Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

DaViNCi: A Dataset Towards Outdoor Vision-and-Language Navigation with Continuous Actions and Dynamic Elements

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DaViNCi is the first outdoor VLN dataset to combine continuous driving actions with moving traffic, and experiments show this combination lowers success rates by more than 10 percentage points compared with static discrete datasets.

desk verdict A useful outdoor VLN dataset whose central 'continuous actions' claim is contradicted by its own seven-symbol action space. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11901 v1 pith:GBXVF6XV submitted 2026-08-12 cs.RO

Zihao Xie , Pingrui Lai , Yitong Wu , Hua Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords OutdoorVision-and-LanguageNavigationContinuousEnvironmentDynamicElementsReinforcementLearningCARLAsimulatordatasetbenchmarksim-to-realtransfer
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

Vision-and-language navigation (VLN) research has mostly moved indoors and, outdoors, has relied on fixed waypoint graphs in static scenes. The paper argues this is the wrong abstraction for vehicles: real streets are continuous and filled with moving traffic. To address this, DaViNCi collects 6,933 path-instruction pairs across six CARLA towns where the agent drives with continuous actions and must share the road with randomly moving vehicles and pedestrians. The central empirical claim is that this combination is genuinely harder: existing outdoor VLN methods lose more than 10 percentage points in success when transferred to a discretized version of DaViNCi, and a purpose-built continuous baseline reaches only 5.8–18.2 percent success. The experiments also isolate the difficulty, showing that increasing the number of dynamic elements lowers performance monotonically while action granularity has no consistent effect.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a continuous action space with a dynamic rendering loop inside the CARLA simulator. Instead of pre-collected panoramic snapshots at fixed waypoints, the agent requests first-person RGB images in real time based on its current pose, so the same route looks different whenever obstacles are present. Instruction generation uses a two-stage pipeline: turn directions are first computed from the recorded trajectory as hard constraints, and a vision-language model converts first-person video plus those constraints into landmark-grounded text, which is then manually cleaned. The continuous-mode baseline COVL-RL supplies the policy that closes the loop: at each timestep it takes the global instruction, the current image, and a history of past images and actions, and outputs one of seven driving actions; this lets the authors measure how much of the difficulty comes from actions (granularity) versus perception of moving objects (dynamic elements).

What would settle it

Run the same continuous baseline twice on the same routes: once with moving vehicles and pedestrians, and once with identical vehicles and pedestrians placed at fixed positions. If success rates and path completion are the same in both conditions, then the dynamic property itself is not what makes DaViNCi hard, only the presence of extra objects; equivalently, replay trained agents against real recorded traffic in the same CARLA towns and check whether the baseline ranking of methods changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DaViNCi is the first outdoor VLN dataset that simultaneously introduces continuous and dynamic factors. Paths are generated by tracking autonomous vehicles driving freely in CARLA, instructions are produced from first-person video and trajectory-derived turn events by a two-stage VLM pipeline followed by manual clean-up, and at execution time the same path is rendered with randomly spawned vehicles and pedestrians so that visual input changes from trial to trial. The authors validate the dataset in two modes: discrete, where existing outdoor VLN methods score 30–40 percent success versus 48–60 percent on Touchdown and Map2Seq; and continuous, where the COVL-RL baseline, an online RL agent conditioned on instruction, current image, and trajectory history, scores 5.8–18.2 percent success. They further show that adding dynamic elements from 0 to 30 vehicles and pedestrians degrades success on every tested map, while step size (3, 4, or 5 meters) has only a weak, non-linear effect. The conclusion is that DaViNCi raises the bar for outdoor VLN and offers a benchmark closer to the conditions a deployed driving agent would face.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that DaViNCi captures the challenge of real outdoor driving rests on randomly spawned, rule-based vehicles and pedestrians standing in for real, unpredictable traffic; if those actors behave too simply, the measured difficulty drops may not transfer to real roads.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing outdoor VLN agents trained on static discrete datasets should expect success rates more than 10 percentage points lower when evaluated on DaViNCi in discrete mode, giving the field a harder yardstick.
  • In continuous mode, an agent trained on one town does not automatically generalize: success on unseen towns is generally below the seen town, so cross-map generalization remains an open problem.
  • Increasing dynamic elements monotonically reduces success and path completion, so traffic density is a first-order difficulty parameter for outdoor VLN benchmarks.
  • Action granularity (3, 4, or 5 meters per step) has little consistent effect, which suggests the continuous action space is not the primary bottleneck; visual variability caused by moving entities is.
  • The dataset and its COVL-RL baseline provide a reusable testbed for online, closed-loop VLN agents that must react to a changing visual world.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-stage instruction-generation design (trajectory-derived turn constraints first, VLM text grounding second) could be reused outside DaViNCi, for instance to produce navigational instructions from dashcam logs or other simulators, reducing hallucinated landmarks.
  • Because the paper finds granularity nearly irrelevant while dynamic elements cost performance, a cheaper way to stress-test static outdoor VLN agents may be to inject moving obstacles into existing discrete datasets rather than building a fully continuous one.
  • The monotonic loss with added traffic suggests that agents with explicit memory for object positions or ability to predict future obstacle motion could recover much of the gap; DaViNCi is a natural benchmark for testing such predictive policies.
  • Since every observation is generated inside CARLA with rule-based actors, the sim-to-real conclusion is only as strong as the simulator's fidelity; verification in higher-fidelity simulators or real closed-loop settings would be needed to confirm the transfer claim.
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. The paper introduces DaViNCi, a CARLA-based outdoor Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) dataset containing 6,933 trajectories across six maps, with instructions generated by a VLM and then manually fine-tuned. The authors claim this is the first outdoor VLN dataset to simultaneously provide continuous action control and dynamic environmental elements. They build a discrete version of four maps to compare existing outdoor VLN methods against Touchdown and Map2Seq, and they propose an RL-based baseline (COVL-RL) for a continuous experimental setting, also studying the effect of action granularity and the number of dynamic elements. The central claims are that DaViNCi is more challenging than previous datasets, with success rates dropping by more than 10% in discrete settings and by even more in continuous settings, and that this will advance sim-to-real transfer for VLN agents.

