Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 22 references

LH-AVLN: A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Audio-Visual-Language Navigation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces LH-AVLN, a benchmark coupling multi-goal missions with alternating acoustic cues, and reports that state-of-the-art agents rarely finish a full mission.

desk verdict Genuinely new benchmark idea, but the audio-leakage premise is unverified and the missing artifacts make it a proposal rather than a finished resource. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.03920 v2 pith:U7H6LD4P submitted 2026-07-04 cs.RO

Rufeng Chen , Yue Chang , Zili Shao , Zhaofan Zhang , Li Chen , Hechang Chen , Hui Xiong , Sihong Xie This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords audio-visualnavigationlong-horizonmulti-goalmissionsbenchmarkacousticcuesembodiedAIsemanticmappinggoal-stateplanning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces LH-AVLN, a benchmark that makes audio matter in long-horizon embodied navigation by binding each mission goal to a distinct spatialized sound. Unlike prior audio-visual tasks that fix a single sounding target, LH-AVLN lets alternating sounds from unfinished goals guide search while also serving as distractors as mission state changes. The authors show that existing vision-language, memory-based, and audio-visual agents almost never complete full two-to-four-goal missions, and that their training-free agent PAG-Nav sets the best diagnostic baseline with a success rate around 3%. The point is to expose a distinct capability—task-conditioned cue grounding—that current methods lack, rather than to claim a solved task.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the benchmark's episode-generation pipeline plus PAG-Nav's temporal uniform semantic map. Each goal is tied to a spatialized sound source that alternates among unfinished goals; the sound conveys direction but no identity, so relevance must be inferred from mission state. PAG-Nav's progressive planner keeps a unified spatial memory of rooms, object hypotheses, and bearing/intensity audio cues, and confines itself to three stages—search, ground, verify—with submission gated by visual-semantic verification at a proper pose. This design makes explicit the claim that audio should guide search while visual evidence alone authorizes completion.

What would settle it

Randomly sample validation episodes and have a human or a high-precision verifier identify the target instance from the reference image or description given the rendered viewpoint; if annotators cannot match the cue to the correct instance significantly above chance, the visual-verifiability premise fails. A cheaper check: give an agent ground-truth target locations and spawn it next to each target; if it still cannot submit correctly for a noticeable fraction of goals, the cues themselves are the failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that combining multi-goal mission execution, heterogeneous goal specifications, and persistent spatialized acoustic cues creates a navigation problem that existing methods are not built to solve. In LH-AVLN, sound is progress-dependent: an unfinished target emits a spatialized cue that can pull the agent toward a useful location, but as soon as a goal is completed, that cue becomes a distractor. The agent must therefore decide which goal a sound belongs to, whether it is relevant to the current mission state, and whether a candidate object truly matches the category, description, or image goal before submitting. The authors present PAG-Nav, a training-free agent

