Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Grounded Vision-Language Navigation for UAVs with Open-Vocabulary Goal Understanding

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read VLFly enables a UAV to follow open-vocabulary natural language instructions in unseen environments, without fine-tuning and using only monocular RGB observations.

desk verdict A clean modular zero-shot UAV VLN system with real flight demos, but the 'outperforms all baselines' claim is not actually tested end-to-end. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10756 v1 pith:MZZGOJFN submitted 2025-06-12 cs.RO cs.AI

Yuhang Zhang , Haosheng Yu , Jiaping Xiao , Mir Feroskhan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords vision-languagenavigationunmannedaerialvehiclesopen-vocabularygoalunderstandingzero-shottransfercontinuousvelocitycontrolmodularlearninglargelanguagemodelsCLIP
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 proposes VLFly, a modular framework that lets a UAV follow natural-language navigation instructions in unseen indoor and outdoor places without any task-specific fine-tuning. The intended contribution is an open-vocabulary vision-language navigation system that maps egocentric monocular RGB frames and a sentence like "fly where a student can keep textbooks" directly to continuous velocity commands, avoiding the discrete action sets and localization or ranging requirements of earlier VLN systems. A sympathetic reading of the results is that VLFly outperforms the compared baselines in unseen simulation environments and succeeds on real-world direct and indirect instructions, supporting the claim that language-to-image grounding plus waypoint planning transfers zero-shot.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing chain is a cascade of three modules. The instruction encoder uses an LLM (LLaMA) with a constrained prompt template to rewrite any free-form instruction into the standardized line "Goal Image: a photo of [selected item]", restricting answers to a supplied list plus common objects. The goal retriever uses CLIP to embed that prompt and every candidate image in a shared space, selecting the image with the highest scaled cosine similarity after a softmax. The waypoint planner is a ViNT-style decoder-only Transformer: past egocentric frames are encoded separately, concatenated with a goal token produced from the current frame and goal image, and decoded into a temporal distance estimate plus a sequence of future relative waypoints; a PID controller then converts those waypoints to linear and angular velocities.

