Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

ABot-N1 claims that decoupling a slow vision-language reasoner from a fast waypoint controller, connected by image-space pixel goals, lets a single multi-task checkpoint reach new state-of-the-art results on five distinct navigation tasks.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 07:14 UTC pith:562KRE5E

load-bearing objection Real architecture with credible external-benchmark gains; the urban SOTA claims rest on self-built benchmarks and a relaxed collision budget, so treat them as provisional until the artifacts ship. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10383 v3 pith:562KRE5E submitted 2026-07-11 cs.CV cs.AIcs.RO

ABot-N1: Toward a General Visual Language Navigation Foundation Model

Ruiyan Gong , Yingnan Guo , Junjun Hu , Jintao Kong , Xiaoxu Leng , Tianlun Li , Weize Li , Fei Liu
show 38 more authors
Zhicheng Liu Jia Lu Minghua Luo Chenlin Ming Yanfen Shen Jiyue Tao Zhengbo Wang Mingyang Yin Minqi Gu Zihao Guan Wei Guo Guoqing Liu Huachong Pang Menglin Yang Zeqian Ye Xiaoxiao Geng Zhining Gu Honglin Han Di Jing Hongyu Pan Mingchao Sun Kuan Yang Jianfang Zhang Yanghong Chen Ye He Wei Mei Jiahao Shi Xiangpo Yang Yanqing Zhu Yang Cai Jingjing Ma Shihui Su Zixiao Tang Linbo Zheng Zedong Chu Xiaolong Wu Wenbin Tang Mu Xu
This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AIcs.RO
keywords visual language navigationpixel goalslow-fast architecturenavigation foundation modelchain-of-thoughtpoint-goal navigationPOI navigationmulti-task embodied navigation
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 argues that a single navigation model can master five different tasks—point-goal, object-goal, POI-goal, instruction-following, and person-following—by splitting the job between a slow reasoner and a fast controller. The reasoner produces chain-of-thought text plus a pixel goal, an image-space point the controller simply tracks. This design, the authors claim, avoids coordinate drift, preserves semantic priors, and makes decisions inspectable. On the benchmarks they run, the same checkpoint beats specialized and multi-task baselines, with the largest gains in urban point-goal and POI-goal arrival. The paper also releases two new city-scale benchmarks and demonstrates the model on a real quadruped robot.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a slow-fast navigation architecture with a pixel-goal interface can unify five previously separate navigation tasks in one checkpoint. A 4-billion-parameter vision-language reasoner, running at low frequency, turns any goal—a metric coordinate, a natural-language instruction, an object name, a POI name, or a person description—into explicit chain-of-thought reasoning and one or two image-space anchors: an affordance pixel marking the next safe waypoint, and a target pixel marking the final goal. A fast 2-billion-parameter action model then tracks those pixels to emit continuous waypoints at control frequency. The authors report state-of-the-art results on fi

What carries the argument

The pixel goal is the load-bearing interface: a compact set of 2D anchors in the egocentric view that reduces every navigation task to 'track the CoT-explained pixels.' The slow reasoner emits an affordance pixel (next safe traversable waypoint) and, when relevant, a target pixel (final goal), accompanied by a chain-of-thought trace. The fast controller consumes these anchors plus live imagery and outputs a short sequence of SE(2) waypoints with a completion flag. A reinforcement-learning stage scores candidate pixel goals by downstream navigation outcomes, and the two systems run asynchronously so reasoning does not stall the control loop.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmarks' ground-truth walkability maps, occupancy grids, and entrance frames are produced by the authors' own labeling pipeline, and the model is trained on the same kind of occupancy-derived supervision, so the evaluation may measure the benchmark rather than general navigation ability.

What would settle it

Run ABot-N1 on an independently built urban navigation benchmark with strict collision counting and independently human-verified walkable areas and entrance locations; if its success rate falls to the level of the baselines, the claim of general, socially compliant urban navigation is not supported.

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

If this is right

  • A single model checkpoint can handle five different navigation goals without task-specific heads or encoders, reducing the 'zoo' of specialized navigators.
  • Multi-task co-training on these five tasks transfers positively rather than interfering, as the joint model matches or beats single-task variants on most benchmarks.
  • Urban-scale navigation can succeed with low-fidelity standard-definition maps, because the slow system re-grounds coordinates into traversable pixel paths at every step.
  • Explicit chain-of-thought and pixel overlays give operators a human-readable decision trace, enabling root-cause analysis of whether failures come from reasoning or from spatial targeting.
  • The released point-goal and POI-goal benchmarks provide closed-loop, socially-aware evaluation for city-scale navigation where open public benchmarks were scarce.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The headline urban gains may be partly benchmark-bound: the maps, occupancy labels, and entrance frames used for evaluation come from the authors' own pipeline, and the model was trained on the same kind of occupancy-derived supervision, so independent annotation could shrink the gap.
  • The relaxed outdoor collision budget (fewer than three collisions counts as success) and the 2-meter entrance threshold could reward this policy's particular style; stricter protocols might narrow the reported margins.
  • The pixel-goal interface is a generic 'point and follow' contract that could extend beyond navigation to manipulation or other goal-directed embodied tasks, since it converts arbitrary objectives into image-space anchors.
  • A decisive test is to run the released checkpoint on an independently constructed urban navigation benchmark with strict collision counting and human-verified walkable areas; if the gains vanish, the contribution is substantially an artifact of the benchmark design.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents ABot-N1, a vision-language navigation model with a slow-fast dual-system architecture: a 4B-parameter VLM slow system performs Chain-of-Thought reasoning and emits pixel goals (affordance and target pixels), while a 2B-parameter fast VLM consumes these signals and predicts continuous waypoints. A shared pixel-goal interface unifies five tasks: point-goal, object-goal, POI-goal, instruction-following, and person-following. Training uses a 30M-sample multi-task corpus, followed by GRPO-based post-training of the slow system. Evaluation is reported on established benchmarks (R2R-CE, RxR-CE, OVON, EVT-Bench) and on two new self-authored benchmarks (ABotN-PointBench, ABotN-POIBench). The paper claims state-of-the-art results on all five tasks, with headline urban gains of 77.3% POI arrival and 92.9%/95.4% outdoor/indoor point-goal success, plus qualitative real-world deployment on a quadrupedal robot.