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark assumes that every goal's target can actually be recognized from the agent's viewpoints, because instances are pre-filtered by an automated detector; if that detector is too permissive, some goals are impossible to verify and low success rates would reflect broken goal cues, not navigation skill.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If LH-AVLN is adopted, navigation agents must treat acoustic cues as task-conditioned information rather than fixed goals; sound can be a hint, a distractor, or irrelevant depending on mission state.
  • The OSR-to-SR gap reported for both PAG-Nav and the learned policy implies that reaching goal regions is no longer the bottleneck; the bottleneck is deciding when a goal is verifiably complete.
  • Memory must persist across goals within an episode: agents that forget earlier audio-visual associations or fail to track completed goals collapse on four-goal missions.
  • Both ordered and unordered variants offer a continuum of difficulty, with unordered task completion relying on goal selection and progress tracking, not just route following.
  • The benchmark's validation protocol (scene-level split) means good performance requires generalization to unseen environments, not memorization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: vary the sound-alternation rate. If agents depend on acoustic persistence, faster alternation should degrade search more for weak-memory agents than for PAG-Nav; this would isolate the value of its temporal memory.
  • The paper leaves sound identity deliberately ambiguous. An extension could bind audio to the goal's semantics, such as a water sound for a 'bathtub near the window' goal, which would test whether audio can aid grounding directly rather than only search.
  • The dependency on an off-the-shelf object recognizer for instance validation suggests a benchmark-audit study: human annotators recheck a random subset of goal cues for visual verifiability; if a nontrivial fraction fail, success-rate gaps would need reinterpreting.
  • The two-stage design—audio for search, vision for commit—could transfer to other long-horizon tasks where a reliable sensor should gate task completion rather than a noisy prior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LH-AVLN, a benchmark for long-horizon audio-visual-language navigation in indoor 3D environments. Each episode is a mission of two to four goals specified by category, natural-language description, or reference image; the agent receives RGB-D, pose, and binaural audio, and must complete the goals in either ordered or unordered fashion. The benchmark construction pipeline samples validated target instances from Matterport3D scenes using reachability and visual-verification checks, and attaches spatialized sound sources to mission targets so that unfinished targets alternately emit acoustic cues. The authors also present PAG-Nav, a training-free modular baseline with a temporal uniform semantic map and progressive goal-state planning, and compare it against six existing baselines. Results show very low full-mission success rates for all methods, with PAG-Nav achieving 2.3% SR (ordered) and 3.1% SR (unordered), indicating that the benchmark is challenging. A learned agent, MAV-Nav, is described in the appendix and evaluated on 550 validation episodes.

Significance. If the benchmark construction is sound and the audio design does not leak goal identity, LH-AVLN fills a real gap: existing long-horizon benchmarks are acoustically silent, while audio-visual navigation benchmarks are largely single-objective. The task formulation—multi-goal, heterogeneous goal modalities, progress-dependent acoustic cues—is a meaningful new evaluation setting, and the PAG-Nav baseline is a sensible diagnostic design that separates search, candidate grounding, and visual verification. However, the paper currently lacks release artifacts, does not specify the acoustic signal design, and leaves the visual-verification pipeline underspecified. These omissions directly affect whether the benchmark measures what it claims: task-conditioned cue grounding rather than audio category recognition or malformed goal cues. The contribution is potentially significant, but the supporting evidence is incomplete.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 (Acoustic source assignment)] The paper repeatedly states that audio "does not reveal the source identity, target category, goal modality, or goal index" (Section 3.1; similarly Section 3.2). This is the load-bearing premise for the benchmark's central challenge: if the sound is actually the target object's characteristic sound (e.g., a ringing phone or a barking dog), then a spectrogram-based classifier could infer the goal category directly from audio, bypassing visual-semantic verification and goal-state disambiguation. The manuscript never specifies what acoustic signal is used, whether it is object-specific or a synthetic beacon, or how the non-leakage property was verified. The authors should provide this specification and an analysis or ablation showing that audio does not reveal category/identity; otherwise the benchmark may measure acoustic category recognition rather than task-conditioned cue grounding.
  2. [Section 3.2 (Valid target instances)] The episode pool is filtered by an "open-vocabulary detector" to verify that target instances are recognizable from navigable viewpoints, but the detector is never named, its thresholds are not given, and no accuracy or false-positive analysis is reported. If the detector accepts instances that are not reliably recognizable from actual agent observation poses, then description-based and image-based goals may be under-specified or unverifiable. Since the benchmark's claim that failures reflect navigation/grounding rather than malformed goal cues depends on this validation step, the authors need to specify the detector, report its validation performance, and ideally release the verification viewpoints and human-checked examples.
  3. [Section 5, Table 2 (Main Result)] The main empirical table omits SCOPE, which is listed as a baseline, and reports only single-run success percentages without variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests. With SR values between 0.0% and 3.1%, the differences among baselines and PAG-Nav could easily be within run-to-run noise. The paper also claims that audio improves long-horizon search, but no no-audio ablation of PAG-Nav is shown; the comparison against vision-language-only baselines confounds audio with architectural differences. Please include the missing baseline, add multiple seeds or statistically meaningful error bars, and provide a controlled audio on/off comparison for the same agent.
  4. [Availability and reproducibility] As a benchmark paper, the manuscript provides no dataset download link, no code, no episode specifications, and no evaluation harness. The central contribution is the benchmark itself, so leaving out release artifacts makes the proposed resource unusable and the results non-reproducible. At minimum, the paper should include a public repository/URL and describe the exact protocol for episode generation and evaluation; if release is planned only after publication, this should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] Typo: "Stey-by-step" should be "Step-by-step".
  2. [References] REVERIE appears twice as references [2] and [15], which is redundant and confusing.
  3. [Table 3] Rows for "DAgger only Imitation" and "Direct PPO RL" are filled with dashes. Either these experiments are not part of the reported validation, in which case remove the rows, or report the results and explain the missing values.
  4. [Throughout] Spacing artifacts such as "MA V-Nav", "SA VN-CE", and "LH-A VLN" appear inconsistently; please fix the macro/rendering issues in the camera-ready version.
  5. [Figure 2] The caption says "(b) Episode Distribution" but the subfigure labels and y-axis are not fully described; please clarify whether the x-axis is number of goals and what the y-axis represents.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: benchmark construction and baseline evaluations are self-contained; the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