What would settle it

Take the VLFly pipeline in the furniture simulation, replace the retrieved goal image with an unrelated image from the same candidate pool, and keep everything else identical; if success rate stays comparable to the full system rather than collapsing, the language-grounding modules are not doing the work attributed to them. A complementary check is running ViNT alone with the true goal image and no language input against VLFly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that decomposing UAV vision-language navigation into three pre-trained components—an LLM that reformulates instructions into fixed-format goal prompts, a VLM that retrieves the best-matching goal image from a candidate pool, and a waypoint Transformer that predicts future egocentric positions from stacked frames plus the goal image—enables a drone to navigate by language with no additional training. VLFly outputs continuous velocity commands at about 7–15 Hz in simulation and on a real Tello Edu, using only monocular RGB observations. The authors report that it outperforms all baselines across medium and hard simulated environments and achieves 83% success on direct and 70% on indirect real-world instructions, with the indirect gap traced to semantic ambiguity in goal grounding.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ViNT waypoint planner, pretrained on ground robots, transfers to UAV egocentric video without any adaptation, a premise the experiments never isolate by comparing VLFly against ViNT alone or with a ground-truth goal image.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If VLFly's reported performance holds, UAV language navigation can be assembled from off-the-shelf pretrained components, avoiding per-environment data collection and fine-tuning.
  • Continuous velocity output removes the discrete-action assumption that most VLN methods inherit, making the framework directly deployable on real quadrotors.
  • Indirect instructions become tractable because the LLM step converts abstract semantics into a concrete goal phrase before visual grounding.
  • The system works without localization, depth sensors, or mapping, so deployment cost reduces to a monocular camera and a laptop or onboard GPU.
  • Performance degrades gracefully under semantic ambiguity, pointing to goal grounding rather than flight control as the limiting stage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the simulation baselines are evaluated without language grounding, so the simulation table chiefly tests waypoint planning; the language-grounding claim rests on the real-world trials and ablations, and a cleaner test would run VLFly in simulation with the same language instructions used in the real-world tasks.
  • Editorial inference: because the goal retriever requires a pre-collected candidate image pool, the framework's open-vocabulary power is bounded by pool coverage; pairing the retriever with an open-set detector could extend it to goals never imaged beforehand, a direction the conclusion names for future work.
  • Editorial inference: the reported 70–83% real-world success rates over 20 trials per condition suggest that instruction complexity, not environmental clutter, is the main failure driver; tracking goal-retrieval accuracy separately from navigation success would quantify how much of the indirect-instruction gap comes from ambiguous grounding versus trajectory error.
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 proposes VLFly, a modular zero-shot vision-and-language navigation (VLN) framework for UAVs. VLFly combines an LLM-based instruction encoder (LLaMA) that reformulates natural language into structured prompts, a CLIP-based goal retriever that matches the prompt to a predefined pool of goal images, and a ViNT-based waypoint planner that outputs continuous velocity commands from egocentric monocular RGB observations. The authors claim that VLFly, without any fine-tuning, outperforms all baselines in simulation and achieves robust open-vocabulary goal understanding in real-world indoor and outdoor flight tests. The manuscript presents simulation results in three Unity environments, real-world experiments with a Tello Edu drone, and ablation studies of the three modules.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, VLFly would be a valuable demonstration that off-the-shelf foundation models (LLM, CLIP, ViNT) can be integrated into a zero-shot, continuous-control UAV navigation pipeline. The real-world flights with egocentric monocular input and no external localization are a positive contribution, as is the use of continuous velocity commands rather than discrete actions. The paper also gives credit for releasing materials via a project page. However, the current evidence does not establish the headline claim of consistently outperforming all baselines on VLN, because the simulation comparison omits language grounding for the baselines and the real-world language experiments have no baselines. The lack of a ViNT-only ablation makes the specific contribution of the proposed modules unclear.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B, Table I, and Abstract] The central claim that VLFly 'consistently outperforms all baselines' is not supported by the experiments as designed. Section IV-B explicitly states that 'all baselines are evaluated solely on their navigation performance in simulation, without involving any language grounding components' and that the UAV is given a specified goal position. Thus Table I compares navigation-only performance, not vision-and-language navigation. The only instruction-driven evaluation, in Section IV-C, reports no baselines. Consequently, there is no experiment that compares the full VLFly system with the baselines on the same VLN task. This is load-bearing because the paper's main contribution is the language-to-navigation integration, so the headline claim should either be supported by a full VLN comparison or qualified accordingly.
  2. [Section III-C3 and Table II] The waypoint planner is ViNT, a pretrained visual navigation model described in [34], used without any fine-tuning. ViNT itself is never evaluated as a standalone baseline or as an ablation of VLFly. Without comparing VLFly to ViNT given the same retrieved goal image (or a ground-truth goal image), the observed navigation performance cannot be attributed to the proposed instruction encoding and goal retrieval modules rather than to ViNT's pretrained navigation competence. The ablation 'w/ RL Policy' in Table II replaces the waypoint planner, but it does not isolate ViNT's contribution to the integrated system, leaving a significant attribution gap.
  3. [Section IV-B and Figure 3] The box environment is excluded from the trajectory-based evaluation because 'it is primarily used for training certain baselines.' Table I shows that PPO and NPE-DRL outperform VLFly in that environment (SR 90.4 and 92.2 vs. 86.4). While the text qualifies the statement to 'unseen environments,' the abstract and conclusion state that VLFly 'consistently outperforms all baselines' without this qualification. The authors should either include a fully fair comparison in the training environment and discuss the outcome, or consistently restrict the claim to unseen environments throughout the paper.
  4. [Section IV-C, Figure 2, and Conclusion] The 'open-vocabulary goal understanding' claim is constrained by the design of the evaluation. The LLM prompt in Figure 2 restricts selection to a list of 100 common daily-life objects plus user-specified custom items, and the goal retriever selects from a predefined image pool. The conclusion acknowledges this limitation ('the goal retrieval module depends on a predefined image pool, limiting adaptability in open-world environments'). Given this explicit limitation, the abstract's unqualified 'open-vocabulary' wording should be tempered, or the paper should demonstrate retrieval from a dynamically generated candidate set to substantiate the stronger claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-C] The real-world success threshold is set to 0.8 m while the simulation threshold is 0.5 m; please justify this difference or report the sensitivity of the success rate to the threshold choice.
  2. [Section IV-D] The phrase 'under indirect instreuctions' contains a typo; it should read 'instructions'.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption notes that the box environment is excluded from trajectory evaluation, but this information appears only in the caption; consider adding a corresponding statement in the main text of Section IV-B where the environments are introduced.
  4. [Section III-C3] The text contains a formatting issue: 'UA V' appears with a space; also in Section IV-C 'VLFLy' should be 'VLFly'.
  5. [General] Since ViNT [34] is a core component, the paper should describe its pretraining data and domain more explicitly when discussing the transfer from ground robots to UAVs, to support the claim that the architecture is robust without adaptation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: VLFly is an untrained integration of pretrained modules; self-citations are not load-bearing and evaluation gaps are experimental, not definitional.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is modular integration rather than mathematical derivation. None of the three modules (LLaMA prompt encoder, CLIP goal retriever, ViNT waypoint planner) is fine-tuned or fitted to the evaluation data in this paper, and no equation defines an output in terms of the success metric. The LLM prompt in Fig. 2 does constrain goal selection to a generated list plus user-supplied custom items, and the goal retriever matches against a predefined image pool; as the paper's own conclusion admits, this limits open-world adaptability. That is a scope and validity limitation, not circularity: the physical arrival success criteria are external to the language-grounding inputs, and the reported success rates are not forced by construction. The self-citations ([13], [15], [27], [28], [29]) appear as related-work examples or as one baseline and do not supply a load-bearing premise; no uniqueness theorem or prior ansatz is imported to make the framework's choice forced. The absence of a full-VLN baseline comparison in Table I, where baselines are evaluated without language grounding, and the lack of a ViNT-only ablation are experimental attribution gaps that belong under correctness risk, not circularity. No step in the paper reduces to its own inputs, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on off-the-shelf pretrained models (LLaMA, CLIP, ViNT) and hand-chosen experimental settings. No new physical entities are introduced; the main unstated costs are the closed goal pool and the assumed transferability of ViNT to UAV flight.