Significance. The architectural idea — decoupling a deliberative reasoner from a reactive controller through a structured pixel-goal interface — is timely and well motivated, and the external benchmark results are genuinely strong: R2R-CE SR 70.89%, OVON SR 84.9%, and EVT-Bench STT SR 90.1% are competitive or state-of-the-art numbers that do not depend on the authors' own benchmarks. The open release of two urban navigation benchmarks could be a useful community contribution if the evaluation protocols are independently validated. The interpretability story (CoT plus pixel anchors) is also a clear strength. However, the two flagship urban-scale claims — 77.3% POI arrival and 92.9% outdoor SR — rest on self-authored benchmarks whose ground truth is generated by the same occupancy-estimation and annotation stack used to supervise the model, and the outdoor success metric is relaxed to allow up to three collisions. These issues are load-bearing for the headline claims and must be resolved before the paper's central urban-scale statements can be accepted at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, §5.2, §4.2.2, §4.3.2] The urban-scale evaluation is circular in an important sense. The point-goal training supervision (affordance pixels from manually annotated occupancy maps, §4.2.2), the safety reward (distance to non-traversable regions, §4.3.2), and the benchmark ground truth (walkability maps, MoGe-V2-derived occupancy, A* references, §5.1–5.2) are all derived from the same annotation/estimation stack. ABot-N1 is therefore rewarded for reproducing the authors' own annotation conventions. The paper does not provide an independent re-annotation, a third-party evaluation, or evidence that ABotN-PointBench/POIBench episodes are disjoint from the training scenes. A concrete fix is to evaluate on independently produced occupancy maps and entrance annotations, report strict-collision SR alongside SR<3col, and rerun all baselines under the identical closed-loop protocol. Without this, the 77.3% POI and 92.9%
  2. [§5.1, §6.1.3, Abstract, Conclusion] The outdoor success metric is SR<3col — an episode counts as successful if the agent arrives with fewer than three collision events. The abstract and conclusion report '92.9% SR' without this caveat, which is misleading: a policy that collides twice on every episode can score 100% under this metric. The indoor metric is strict (SR<1col), which is good, but the outdoor headline should be labeled SR<3col in every summary and accompanied by the strict-collision success rate. This is load-bearing because 92.9% is one of the paper's two flagship urban claims.
  3. [§6.1.2, Table 2] The object-goal evaluation re-curates OVON by manually annotating the first frame in which the target becomes visible and re-anchoring the start pose to that frame. The baseline numbers in Table 2 appear to come from the original OVON protocol; if so, the comparison is not apples-to-apples because ABot-N1 is evaluated on a different, easier episode distribution. To support the 'new state-of-the-art' claim, the authors must release the re-curated episodes and rerun all baselines under exactly the same protocol, or clearly mark the table as non-comparable.
  4. [§5.2, §4.2.2] The POI-goal training corpus is built from 31M collected street-view pairs (8M valid positives), while ABotN-POIBench is built from 11 commercial regions. The paper does not state whether the benchmark scenes and POIs overlap with the training street-view pairs. Since the slow system is trained to ground POI names to entrances, evaluation on the same or nearby streets could inflate results substantially. The paper should state the overlap policy and, ideally, evaluate on held-out cities or regions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (12), Eq. (15)] There are typos in the variance decomposition: '2wtwoCov' and '2wtwoρ' should presumably read '2w_t w_o Cov' and '2w_t w_o ρ'. Please correct and re-check the derivation.
  2. [§6.2] The edge-deployment model uses Qwen-3.5-2B for the slow system and a DiT with 306M parameters for the fast system, which differs from the 4B/2B Qwen-based configuration evaluated in simulation. Clarify how the deployed model relates to the main ABot-N1 checkpoint and whether the qualitative results are produced by the same weights as the quantitative evaluation.
  3. [Table 1] The tri-view input is categorized under the 'Pano.' column with a footnote in the text. This is potentially confusing since tri-view is not a dense 360° panorama; consider adding a dedicated column or clearer annotation in the table itself.
  4. [§5.1] The definition of collision is not given. Please specify what counts as a collision event in the 3DGS evaluator (e.g., contact with the collision mesh, penetration depth, or proximity threshold) so that SR<3col and SR<1col are reproducible.
  5. [§4.3.3] The theoretically motivated sampling ratio 5:3:2 rests on several assumptions (Var(R_format) ≈ 0, a specific negative-covariance model, and a first-order Taylor expansion). The derivation is a useful heuristic, but the paper should state more clearly that the final ratio is empirical; the current text overstates the strength of the theoretical grounding.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Urban-scale headline gains are measured on self-authored benchmarks whose occupancy ground truth is the same annotation pipeline that produced the model's pixel-goal training supervision; external benchmarks keep the central capability claim independently grounded.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§4.2.2 Point-Goal pretraining and §5.1 ABotN-PointBench; same pattern in §4.2.2 POI-Goal and §5.2 ABotN-POIBench]
    "manually annotate every scene with an occupancy map that delineates traversable from prohibited regions ... the ground-truth affordance pixel is obtained by selecting a safe traversable waypoint along the path ... running a safety check (§4.2.2). ... The resulting occupancy maps double as ground truth for both episode generation and compliance scoring (§5.1). ... the outdoor split adopts a relaxed collision budget—an episode is counted as successful only if the agent arrives with fewer than three collision events; we denote this metric SR<3col (§5.1)."