Walked the chain: task definition (Sec 3.1) sets goals/audio/actions; benchmark construction (Sec 3.2) builds episodes from detector-verified instances, constructs cues, assigns sounds, and validates reachability—none of these steps fits a parameter to the evaluated outcome or defines X via Y. PAG-Nav (Sec 4) is a modular baseline: its search/ground/verify stages use semantic priors, audio memory, and visual verification, but the paper does not derive any predicted result from those priors; the scoring equations (S_search, S_ground, Submit) are algorithmic choices, not fits to the benchmark answers. The central difficulty claim is supported by external baselines (MTU3D, 3D-Mem, SAVI, Goat-bench, etc.) in Table 2, so it does not reduce to a self-citation. The only self-citation is the phrase in Sec 4.1.3 that the semantic priors are 'similar in spirit' to SG-Nav (ref [3], the authors' own PSG-Nav preprint); this is a non-load-bearing attribution, not a theorem, fitted value, or uniqueness argument, and no result depends on it. The unverified claim that audio 'does not reveal the source identity, target category, goal modality, or goal index' (Sec 3.1/3.2) is a benchmark-validity risk (potential audio leakage), not a circular reduction. Therefore no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark's central claims rest on several domain assumptions: realistic binaural rendering (SoundSpaces 2.0), reliable automatic verification of target instances via an open-vocabulary detector, the suitability of CLIP embeddings for multimodal goals, and typical indoor room-object priors. PAG-Nav also has hand-chosen weights and thresholds whose values are not reported. No new physical entities are introduced; the alternating-sound schedule is a task configuration, not a postulated entity.

free parameters (4)
  • search weights λ_r, λ_o, λ_a = not reported
    Weights in S_search (Section 4.1.3) balance room prior, object prior, and acoustic bearing; no values or tuning procedure are given.
  • grounding weights λ_vs, λ_c, λ_as = not reported
    Weights in S_ground (Section 4.1.3) balance visual-semantic compatibility, context prior, and audio-intensity consistency; values are not reported.
  • submit thresholds δ_sub, θ_sub = not reported
    Distance and heading thresholds in the submission gate (Section 4.1.3); no values are given, yet they determine when PAG-Nav commits to a goal.
  • success radius = 2.0 m
    Evaluation criterion for Submit/Stop (Section 5); a hand-set threshold that defines what counts as reaching a goal and directly shapes all reported metrics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SoundSpaces 2.0 binaural rendering approximates real indoor acoustics well enough for spatialized audio navigation.
    Used to generate all audio observations; the benchmark's audio value depends on this fidelity (Sections 3.2 and 5).
  • domain assumption Open-vocabulary detector reliably verifies whether target instances are visually recognizable from navigable viewpoints.
    The instance pool is filtered by this detector; if it accepts non-verifiable instances, description/image goals may be invalid (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption CLIP embeddings provide sufficient semantic alignment between text/image goal cues and visual observations.
    Used for goal parsing and visual-semantic matching in PAG-Nav and MAV-Nav (Appendix A.1.1).
  • domain assumption Room-object and object-object commonsense priors transfer to Matterport3D scenes.
    PAG-Nav search and grounding scores rely on P_room, P_obj, and P_ctx priors (Section 4.1.3).
  • domain assumption The 2 m success radius is a fair criterion for goal completion.
    Evaluation definition; too large could allow cheating, too small could make instances unverifiable (Section 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LH-AVLN: A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Audio-Visual-Language Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U7H6LD4P