free parameters (3)
  • Real-world success threshold = 0.8 m
    Chosen by hand as the success criterion for real-world episodes; the simulation threshold is 0.5 m. This choice directly determines the reported success rates.
  • Predefined goal image pool and custom item list = Small closed set of objects (e.g., backpack, toy, AprilTag)
    The image pool and the custom items injected into the LLM prompt define the set of possible goals. This bounds the open-vocabulary claim and affects goal retrieval and success rates.
  • Velocity scaling Vmax and control frequency = Unspecified
    Equation (6) scales predicted waypoints by Vmax/fc; these values and the PID gains are not reported, so the mapping from waypoints to velocities is not fully specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ViNT, pretrained on ground robot navigation data, transfers to UAV egocentric observations without fine-tuning.
    Section III-C3 states that the architecture is applied to UAV settings with higher viewpoint variability, yet no adaptation is performed; the entire navigation capability rests on this transfer.
  • domain assumption CLIP similarity reliably ranks the correct goal image within the predefined pool across lighting and viewpoint changes.
    The goal retrieval module assumes that CLIP embeddings of the LLM prompt and the candidate images align well enough to select the intended goal in unseen indoor and outdoor conditions.
  • domain assumption LLaMA-3-8B can reformulate arbitrary abstract instructions into the canonical 'a photo of [item]' format without grounding failure.
    The instruction encoding module generates structured prompts; if the LLM chooses an item not in the image pool or misinterprets indirect language, retrieval fails.
  • domain assumption Egocentric monocular RGB observations contain sufficient information for the planner to avoid obstacles and reach the goal without localization or ranging sensors.
    The problem formulation defines a POMDP with only RGB observations; the ability to navigate collision-free is assumed achievable from these observations.
  • domain assumption The PID controller accurately tracks predicted normalized waypoints under real UAV dynamics.
    Section III-C4 converts normalized waypoints to velocity commands via PID; no stability or tracking analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Grounded Vision-Language Navigation for UAVs with Open-Vocabulary Goal Understanding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZZGOJFN

@misc{pith2026250610756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Grounded Vision-Language Navigation for UAVs with Open-Vocabulary Goal Understanding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZZGOJFN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10756}
}
read the original abstract

Vision-and-language navigation (VLN) is a long-standing challenge in autonomous robotics, aiming to empower agents with the ability to follow human instructions while navigating complex environments. Two key bottlenecks remain in this field: generalization to out-of-distribution environments and reliance on fixed discrete action spaces. To address these challenges, we propose Vision-Language Fly (VLFly), a framework tailored for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to execute language-guided flight. Without the requirement for localization or active ranging sensors, VLFly outputs continuous velocity commands purely from egocentric observations captured by an onboard monocular camera. The VLFly integrates three modules: an instruction encoder based on a large language model (LLM) that reformulates high-level language into structured prompts, a goal retriever powered by a vision-language model (VLM) that matches these prompts to goal images via vision-language similarity, and a waypoint planner that generates executable trajectories for real-time UAV control. VLFly is evaluated across diverse simulation environments without additional fine-tuning and consistently outperforms all baselines. Moreover, real-world VLN tasks in indoor and outdoor environments under direct and indirect instructions demonstrate that VLFly achieves robust open-vocabulary goal understanding and generalized navigation capabilities, even in the presence of abstract language input.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10756 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The framework of VLFly. (a) an instruction encoder that reformulates natural language into structured prompts; (b) a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prompting strategy used in the instruction encoding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of navigation trajectories across different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real-world indoor flight results of VLFly under different natural language instructions. The UAV navigates to the correct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Real-world outdoor flight results of VLFly under different natural language instructions. Despite increased lighting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Uncertainty-Aware World Model for Aerial Image-Goal Navigation

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    UA-NWM predicts an uncertainty subspace of plausible future aerial views and scores candidate trajectories by the goal's distance to that subspace, improving image-goal navigation in simulation and on a real drone.

  2. Deliberate Before You Fly: Vision-Guided Spatial Deliberation for UAV See-and-Reach Navigation

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DBFly improves UAV see-and-reach success by adding explicit spatial reasoning steps (direction, diagnosis, maneuver, stop) before predicting waypoints, reporting a 25-point gain over the prior SOTA on the UAV-VLN-FOV ...

  3. FSD-VLN: Fast-Slow Dual-System Modeling for Aerial Long-Horizon Vision-Language Navigation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An asynchronous fast-slow dual-system with DiT action modeling and time-weighted loss doubles unseen aerial VLN success rates and halves decision latency in simulation.

  4. No Training, Better Flights: Test-Time Scaled VLMs for UAV Navigation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Test-time scaling—parallel candidate generation, iterative self-correction, and multi-criteria selection—improves a frozen UAV navigation VLM's success rate by about 2 percentage points on the TravelUAV benchmark.

  5. Exp2VLA: Enabling Vision-Language-Action for Drone Navigation from Expert Demonstrations

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Expert demonstrations distilled into LeRobot-format data let fine-tuned mid-scale VLAs navigate multi-object drone scenes from language, with partial zero-shot color-shape generalization in simulation and SITL.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [34]

    Vint: A foundation model for visual navigation,

    D. Shah, A. Sridhar, N. Dashora, K. Stachowicz, K. Black, N. Hirose, and S. Levine, “Vint: A foundation model for visual navigation,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), pp. 711–733. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,

    B. Zitkovich, T. Yu, S. Xu, P. Xu, T. Xiao, F. Xia, J. Wu, P. Wohlhart, S. Welker, A. Wahidet al., “Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” inConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), pp. 2165–2183. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Citybench: Evaluating the capabilities of large language models for urban tasks,

    J. Feng, J. Zhang, T. Liu, X. Zhang, T. Ouyang, J. Yan, Y . Du, S. Guo, and Y . Li, “Citybench: Evaluating the capabilities of large language models for urban tasks,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), pp. 1–25, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [3]

    Orionnav: Online plan- ning for robot autonomy with context-aware llm and open-vocabulary semantic scene graphs,