Significance. If the central claims are validated, DaViNCi would be a useful contribution: it provides a relatively large outdoor VLN dataset with diverse maps, dynamic objects, and a reproducible benchmark pipeline, including a random-policy baseline and an RL baseline. The authors also give credit for collecting first-person video and using trajectory-derived turn events to constrain instruction generation. However, the paper's principal novelty—continuous actions—is not actually exercised in the experiments: the action space in Section 4.2.1 is a seven-symbol discrete set with fixed 4 m steps, so the claimed 'continuous actions' paradigm shift is not demonstrated. The abstract's '10% success rate decrease' claim is also not precisely supported by the reported metrics (TC, SPD, nDTW) and is confounded by different map granularities. The dynamic-elements contribution is plausible but rests on unvalidated assumptions about realism. These issues are fixable within the scope of the manuscript, but they are load-bearing and require substantive revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.1, Section 4.2.3, Figure 5] The paper claims 'continuous actions' as a central novelty (Abstract, Section 1, Figure 5), but the actual experimental action space is discrete: A ∈ {sharpleft, left, straight, right, sharpright, lanechange, stop}, executed with a fixed 4 m step. A policy over seven categorical symbols is a discrete action space, regardless of whether the underlying simulator state is continuous. Varying the step size (3/4/5 m in Table 4) does not make the action parameterization continuous. If 'continuous environment' is meant to refer to free movement without a topological graph, rather than continuous action control, the text must be re-scoped and the 'paradigm shift from discrete to continuous' claim must be revised accordingly.
  2. [Abstract, Section 4.1, Table 2] The abstract and conclusion claim that 'the success rate on DaViNCi decreased by more than 10% in discrete environments compared to previous datasets,' but Table 2 reports TC, SPD, and nDTW, not success rate. TC is not defined in the evaluation-metrics paragraph, and if TC is intended to be the success rate, that should be stated explicitly. Moreover, the comparison is confounded: town03 uses a 12 m discretization while other maps use 5 m, and the Touchdown/Map2Seq columns are from different datasets and map structures. Please provide per-model, per-map success rates with clear definitions, or remove the unsupported 'success rate' wording.
  3. [Section 4.2.4, Tables 3, 4, 5] The RL baseline results in Tables 3–5 are reported without standard deviations or the number of seeds. Given that the random-policy baseline achieves near-zero success rates, single-seed results are insufficient to support the conclusions about granularity (Table 4) and dynamic-element impact (Table 5), where the differences between rows are often small (e.g., town03 SR 17.1 vs 17.6 vs 17.9). Please run multiple seeds and report mean ± std, or explicitly state that these are single-seed results and temper the corresponding conclusions.
  4. [Section 3.1.3, Section 5] The dynamic elements—randomly spawned vehicles and pedestrians acting 'based on programmatic rules and operate randomly'—are the core of the 'dynamic' novelty, but no evidence is presented that they represent realistic unpredictable urban traffic. The paper later attributes performance decline to 'obstruction of the partial field of view' without a causal analysis. To support the claim that DaViNCi 'will significantly advance the sim-to-real transfer of VLN agents,' please validate the dynamic actors (e.g., report collision rates, interaction statistics, or a comparison with scripted traffic scenarios) or explicitly narrow the claim to 'dynamic elements in simulation.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are multiple grammatical and typographical issues: 'the figure. 2' and 'the figure. 3' should be 'Figure 2' and 'Figure 3'; 'we introduces' in Related Work should be 'we introduce'; Figure 5 contains 'LTSM', which should be 'LSTM'.
  2. [Section 4.1.2] The metrics TC, SPD, and nDTW are named as 'standard metrics' but not defined. Please provide explicit formulas or references, especially because the abstract refers to 'success rate,' which may or may not correspond to TC.
  3. [Section 4.1.1] The term 'granularity' is used for two different concepts: discrete map discretization (5 m vs 12 m) in Section 4.1.1 and continuous action step size (3/4/5 m) in Table 4. This is confusing; please use distinct terms such as 'map discretization' and 'action step size.'
  4. [Section 3.1.2] The citation for the 'CARLA AD Leaderboard' is given as [6], which is the NAVSIM paper (Dauner et al., 2024), not the CARLA Leaderboard. Please cite the correct source or remove the citation.
  5. [Section 4.2.3] The equation defines Path Completion (PC), but the metric used in tables is called Average Path Completion (APC). Please clarify the relationship between PC and APC.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the dataset's difficulty claims rest on external baselines and controlled ablations; the 'continuous actions' labeling issue is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