@misc{pith2026260703920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LH-AVLN: A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Audio-Visual-Language Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U7H6LD4P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.03920}
}
read the original abstract

Embodied navigation is moving toward long-horizon missions, yet existing long-horizon benchmarks are largely acoustically silent, and audio-visual navigation tasks typically focus on a single goal. We introduce LH-AVLN, a benchmark for Long-Horizon Audio-Visual-Language Navigation that combines multi-goal mission execution, heterogeneous goal specifications, and persistent spatialized acoustic cues. In LH-AVLN, an agent receives a global mission of two to four goals specified by category, language description, or reference image, and navigates with RGB-D observations, pose, and binaural audio in indoor 3D environments. The benchmark supports both ordered and unordered missions, where alternating goal-associated sounds can guide non-line-of-sight search but may also become distractors as mission progress changes. We further develop PAG-Nav, a training-free reference agent that maintains a temporal uniform semantic map and performs progressive goal-state planning, using sound for search while reserving completion for visual-semantic verification. Experiments show that existing vision-language, memory-based, and audio-visual agents struggle to complete full LH-AVLN missions, and that PAG-Nav provides a stronger diagnostic baseline while leaving substantial room for future progress.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of LH-AVLN. An agent receives a global task with heterogeneous goals specified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Benchmark construction and statistics of LH-AVLN. (a) Goal cues are constructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of PAG-Nav. (Left) The agent receives heterogeneous goal specifications and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Vision-and-language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments

    Peter Anderson, Qi Wu, Damien Teney, Jake Bruce, Mark Johnson, Niko Sunderhauf, Ian Reid, Stephen Gould, and Anton van den Hengel. Vision-and-language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments. In2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Jun 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Reverie: Remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments

    Yuankai Qi, Qi Wu, Peter Anderson, Xin Wang, William Yang Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. Reverie: Remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9982–9991, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Psg-nav: Probabilis- tic scene graph navigation via multiverse decision making.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.01313, 2026

    Rufeng Chen, Yue Chang, Xiaqiang Tang, Hechang Chen, and Sihong Xie. Psg-nav: Probabilis- tic scene graph navigation via multiverse decision making.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.01313, 2026. 8

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Multion: Bench- marking semantic map memory using multi-object navigation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9700–9712, 2020

    Saim Wani, Shivansh Patel, Unnat Jain, Angel Chang, and Manolis Savva. Multion: Bench- marking semantic map memory using multi-object navigation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9700–9712, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Goat-bench: A benchmark for multi-modal lifelong navigation

    Mukul Khanna, Ram Ramrakhya, Gunjan Chhablani, Sriram Yenamandra, Theophile Gervet, Matthew Chang, Zsolt Kira, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Dhruv Batra, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. Goat-bench: A benchmark for multi-modal lifelong navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16373–16383, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Soundspaces: Audio-visual navigaton in 3d environments

    Changan Chen, Unnat Jain, Carl Schissler, Sebastia Vicenc Amengual Gari, Ziad Al-Halah, Vamsi Krishna Ithapu, Philip Robinson, and Kristen Grauman. Soundspaces: Audio-visual navigaton in 3d environments. InECCV, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Soundspaces 2.0: A simulation platform for visual-acoustic learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:8896– 8911, 2022

    Changan Chen, Carl Schissler, Sanchit Garg, Philip Kobernik, Alexander Clegg, Paul Calamia, Dhruv Batra, Philip Robinson, and Kristen Grauman. Soundspaces 2.0: A simulation platform for visual-acoustic learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:8896– 8911, 2022

    2022

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Semantic audio-visual navigation

