoning–action loop that closely mirrors our simulator setup while operating under real sensor noise, partial observability, and actuation uncer- tainty. H.5. Real Robot Experiments We provide visualization of an episode executed on Spot robot. Fig. 5 shows ...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.