This is a dataset-construction paper, not a derivation. The reported success-rate drops and ablations are empirical measurements obtained from external models (GA, VELMA, FLAME, etc.), a random-policy baseline, and controlled variations of action granularity and dynamic-element counts. No parameter is fitted to the target metric and then renamed a prediction. The dataset definition does not by construction force the performance declines: the random baseline achieves near-zero success, and external models trained on other datasets achieve non-trivial but lower success on DaViNCi, so the challenge conclusion is an interpretation of externally measured results. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems; all cited works are prior external benchmarks and methods. The one notable issue is that the paper's 'continuous actions' claim is weakened by its own Section 4.2.1 action space, a seven-symbol set with a fixed 4 m step, and by the fixed-step executions in Section 4.2.3. That is an internal-consistency and novelty-scoping concern about how the term 'continuous' is used, but it is not circularity: the reported success rates are not entailed by the action-space definition, and the granularity sweeps (3 m/4 m/5 m) do not constitute a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. Because the central claims are supported by external measurement rather than by definition or self-citation, the circularity score is 0.

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

The central performance claims depend on several hand-chosen quantities: the 10 m success radius, the 4 m step size, the 30+30 dynamic elements, and map-specific discretization granularities. The paper's interpretation also leans on unstated background assumptions about CARLA's realism, the quality of auto-generated instructions, and the validity of the chosen metrics.

free parameters (4)
  • Success-radius threshold = 10 m
    Used to define success rate in the continuous experiment (Section 4.2.3); hand-chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • Default action step size = 4 m per action
    Default step size for the RL baseline (Section 4.2.3); tests at 3 m and 5 m show no clear effect, but all three are hand-picked.
  • Default dynamic population = 30 vehicles + 30 pedestrians
    Default environment density for the main continuous baseline (Section 4.2.3); other densities tested in Table 5.
  • Discretization granularities for discrete comparison = 5 m for town01/02/10; 12 m for town03
    Map-specific hand-chosen granularities in Section 4.1.1; confounded with map identity in the discrete comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CARLA simulator is a sufficient proxy for real outdoor driving for VLN research.
    The dataset is generated entirely in CARLA (Section 3.1.1), and the conclusion claims it 'will significantly advance the sim-to-real transfer'; no real-world validation is provided.
  • domain assumption The CARLA autopilot generates natural, instruction-worthy paths.
    Section 3.1.2 relies on 'a random autonomous vehicle to navigate freely' and 'vehicle maneuvers at critical positions are determined by the autonomous driving program' to define ground-truth paths.
  • domain assumption VLM-generated instructions with manual fine-tuning are accurate and aligned with the visual landmarks.
    Section 3.1.2 and Section 3.1.4 describe instruction generation and 'manual fine-tuning' but report no alignment metric, inter-annotator agreement, or human evaluation.
  • domain assumption Prior outdoor VLN datasets are static and discrete, and Touchdown/Map2Seq are the correct comparators.
    Table 1 and Section 2 characterize the prior art this way; the discrete experiments in Section 4.1 use these datasets as baselines without a search for continuous outdoor comparators.
  • domain assumption The evaluation metrics TC, SPD, nDTW and the 10 m radius SR correctly capture navigation success.
    Section 4.1.2 and Section 4.2.3 adopt these metrics from prior work; no analysis is given to show they are meaningful for the new dynamic setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DaViNCi: A Dataset Towards Outdoor Vision-and-Language Navigation with Continuous Actions and Dynamic Elements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBXVF6XV