    The claimed urban-scale success rates are computed against the authors' own occupancy map annotations, which are the exact same annotations used to generate the affordance-pixel training targets for point-goal (and, via MoGe-V2 occupancy, for POI-goal target/affordance pixels and A* references). Thus the headline '92.9% SR' and '77.3% POI arrival' are not independent measurements: an agent trained to output occupancy-consistent pixels is being scored by collision/compliance criteria defined by the same occupancy model. The paper even relaxes the outdoor criterion to SR<3col because of 'slight boundary deviations' in those annotations, tying the metric further to its own annotation noise. The external R2R-CE/OVON/EVT-Bench results are not affected by this circularity.

full rationale

ABot-N1's architecture and training recipe are not circular: the slow-fast factorization and pixel-goal interface are defined independently of the benchmarks, and no load-bearing result is imported solely from a self-citation. The R2R-CE, OVON, and EVT-Bench evaluations use external protocols and show genuine SOTA, which independently grounds the generalist claim. The only significant circularity-adjacent issue is the self-authored ABotN benchmarks: the occupancy/walkability maps used to create training supervision (affordance pixels, safety checks) are also the ground truth for episode generation, reference paths, and compliance scoring. This makes the urban-scale headline numbers self-referential with respect to the authors' annotation pipeline, though not a pure mathematical circularity since the agent must still execute control. Score 4 reflects partial circularity in the urban claims while the central capability claim retains independent support. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The ledger shows that the headline urban-scale results depend on several hand-chosen parameters (reward weights, safety scales, sampling ratio, look-ahead distances) and on domain assumptions about the accuracy of the authors' occupancy/depth pipeline. The pixel-goal interface and the two new benchmarks are the paper's invented artifacts, and neither has independent evidence outside the paper itself.