    V . N. Devarakonda, R. G. Goswami, A. U. Kaypak, N. Patel, R. Khor- rambakht, P. Krishnamurthy, and F. Khorrami, “Orionnav: Online plan- ning for robot autonomy with context-aware llm and open-vocabulary semantic scene graphs,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06239, 2024

    arXiv

  5. [4]

    Navigating to objects in the real world,

    T. Gervet, S. Chintala, D. Batra, J. Malik, and D. S. Chaplot, “Navigating to objects in the real world,”Science Robotics, vol. 8, no. 79, p. eadf6991, 2023

    2023

  6. [5]

    Orb-slam: A versatile and accurate monocular slam system,

    R. Mur-Artal, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tardos, “Orb-slam: A versatile and accurate monocular slam system,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1147–1163, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    Gaussian splatting slam,

    H. Matsuki, R. Murai, P. H. Kelly, and A. J. Davison, “Gaussian splatting slam,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 18 039–18 048, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Mcsfm: multi-camera-based incremen- tal structure-from-motion,

    H. Cui, X. Gao, and S. Shen, “Mcsfm: multi-camera-based incremen- tal structure-from-motion,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 32, pp. 6441–6456, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Tc-sfm: Robust track-community-based structure-from-motion,

    L. Wang, L. Ge, S. Luo, Z. Yan, Z. Cui, and J. Feng, “Tc-sfm: Robust track-community-based structure-from-motion,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 33, pp. 1534–1548, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Learning monocular reactive uav control in cluttered natural environments,

    S. Ross, N. Melik-Barkhudarov, K. S. Shankar, A. Wendel, D. Dey, J. A. Bagnell, and M. Hebert, “Learning monocular reactive uav control in cluttered natural environments,” in2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1765–1772. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  3. [10]

    Deep reinforcement learning of collision-free flocking policies for multiple fixed-wing uavs using local situation maps,

    C. Yan, C. Wang, X. Xiang, Z. Lan, and Y . Jiang, “Deep reinforcement learning of collision-free flocking policies for multiple fixed-wing uavs using local situation maps,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informat- ics, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1260–1270, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    Learning high-speed flight in the wild,

    A. Loquercio, E. Kaufmann, R. Ranftl, M. M ¨uller, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Learning high-speed flight in the wild,”Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 59, p. eabg5810, 2021

    2021

  5. [12]

    Collision-avoiding flocking with multiple fixed-wing uavs in obstacle-cluttered environments: A task-specific curriculum-based madrl approach,

    C. Yan, C. Wang, X. Xiang, K. H. Low, X. Wang, X. Xu, and L. Shen, “Collision-avoiding flocking with multiple fixed-wing uavs in obstacle-cluttered environments: A task-specific curriculum-based madrl approach,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2023

    2023

  6. [13]

    Collaborative target search with a visual drone swarm: An adaptive curriculum embedded multistage re- inforcement learning approach,

    J. Xiao, P. Pisutsin, and M. Feroskhan, “Collaborative target search with a visual drone swarm: An adaptive curriculum embedded multistage re- inforcement learning approach,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2023

    2023

  7. [14]

    Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning,

    E. Kaufmann, L. Bauersfeld, A. Loquercio, M. M ¨uller, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning,”Nature, vol. 620, no. 7976, pp. 982–987, 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Learning multi-pursuit evasion for safe tar- geted navigation of drones,

    J. Xiao and M. Feroskhan, “Learning multi-pursuit evasion for safe tar- geted navigation of drones,”IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    Image-goal nav- igation in complex environments via modular learning,

    Q. Wu, J. Wang, J. Liang, X. Gong, and D. Manocha, “Image-goal nav- igation in complex environments via modular learning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6902–6909, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Viplanner: Visual semantic imperative learning for local navigation,

    P. Roth, J. Nubert, F. Yang, M. Mittal, and M. Hutter, “Viplanner: Visual semantic imperative learning for local navigation,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 5243–5249. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi `ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azharet al., “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clarket al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 8748–8763. PmLR, 2021

    2021

  13. [20]

    Navid: Video-based vlm plans the next step for vision- and-language navigation,

    J. Zhang, K. Wang, R. Xu, G. Zhou, Y . Hong, X. Fang, Q. Wu, Z. Zhang, and H. Wang, “Navid: Video-based vlm plans the next step for vision- and-language navigation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15852, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Flame: Learning to navigate with multimodal llm in urban environments,