@misc{pith2026260811901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DaViNCi: A Dataset Towards Outdoor Vision-and-Language Navigation with Continuous Actions and Dynamic Elements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBXVF6XV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11901}
}
read the original abstract

Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) has progressively expanded from indoor to outdoor environments. However, existing outdoor VLN datasets still rely on fixed discrete topological graphs for construction. It fails to align with the rapidly changing real-world outdoor environments and impedes the sim-to-real transfer of VLN agents. To address this limitation, we propose DaViNCi (\textbf{D}yn\textbf{a}mic \textbf{Vi}sion-and-Language \textbf{N}avigation in \textbf{C}ont\textbf{i}nuous Environment), the first outdoor VLN dataset that simultaneously introduces both continuous and dynamic factors. The agent not only moves in the outdoor environment using continuous actions but is also required to handle unpredictable dynamic elements. The dataset encompasses six distinct maps with a total of 6,933 trajectories. Through comprehensive comparative experiments, we find that the success rate on DaViNCi decreased by more than 10\% in discrete environments compared to previous datasets. And there is an even greater decline in continuous settings, demonstrating the challenge of DaViNCi. Furthermore, we clarify the impact of action granularity and dynamic elements. These results demonstrate the practical value of DaViNCi in advancing outdoor VLN toward more realistic environments. The website is https://xzh0312.github.io/DaViNCi/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between DaViNCi and previous datasets. Unlike previous ones, it possesses continuous and dynamic properties ACM Reference Format: Zihao Xie, Pingrui Lai, Yitong Wu, and Hua Yang. 2026. DaViNCi: A Dataset Towards Outdoor Vision-and-Language Navigation with Continuous Ac￾tions and Dynamic Elements. In . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 7 pages. https://doi.org/XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX 1 Introduction When transporting passeng… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of DaViNCi. (a) Several representative scenarios employed in the dataset. (b) Traffic scenarios that the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Statistics of Path Length. The distribution of path [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Statistics of Instructions. The left subfigure illus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: COVL-RL Architecture. (1) Feature extraction and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dong An, Yuankai Qi, Yangguang Li, Yan Huang, Liang Wang, Tieniu Tan, and Jing Shao. 2022. Bevbert: Multimodal map pre-training for language-guided navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04385(2022)

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Peter Anderson, Qi Wu, Damien Teney, Jake Bruce, Mark Johnson, Niko Sünder- hauf, Ian Reid, Stephen Gould, and Anton Van Den Hengel. 2018. Vision-and- language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 3674–3683

    2018

  3. [3]

    Howard Chen, Alane Suhr, Dipendra Misra, Noah Snavely, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Touchdown: Natural language navigation and spatial reasoning in visual street environments. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 12538–12547

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Shizhe Chen, Pierre-Louis Guhur, Cordelia Schmid, and Ivan Laptev. 2021. History aware multimodal transformer for vision-and-language navigation.Advances in neural information processing systems34 (2021), 5834–5847

    2021

  5. [5]

    Shizhe Chen, Pierre-Louis Guhur, Makarand Tapaswi, Cordelia Schmid, and Ivan Laptev. 2022. Think global, act local: Dual-scale graph transformer for vision- and-language navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 16537–16547

    2022

  6. [6]

    Daniel Dauner, Marcel Hallgarten, Tianyu Li, Xinshuo Weng, Zhiyu Huang, Zetong Yang, Hongyang Li, Igor Gilitschenski, Boris Ivanovic, Marco Pavone, Andreas Geiger, and Kashyap Chitta. 2024. NAVSIM: Data-Driven Non-Reactive Autonomous Vehicle Simulation and Benchmarking.arXiv2406.15349

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, German Ros, Felipe Codevilla, Antonio Lopez, and Vladlen Koltun. 2017. CARLA: An Open Urban Driving Simulator. InProceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning. 1–16

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Xiaofeng Gao, Qiaozi Gao, Ran Gong, Kaixiang Lin, Govind Thattai, and Gaurav S Sukhatme. 2022. Dialfred: Dialogue-enabled agents for embodied instruction following.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters7, 4 (2022), 10049–10056

    work page 2022

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Lixuan He, Haoyu Dong, Zhenxing Chen, Yangcheng Yu, Jie Feng, and Yong Li