free parameters (7)
  • GRPO sampling ratio (Safe:Critical:Danger) = 5:3:2 (empirical)
    Claimed "theoretically grounded" but chosen empirically in §4.3.3; the variance/GSNR analysis (Eqs. 11-16) does not determine these numbers.
  • Reward weights w_t, w_o = not specified (sum to one)
    Composite reward R = w_f R_format + w_t R_target + w_o R_safety; weights set by hand, values omitted (§4.3.2).
  • Safety reward scale d_safe, α_o, β = not specified
    Defines the "danger margin" and exponential penalty in Eq.(10); no values given, tuned per environment.
  • Affordance look-ahead distances = 3m indoor, 5m outdoor
    Used to generate ground-truth affordance pixels for point-goal (§4.2.2); hand-chosen, affects all pixel supervision.
  • Target-coordinate perturbation = normal up to 10m, tangential up to 2m, reject >30°
    Data augmentation for coordinate drift (§4.2.2); arbitrary magnitudes.
  • R_target exponential scale = not specified
    scale controls spatial tolerance of the reward kernel in Eq.(9).
  • POI distance buckets = {2,3,4,5}m
    Target affordance distance bucket for the VLM annotator (§4.2.2 POI-Goal).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The line-of-sight safety check certifies a candidate affordance pixel as traversable.
    Used to generate all point-goal pixel supervision and benchmark references (§4.2.2); relies on hand-annotated occupancy maps that the paper itself calls noisy ("slight boundary deviations", §5.1).
  • domain assumption Slow-system CoT + pixel outputs make the fast policy's waypoint distribution approximately uni-modal, so smooth-L1 regression suffices.
    Central justification for the action head (§4.2.1); no empirical characterization of multi-modality is given.
  • domain assumption MoGe-V2 monocular depth + surface-normal classification yields occupancy and entrance labels accurate enough for training and for A* references.
    Used in the POI-Goal data pipeline and in ABotN-POIBench reference generation (§4.2.2, §5.2); no error analysis against ground truth is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper Within-group reward variance model: Var(R_format) ≈ 0 and Cov(R_target, R_safety) = −ρ σ_target σ_safety.
    The GRPO stability derivation in §4.3.3 assumes this covariance structure and zero format variance; it motivates data filtering but is not validated.
  • standard math A* on 2D occupancy grids produces shortest feasible paths, used as ground truth for SPL and pixel supervision.
    Standard assumption; requires accurate occupancy maps, which the paper acknowledges are imperfect outdoors.
  • ad hoc to paper The in-house 3DGS evaluator and the 2m entrance threshold faithfully capture real entrance-arrival success.
    The POI benchmark's success criterion; no ablations on threshold sensitivity, and the evaluator is not public.
invented entities (2)
  • Affordance Pixel + Target Pixel (pixel-goal interface) no independent evidence
    purpose: Universal bottleneck between slow reasoner and fast controller; encodes "where to go next" and "where the goal is" in image space.
    Introduced as the paper's core interface; trained with the same annotation pipeline used to build the paper's own evaluation benchmarks, so no external falsifiable handle is provided beyond the self-authored benchmarks.
  • ABotN-PointBench / ABotN-POIBench no independent evidence
    purpose: New evaluation benchmarks for point-goal and POI-goal navigation.
    Claimed open-source release but no URL/DOI/commit appears in the text; benchmark design (occupancy maps, collision budgets, thresholds) is authored by the same group that trained the model.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32024 in / 15010 out tokens · 151831 ms · 2026-08-02T07:14:56.381408+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Visual Language Navigation foundation models aim to unify deep reasoning for grounded spatial decisions with broad versatility for diverse embodied tasks. Current approaches typically achieve this integration via monolithic policies that map observations directly to actions, yet they often suffer from coordinate drift and poor handling of long-tail semantics. Furthermore, these black-box mappings lack interpretability, hindering the simultaneous achievement of generality, robustness, and transparency. We present ABot-N1, a step toward a general Visual Language Navigation foundation model, that addresses these challenges by decoupling cognition from control via a slow-fast architecture guided by dual visual-language signals. More specifically, a slow vision-language reasoner performs explicit Chain-of-Thought reasoning while producing a pixel goal. This compact set of image-space anchor points serves as a universal interface for diverse tasks, including point-goal, object-goal, poi-goal, instruction-following, and person-following. Subsequently, a fast action expert leverages both the textual cues and the pixel guidance to generate continuous waypoints at the native control frequency. By bridging high-level intents and low-level control through pixel-grounded anchors paired with explicit linguistic traces, our approach ensures robust, generalizable, and interpretable navigation across simulation and real-world benchmarks. ABot-N1 establishes new state-of-the-art records, delivering massive gains specifically in urban-scale navigation: boosting POI arrival by 35.0% (to 77.3%) and achieving 95.4%/92.9% SR in complex indoor and outdoor scenes. It also maintains superior robustness across object-reaching, person-following, and instruction-following tasks. New Point-Goal/POI-Goal benchmarks are released as open source to advance the field of urban-scale navigation.

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Embodied Agents Take Control: Minimal-Interface Zero-Shot Agents Rival Industrial-Scale Policies in Vision-and-Language Navigation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Unmodified software-agent harnesses, given only a monocular RGB camera and four discrete actions, achieve 68–78% success on zero-shot R2R-CE navigation, rivaling trained and workflow-based systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 23 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    1st place solutions for rxr-habitat vision-and-language navigation competition (cvpr 2022).arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.11610, 2022

    Dong An, Zun Wang, Yangguang Li, Yi Wang, Yicong Hong, Yan Huang, Liang Wang, and Jing Shao. 1st place solutions for rxr-habitat vision-and-language navigation competition (cvpr 2022).arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.11610, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [3]

    Etpnav: Evolving topological planning for vision-language navigation in continuous environments.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    Dong An, Hanqing Wang, Wenguan Wang, Zun Wang, Yan Huang, Keji He, and Liang Wang. Etpnav: Evolving topological planning for vision-language navigation in continuous environments.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  3. [4]

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

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

    2018

  4. [5]

    Qwen-vl: A versatile vision-language model for understanding, localization, text reading, and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966, 2023

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shijie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. Qwen-vl: A versatile vision-language model for understanding, localization, text reading, and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [6]

    Objectnav revisited: On evaluation of embodied agents navigating to objects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.13171, 2020

    Dhruv Batra, Aaron Gokaslan, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Oleksandr Maksymets, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Manolis Savva, Alexander Toshev, and Erik Wijmans. Objectnav revisited: On evaluation of embodied agents navigating to objects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.13171, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  6. [7]

    Spatialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities

    Boyuan Chen, Zhuo Xu, Sean Kirmani, Brain Ichter, Dorsa Sadigh, Leonidas Guibas, and Fei Xia. Spatialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14455–14465, 2024

    2024

  7. [8]

    Fast-in-slow: A dual-system foundation model unifying fast manipulation within slow reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01953, 2025

    Hao Chen, Jiaming Liu, Chenyang Gu, Zhuoyang Liu, Renrui Zhang, Xiaoqi Li, Xiao He, Yandong Guo, Chi-Wing Fu, Shanghang Zhang, et al. Fast-in-slow: A dual-system foundation model unifying fast manipulation within slow reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01953, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [9]

    Affordances-oriented planning using foundation models for continuous vision-language navigation

    Jiaqi Chen, Bingqian Lin, Xinmin Liu, Lin Ma, Xiaodan Liang, and Kwan-Yee K Wong. Affordances-oriented planning using foundation models for continuous vision-language navigation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 23568–23576, 2025

    2025

  9. [10]