    Changan Chen, Ziad Al-Halah, and Kristen Grauman. Semantic audio-visual navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15516–15525, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Avlen: Audio-visual-language embodied navigation in 3d environments.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:6236–6249, 2022

    Sudipta Paul, Amit Roy-Chowdhury, and Anoop Cherian. Avlen: Audio-visual-language embodied navigation in 3d environments.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:6236–6249, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Semantic audio-visual navigation in continuous environments

    Yichen Zeng, Hebaixu Wang, Meng Liu, Yu Zhou, Kehan Chen, Chen Gao, and Gongping Huang. Semantic audio-visual navigation in continuous environments. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 22369–22379, 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    NavLA2: A vision-language-audio-action model for multimodal instruction navigation

    Jugang Fan, Peihao Chen, Changhao Li, Qing Du, Jian Chen, and Mingkui Tan. NavLA2: A vision-language-audio-action model for multimodal instruction navigation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 40, pages 18234–18242, 2026

    2026

  5. [13]

    Towards audio-visual navigation in noisy environments: a large-scale benchmark dataset and an architecture considering multiple sound- sources

    Zhanbo Shi, Lin Zhang, Linfei Li, and Ying Shen. Towards audio-visual navigation in noisy environments: a large-scale benchmark dataset and an architecture considering multiple sound- sources. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 14...

    2025

  6. [14]

    Catch me if you hear me: Audio-visual navigation in complex unmapped environments with moving sounds

    Abdelrahman Younes, Daniel Honerkamp, Tim Welschehold, and Abhinav Valada. Catch me if you hear me: Audio-visual navigation in complex unmapped environments with moving sounds. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8(2):928–935, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Reverie: Remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments

    Yuankai Qi, Qi Wu, Peter Anderson, Xin Wang, William Yang Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. Reverie: Remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments. In2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Jun 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

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

    Jacob Krantz, Erik Wijmans, Arjun Majumdar, Dhruv Batra, and Stefan Lee. Beyond the nav-graph: Vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2020,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, page 104–120, Jan 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Conavbench: Collaborative long-horizon vision-language navi- gation benchmark

    Tianhang Wang, Xinhai Li, Fan Lu, Tianshi Gong, Jiankun Dong, Weiyi Xue, Sanqing Qu, Chenjia Bai, and Guang Chen. Conavbench: Collaborative long-horizon vision-language navi- gation benchmark. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    2026

  10. [18]

    General scene adaptation for vision-and-language navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17403, 2025

    Haodong Hong, Yanyuan Qiao, Sen Wang, Jiajun Liu, and Qi Wu. General scene adaptation for vision-and-language navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17403, 2025. 9

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Matterport3d: Learning from rgb-d data in indoor environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.06158, 2017

    Angel Chang, Angela Dai, Thomas Funkhouser, Maciej Halber, Matthias Niessner, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Andy Zeng, and Yinda Zhang. Matterport3d: Learning from rgb-d data in indoor environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.06158, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Move to understand a 3d scene: Bridging visual grounding and exploration for efficient and versatile embodied navigation

    Ziyu Zhu, Xilin Wang, Yixuan Li, Zhuofan Zhang, Xiaojian Ma, Yixin Chen, Baoxiong Jia, Wei Liang, Qian Yu, Zhidong Deng, et al. Move to understand a 3d scene: Bridging visual grounding and exploration for efficient and versatile embodied navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/C...

    2025

  13. [21]

    3d-mem: 3d scene memory for embodied exploration and reasoning

    Yuncong Yang, Han Yang, Jiachen Zhou, Peihao Chen, Hongxin Zhang, Yilun Du, and Chuang Gan. 3d-mem: 3d scene memory for embodied exploration and reasoning. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 17294–17303, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Expand your scope: Semantic cognition over potential-based exploration for embodied visual navigation

    Ningnan Wang, Weihuang Chen, Liming Chen, Haoxuan Ji, Zhongyu Guo, Xuchong Zhang, and Hongbin Sun. Expand your scope: Semantic cognition over potential-based exploration for embodied visual navigation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 40,...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.