    Y . Xu, Y . Pan, Z. Liu, and H. Wang, “Flame: Learning to navigate with multimodal llm in urban environments,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 9005– 9013, 2025

    2025

  15. [22]

    Mapnav: A novel memory represen- tation via annotated semantic maps for vlm-based vision-and-language navigation,

    L. Zhang, X. Hao, Q. Xu, Q. Zhang, X. Zhang, P. Wang, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, S. Zhang, and R. Xu, “Mapnav: A novel memory represen- tation via annotated semantic maps for vlm-based vision-and-language navigation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13451, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

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

    N. Yokoyama, S. Ha, D. Batra, J. Wang, and B. Bucher, “Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 42–

  17. [24]

    V oronav: V oronoi-based zero-shot object navigation with large language model,

    P. Wu, Y . Mu, B. Wu, Y . Hou, J. Ma, S. Zhang, and C. Liu, “V oronav: V oronoi-based zero-shot object navigation with large language model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02695, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Vl-nav: Real- time vision-language navigation with spatial reasoning,

    Y . Du, T. Fu, Z. Chen, B. Li, S. Su, Z. Zhao, and C. Wang, “Vl-nav: Real- time vision-language navigation with spatial reasoning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00931, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Nr-slam: Non-rigid monocular slam,

    J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard ´os, “Nr-slam: Non-rigid monocular slam,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    Npe-drl: Enhancing perception constrained obstacle avoidance with non-expert policy guided reinforcement learning,

    Y . Zhang, C. Yan, J. Xiao, and M. Feroskhan, “Npe-drl: Enhancing perception constrained obstacle avoidance with non-expert policy guided reinforcement learning,”IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  21. [28]

    Partially-observable monocular autonomous navigation for uav through deep reinforcement learning,

    Y . Zhang, K. H. Low, and C. Lyu, “Partially-observable monocular autonomous navigation for uav through deep reinforcement learning,” inAIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum, p. 3813, 2023

    2023

  22. [29]

    Learning cross-modal visuo- motor policies for autonomous drone navigation,

    Y . Zhang, J. Xiao, and M. Feroskhan, “Learning cross-modal visuo- motor policies for autonomous drone navigation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  23. [30]

    Object goal navigation using goal-oriented semantic exploration,

    D. S. Chaplot, D. P. Gandhi, A. Gupta, and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Object goal navigation using goal-oriented semantic exploration,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 33, pp. 4247– 4258, 2020

    2020

  24. [31]

    Aeri- alvln: Vision-and-language navigation for uavs,

    S. Liu, H. Zhang, Y . Qi, P. Wang, Y . Zhang, and Q. Wu, “Aeri- alvln: Vision-and-language navigation for uavs,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 15 384–15 394, 2023

    2023

  25. [32]

    Citynav: Language-goal aerial navigation dataset with geographic information,

    J. Lee, T. Miyanishi, S. Kurita, K. Sakamoto, D. Azuma, Y . Matsuo, and N. Inoue, “Citynav: Language-goal aerial navigation dataset with geographic information,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14240, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Openfly: A versatile toolchain and large-scale benchmark for aerial vision-language navigation,

    Y . Gao, C. Li, Z. You, J. Liu, Z. Li, P. Chen, Q. Chen, Z. Tang, L. Wang, P. Yanget al., “Openfly: A versatile toolchain and large-scale benchmark for aerial vision-language navigation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18041, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

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

    P. Anderson, Q. Wu, D. Teney, J. Bruce, M. Johnson, N. S ¨underhauf, I. Reid, S. Gould, and A. Van Den Hengel, “Vision-and-language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision...

    2018

  28. [36]

    Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    An improved artificial potential field method for path planning and formation control of the multi-uav systems,

    Z. Pan, C. Zhang, Y . Xia, H. Xiong, and X. Shao, “An improved artificial potential field method for path planning and formation control of the multi-uav systems,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 1129–1133, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation,

    J. Li, D. Li, C. Xiong, and S. Hoi, “Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 12 888– 12 900. PMLR, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.