    Astranav-world: World model for foresight control and consistency, 2026

    Jintao Chen, Junjun Hu, Haochen Bai, Minghua Luo, Xinda Xue, Botao Ren, Chengyu Bai, Shichao Xie, Ziyi Chen, Fei Liu, Zedong Chu, Xiaolong Wu, Mu Xu, and Shanghang Zhang. Astranav-world: World model for foresight control and consistency, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21714

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [11]

    Topological planning with transformers for vision-and-language navigation

    Kevin Chen, Junshen K Chen, Jo Chuang, Marynel Vázquez, and Silvio Savarese. Topological planning with transformers for vision-and-language navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11276–11286, 2021

    2021

  11. [12]

    Weakly- supervised multi-granularity map learning for vision-and-language navigation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:38149–38161, 2022

    Peihao Chen, Dongyu Ji, Kunyang Lin, Runhao Zeng, Thomas Li, Mingkui Tan, and Chuang Gan. Weakly- supervised multi-granularity map learning for vision-and-language navigation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:38149–38161, 2022

    2022

  12. [13]

    Explore like humans: Autonomous exploration with online sg-memo construction for embodied agents,

    Xu Chen, Shichao Xie, Zhining Gu, Lu Jia, Minghua Luo, Fei Liu, Zedong Chu, Yanfen Shen, Xiaolong Wu, and Mu Xu. Explore like humans: Autonomous exploration with online sg-memo construction for embodied agents,

  13. [14]

    Socialnav: Training human-inspired foundation model for socially-aware embodied navigation

    Ziyi Chen, Yingnan Guo, Zedong Chu, Minghua Luo, Yanfen Shen, Mingchao Sun, Junjun Hu, Shichao Xie, Yang Kuan, Pei Shi, Zhining Gu, Lu Liu, Honglin Han, Xiaolong Wu, Mu Xu, and Yu Zhang. Socialnav: Training human-inspired foundation model for socially-aware embodied navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogn...

    2026

  14. [15]

    Socialnav: Training human-inspired foundation model for socially-aware embodied navigation

    Ziyi Chen, Yingnan Guo, Zedong Chu, Minghua Luo, Yanfen Shen, Mingchao Sun, Junjun Hu, Shichao Xie, Yang Kuan, Pei Shi, et al. Socialnav: Training human-inspired foundation model for socially-aware embodied navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 28796–28806, 2026. 32

    2026

  15. [16]

    Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision-language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:135062–135093, 2024

    An-Chieh Cheng, Hongxu Yin, Yang Fu, Qiushan Guo, Ruihan Yang, Jan Kautz, Xiaolong Wang, and Sifei Liu. Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision-language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:135062–135093, 2024

    2024

  16. [17]

    Navila: Legged robot vision-language-action model for navigation

    An-Chieh Cheng, Yandong Ji, Zhaojing Yang, Zaitian Gongye, Xueyan Zou, Jan Kautz, Erdem Bıyık, Hongxu Yin, Sifei Liu, and Xiaolong Wang. Navila: Legged robot vision-language-action model for navigation. InRSS, 2025

    2025

  17. [18]

    Mobility vla: Multimodal instruction navigation with long-context vlms and topological graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07775, 2024

    Hao-Tien Lewis Chiang, Zhuo Xu, Zipeng Fu, Mithun George Jacob, Tingnan Zhang, Tsang-Wei Edward Lee, Wenhao Yu, Connor Schenck, David Rendleman, Dhruv Shah, et al. Mobility vla: Multimodal instruction navigation with long-context vlms and topological graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07775, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [19]

    Abot-n0: Technical report on the vla foundation model for versatile embodied navigation, 2026

    Zedong Chu, Shichao Xie, Xiaolong Wu, Yanfen Shen, Minghua Luo, Zhengbo Wang, Fei Liu, Xiaoxu Leng, Junjun Hu, Mingyang Yin, Jia Lu, Yingnan Guo, Kai Yang, Jiawei Han, Xu Chen, Yanqing Zhu, Yuxiang Zhao, Xin Liu, Yirong Yang, Ye He, Jiahang Wang, Yang Cai, Tianlin Zhang, Li Gao, Liu Liu, Mingchao Sun, Fan Jiang, Chiyu Wang, Zhicheng Liu, Hongyu Pan, Hongl...

    arXiv 2026

  19. [20]

    Vpn: Visual prompt navigation

    Shuo Feng, Zihan Wang, Yuchen Li, Rui Kong, Hengyi Cai, Shuaiqiang Wang, Gim Hee Lee, Piji Li, and Shuqiang Jiang. Vpn: Visual prompt navigation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 40, pages 18253–18261, 2026

    2026

  20. [21]

    Helix: A vision-language-action model for generalist humanoid control

    Figure AI. Helix: A vision-language-action model for generalist humanoid control. Technical report, Figure AI, 2025

    2025

  21. [23]

    Poinav: Benchmarking and enhancing final-meters arrival in real-world vision-language navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.28237, 2026

    Ruiyan Gong, Meisheng Zhang, Yuxiang Zhao, Mingchao Sun, Yanfen Shen, Zedong Chu, Zhining Gu, Wei Guo, Xiaolong Cheng, Qiming Li, et al. Poinav: Benchmarking and enhancing final-meters arrival in real-world vision-language navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.28237, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [24]

    Vision-and-language navigation: A survey of tasks, methods, and future directions