  2. [10]

    Vihan Jain, Gabriel Magalhaes, Alexander Ku, Ashish Vaswani, Eugene Ie, and Ja- son Baldridge. 2019. Stay on the path: Instruction fidelity in vision-and-language navigation. InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics. 1862–1872

    2019

  3. [11]

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

  4. [12]

    Alexander Ku, Peter Anderson, Roma Patel, Eugene Ie, and Jason Baldridge. 2020. Room-across-room: Multilingual vision-and-language navigation with dense spatiotemporal grounding. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). ...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Jungdae Lee, Taiki Miyanishi, Shuhei Kurita, Koya Sakamoto, Daichi Azuma, Yutaka Matsuo, and Nakamasa Inoue. 2025. Citynav: A large-scale dataset for real- world aerial navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 5912–5922

    2025

  6. [14]

    Chengshu Li, Ruohan Zhang, Josiah Wong, Cem Gokmen, Sanjana Srivastava, Roberto Martín-Martín, Chen Wang, Gabrael Levine, Michael Lingelbach, Jiankai Sun, et al. 2023. Behavior-1k: A benchmark for embodied ai with 1,000 everyday activities and realistic simulation. InConferenc...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Shubo Liu, Hongsheng Zhang, Yuankai Qi, Peng Wang, Yanning Zhang, and Qi Wu. 2023. Aerialvln: Vision-and-language navigation for uavs. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 15384–15394

    2023

  8. [16]

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

    2020

  9. [17]

    Raphael Schumann and Stefan Riezler. 2021. Generating landmark navigation instructions from maps as a graph-to-text problem. InProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Languag...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Raphael Schumann and Stefan Riezler. 2022. Analyzing generalization of vision and language navigation to unseen outdoor areas. InProceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 7519–7532

    2022

  11. [19]

    Raphael Schumann, Wanrong Zhu, Weixi Feng, Tsu-Jui Fu, Stefan Riezler, and William Yang Wang. 2024. Velma: Verbalization embodiment of llm agents for vision and language navigation in street view. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. 18924–18933

    2024

  12. [20]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pat...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Jesse Thomason, Michael Murray, Maya Cakmak, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Vision-and-dialog navigation. InConference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 394–406

    2020

  14. [22]

    Arun Balajee Vasudevan, Dengxin Dai, and Luc Van Gool. 2021. Talk2nav: Long- range vision-and-language navigation with dual attention and spatial memory. International Journal of Computer Vision129, 1 (2021), 246–266

    2021

  15. [23]

    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 Systems36 (2023), 16353–16366

    2023

  16. [24]

    Liuyi Wang, Zongtao He, Ronghao Dang, Mengjiao Shen, Chengju Liu, and Qijun Chen. 2024. Vision-and-language navigation via causal learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 13139–13150

    2024

  17. [25]

    Zihan Wang, Xiangyang Li, Jiahao Yang, Yeqi Liu, and Shuqiang Jiang. 2023. Gridmm: Grid memory map for vision-and-language navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International conference on computer vision. 15625–15636

    2023

  18. [26]

    Yunzhe Xu, Yiyuan Pan, Zhe Liu, and Hesheng Wang. 2025. Flame: Learning to navigate with multimodal llm in urban environments. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39. 9005–9013

    2025

  19. [27]

    Sriram Yenamandra, Arun Ramachandran, Karmesh Yadav, Austin Wang, Mukul Khanna, Theophile Gervet, Tsung-Yen Yang, Vidhi Jain, Alexander William Clegg, John Turner, et al. 2023. Homerobot: Open-vocabulary mobile manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11565(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Zekai Zhang, Weiye Zhu, Hewei Pan, Xiangchen Wang, Rongtao Xu, Xing Sun, and Feng Zheng. 2025. Activevln: Towards active exploration via multi-turn rl in vision-and-language navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12618(2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Fengda Zhu, Xiwen Liang, Yi Zhu, Qizhi Yu, Xiaojun Chang, and Xiaodan Liang

  22. [2020]

    InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision

    Beyond the nav-graph: Vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 104–120

  23. [2021]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Soon: Scenario oriented object navigation with graph-based exploration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 12689–12699. Received 20 February 2007; revised 12 March 2009; accepted 5 June 2009

    2007

  24. [2025]

    Mem4Nav: Boosting Vision-and-Language Navigation in Urban Environ- ments with a Hierarchical Spatial-Cognition Long-Short Memory System.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19433(2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.