    Jing Gu, Eliana Stefani, Qi Wu, Jesse Thomason, and Xin Eric Wang. Vision-and-language navigation: A survey of tasks, methods, and future directions. InProceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7606–7623, 2022

    2022

  23. [25]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [26]

    A novel vision-based tracking algorithm for a human-following mobile robot.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 47(7):1415–1427, 2016

    Meenakshi Gupta, Swagat Kumar, Laxmidhar Behera, and Venkatesh K Subramanian. A novel vision-based tracking algorithm for a human-following mobile robot.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 47(7):1415–1427, 2016

    2016

  25. [27]

    Bridging the gap between learning in discrete and continuous environments for vision-and-language navigation

    Yicong Hong, Zun Wang, Qi Wu, and Stephen Gould. Bridging the gap between learning in discrete and continuous environments for vision-and-language navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 15439–15449, 2022

    2022

  26. [28]

    Physical Intelligence, Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Manuel Y. Galliker, Dibya Ghosh, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Devin LeBlanc, Sergey Levine, Adrian Li-Bell, Mohith Mothukuri, Suraj Nair, Karl Pertsch...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [29]

    A comprehensive review of recent advancements in vision-and-language navigation.Discover Computing, 29(1):167, 2026

    Jahanzeb Khan, Nayyer Aafaq, Qasim Ali, and Mujahid Mohsin. A comprehensive review of recent advancements in vision-and-language navigation.Discover Computing, 29(1):167, 2026

    2026

  28. [30]

    Sim-2-sim transfer for vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments

    Jacob Krantz and Stefan Lee. Sim-2-sim transfer for vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 588–603. Springer, 2022. 33

    2022

  29. [31]

    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. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020

    2020

  30. [32]

    Waypoint models for instruction-guided navigation in continuous environments

    Jacob Krantz, Aaron Gokaslan, Dhruv Batra, Stefan Lee, and Oleksandr Maksymets. Waypoint models for instruction-guided navigation in continuous environments. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15162–15171, 2021

    2021

  31. [33]

    Room-across-room: Multilingual vision-and-language navigation with dense spatiotemporal grounding

    Alexander Ku, Peter Anderson, Roma Patel, Eugene Ie, and Jason Baldridge. 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), pages 4392–4412, 2020

    2020

  32. [34]

    Large-scale model-enhanced vision-language navigation: Recent advances, practical applications, and future challenges.Sensors, 26(7):2022, 2026

    Zecheng Li, Xiaolin Meng, Xu He, Youdong Zhang, and Wenxuan Yin. Large-scale model-enhanced vision-language navigation: Recent advances, practical applications, and future challenges.Sensors, 26(7):2022, 2026

    2022

  33. [35]

    Navcot: Boosting llm-based vision-and-language navigation via learning disentangled reasoning

    Bingqian Lin, Yunshuang Nie, Ziming Wei, Jiaqi Chen, Shikui Ma, Jianhua Han, Hang Xu, Xiaojun Chang, and Xiaodan Liang. Navcot: Boosting llm-based vision-and-language navigation via learning disentangled reasoning. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2025

    2025

  34. [36]

    Conflict-averse gradient descent for multi-task learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:18878–18890, 2021

    Bo Liu, Xingchao Liu, Xiaojie Jin, Peter Stone, and Qiang Liu. Conflict-averse gradient descent for multi-task learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:18878–18890, 2021

    2021

  35. [37]

    Navforesee: A unified vision-language world model for hierarchical planning and dual-horizon navigation prediction

    Fei Liu, Shichao Xie, Minghua Luo, Zedong Chu, Junjun Hu, Xiaolong Wu, and Mu Xu. Navforesee: A unified vision-language world model for hierarchical planning and dual-horizon navigation prediction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 32431–32440, June 2026

    2026

  36. [38]

    Navforesee: A unified vision-language world model for hierarchical planning and dual-horizon navigation prediction

    Fei Liu, Shichao Xie, Minghua Luo, Zedong Chu, Junjun Hu, Xiaolong Wu, and Mu Xu. Navforesee: A unified vision-language world model for hierarchical planning and dual-horizon navigation prediction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 32431–32440, 2026

    2026

  37. [39]

    Trackvla++: Unleashing reasoning and memory capabilities in vla models for embodied visual tracking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07134, 2025

    Jiahang Liu, Yunpeng Qi, Jiazhao Zhang, Minghan Li, Shaoan Wang, Kui Wu, Hanjing Ye, Hong Zhang, Zhibo Chen, Fangwei Zhong, et al. Trackvla++: Unleashing reasoning and memory capabilities in vla models for embodied visual tracking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07134, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  38. [40]

    Citywalker: Learning embodied urban navigation from web-scale videos

    Xinhao Liu, Jintong Li, Yicheng Jiang, Niranjan Sujay, Zhicheng Yang, Juexiao Zhang, John Abanes, Jing Zhang, and Chen Feng. Citywalker: Learning embodied urban navigation from web-scale videos. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 6875–6885, 2025

    2025

  39. [41]

    Instructnav: Zero-shot system for generic instruction navigation in unexplored environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04882, 2024

    Yuxing Long, Wenzhe Cai, Hongcheng Wang, Guanqi Zhan, and Hao Dong. Instructnav: Zero-shot system for generic instruction navigation in unexplored environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04882, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [42]

    Pivot: Iterative visual prompting elicits actionable knowledge for vlms

    Soroush Nasiriany, Fei Xia, Wenhao Yu, Ted Xiao, Jacky Liang, Ishita Dasgupta, Annie Xie, Danny Driess, Ayzaan Wahid, Zhuo Xu, et al. Pivot: Iterative visual prompting elicits actionable knowledge for vlms. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 37321–37341. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  41. [43]

    GR00T N1: An Open Foundation Model for Generalist Humanoid Robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    NVIDIA GEAR Team. GR00T N1: An Open Foundation Model for Generalist Humanoid Robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [44]

    Openfrontier: General navigation with visual-language grounded frontiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.05377, 2026

    Esteban Padilla-Cerdio, Boyang Sun, Marc Pollefeys, and Hermann Blum. Openfrontier: General navigation with visual-language grounded frontiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.05377, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [45]

    Habitat: A platform for embodied ai research

    Manolis Savva, Abhishek Kadian, Oleksandr Maksymets, Yili Zhao, Erik Wijmans, Bhavana Jain, Julian Straub, Jia Liu, Vladlen Koltun, Jitendra Malik, et al. Habitat: A platform for embodied ai research. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9339–9347, 2019

    2019

  44. [46]

    Gnm: A general navigation model to drive any robot

    Dhruv Shah, Ajay Sridhar, Arjun Bhorkar, Noriaki Hirose, and Sergey Levine. Gnm: A general navigation model to drive any robot. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 7226–7233. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  45. [47]

    Vint: A foundation model for visual navigation

    Dhruv Shah, Ajay Sridhar, Nitish Dashora, Kyle Stachowicz, Kevin Black, Noriaki Hirose, and Sergey Levine. Vint: A foundation model for visual navigation. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 711–733. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  46. [48]

    Hi robot: Open-ended instruction following with hierarchical vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19417, 2025

    Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, Brian Ichter, Michael Equi, Liyiming Ke, Karl Pertsch, Quan Vuong, James Tanner, Anna Walling, Haohuan Wang, Niccolo Fusai, et al. Hi robot: Open-ended instruction following with hierarchical vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19417, 2025. 34

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [49]

    Hume: Introducing system-2 thinking in visual-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21432, 2025

    Haoming Song, Delin Qu, Yuanqi Yao, Qizhi Chen, Qi Lv, Yiwen Tang, Modi Shi, Guanghui Ren, Maoqing Yao, Bin Zhao, et al. Hume: Introducing system-2 thinking in visual-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21432, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [50]

    Nomad: Goal masked diffusion policies for navigation and exploration

    Ajay Sridhar, Dhruv Shah, Catherine Glossop, and Sergey Levine. Nomad: Goal masked diffusion policies for navigation and exploration. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 63–70. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  49. [51]

    Emma-x: An embodied multimodal action model with grounded chain of thought and look-ahead spatial reasoning

    Qi Sun, Pengfei Hong, Tej Deep Pala, Vernon Toh, U-Xuan Tan, Deepanway Ghosal, and Soujanya Poria. Emma-x: An embodied multimodal action model with grounded chain of thought and look-ahead spatial reasoning. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 14199–14214, 2025

    2025

  50. [52]

    Robobrain 2.0 technical report

    BAAI RoboBrain Team. Robobrain 2.0 technical report. Technical report, BAAI, 2025

    2025

  51. [53]

    Robobrain 2.5: Depth in sight, time in mind.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.14352, 2026

    BAAI RoboBrain Team. Robobrain 2.5: Depth in sight, time in mind.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.14352, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  52. [54]

    Drivevlm: The convergence of autonomous driving and large vision-language models

    Xiaoyu Tian, Junru Gu, Bailin Li, Yicheng Liu, Yang Wang, Zhiyong Zhao, Kun Zhan, Peng Jia, XianPeng Lang, and Hang Zhao. Drivevlm: The convergence of autonomous driving and large vision-language models. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 4698–4726. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  53. [55]

    Dreamwalker: Mental planning for continuous vision-language navigation

    Hanqing Wang, Wei Liang, Luc Van Gool, and Wenguan Wang. Dreamwalker: Mental planning for continuous vision-language navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10873–10883, 2023

    2023

  54. [56]

    Qwen-vla: Unifying vision-language-action modeling across tasks, environments, and robot embodiments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.30280, 2026

    Qiuyue Wang, Mingsheng Li, Jian Guan, Jinhui Ye, Sicheng Xie, Yitao Liu, Junhao Chen, Zhixuan Liang, Jie Zhang, Xintong Hu, et al. Qwen-vla: Unifying vision-language-action modeling across tasks, environments, and robot embodiments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.30280, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [57]

    Moge: Unlocking accurate monocular geometry estimation for open-domain images with optimal training supervision

    Ruicheng Wang, Sicheng Xu, Cassie Dai, Jianfeng Xiang, Yu Deng, Xin Tong, and Jiaolong Yang. Moge: Unlocking accurate monocular geometry estimation for open-domain images with optimal training supervision. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 5261–5271, 2025

    2025

  56. [58]

    Trackvla: Embodied visual tracking in the wild.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23189, 2025

    Shaoan Wang, Jiazhao Zhang, Minghan Li, Jiahang Liu, Anqi Li, Kui Wu, Fangwei Zhong, Junzhi Yu, Zhizheng Zhang, and He Wang. Trackvla: Embodied visual tracking in the wild.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23189, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [59]

    Gridmm: Grid memory map for vision-and-language navigation

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

    2023

  58. [60]

    Lookahead exploration with neural radiance representation for continuous vision-language navigation

    Zihan Wang, Xiangyang Li, Jiahao Yang, Yeqi Liu, Junjie Hu, Ming Jiang, and Shuqiang Jiang. Lookahead exploration with neural radiance representation for continuous vision-language navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 13753–13762, 2024

    2024

  59. [61]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  60. [62]

    Ground slow, move fast: A dual-system foundation model for generalizable vision-and-language navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08186, 2025

    Meng Wei, Chenyang Wan, Jiaqi Peng, Xiqian Yu, Yuqiang Yang, Delin Feng, Wenzhe Cai, Chenming Zhu, Tai Wang, Jiangmiao Pang, et al. Ground slow, move fast: A dual-system foundation model for generalizable vision-and-language navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08186, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  61. [63]

    Streamvln: Streaming vision-and-language navigation via slowfast context modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05240, 2025

    Meng Wei, Chenyang Wan, Xiqian Yu, Tai Wang, Yuqiang Yang, Xiaohan Mao, Chenming Zhu, Wenzhe Cai, Hanqing Wang, Yilun Chen, et al. Streamvln: Streaming vision-and-language navigation via slowfast context modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05240, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [64]

    Nav-r2 dual-relation reasoning for generalizable open-vocabulary object-goal navigation, 2025

    Wentao Xiang, Haokang Zhang, Tianhang Yang, Zedong Chu, Ruihang Chu, Shichao Xie, Yujian Yuan, Jian Sun, Zhining Gu, Junjie Wang, Xiaolong Wu, Mu Xu, and Yujiu Yang. Nav-r2 dual-relation reasoning for generalizable open-vocabulary object-goal navigation, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.02400

    arXiv 2025

  63. [66]

    Omninav: A unified framework for prospective exploration and visual-language navigation,

    Xinda Xue, Junjun Hu, Minghua Luo, Shichao Xie, Jintao Chen, Zixun Xie, Kuichen Quan, Wei Guo, Mu Xu, and Zedong Chu. Omninav: A unified framework for prospective exploration and visual-language navigation,

  64. [68]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25687

    arXiv

  65. [69]

    Asyncshield: A plug-and-play edge adapter for asynchronous cloud-based vla navigation, 2026

    Kai Yang, Zedong Chu, Yingnan Guo, Zhengbo Wang, Shichao Xie, Yanfen Shen, Xiaolong Wu, Xing Li, and Mu Xu. Asyncshield: A plug-and-play edge adapter for asynchronous cloud-based vla navigation, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24086

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [70]

    Ce-nav: Flow-guided reinforcement refinement for cross-embodiment local navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23203, 2025

    Kai Yang, Tianlin Zhang, Zhengbo Wang, Zedong Chu, Xiaolong Wu, Yang Cai, and Mu Xu. Ce-nav: Flow-guided reinforcement refinement for cross-embodiment local navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23203, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  67. [71]

    Gradient surgery for multi-task learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:5824–5836, 2020

    Tianhe Yu, Saurabh Kumar, Abhishek Gupta, Sergey Levine, Karol Hausman, and Chelsea Finn. Gradient surgery for multi-task learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:5824–5836, 2020

    2020

  68. [72]

    Hm3d-ovon: A dataset and benchmark for open-vocabulary object goal navigation

    Naoki Yokoyama, Ram Ramrakhya, Abhishek Das, Dhruv Batra, and Sehoon Ha. Hm3d-ovon: A dataset and benchmark for open-vocabulary object goal navigation. In2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 5543–5550. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  69. [73]

    Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning

    Michał Zawalski, William Chen, Karl Pertsch, Oier Mees, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 3157–3181. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  70. [74]

    Correctnav: Self-correction flywheel empowers vision-language-action navigation model

    Zhuoyuan Yu, Yuxing Long, Zihan Yang, Chengyan Zeng, Hongwei Fan, Jiyao Zhang, and Hao Dong. Correctnav: Self-correction flywheel empowers vision-language-action navigation model. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 40, pages 18737–18745, 2026

    2026

  71. [75]

    Uni-navid: A video-based vision-language-action model for unifying embodied navigation tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06224, 2024

    Jiazhao Zhang, Kunyu Wang, Shaoan Wang, Minghan Li, Haoran Liu, Songlin Wei, Zhongyuan Wang, Zhizheng Zhang, and He Wang. Uni-navid: A video-based vision-language-action model for unifying embodied navigation tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06224, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [76]

    Poliformer: Scaling on-policy rl with transformers results in masterful navigators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.20083, 2024

    Kuo-Hao Zeng, Zichen Zhang, Kiana Ehsani, Rose Hendrix, Jordi Salvador, Alvaro Herrasti, Ross Girshick, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Luca Weihs. Poliformer: Scaling on-policy rl with transformers results in masterful navigators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.20083, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [77]

    Embodied navigation foundation model, 2025

    Jiazhao Zhang, Anqi Li, Yunpeng Qi, Minghan Li, Jiahang Liu, Shaoan Wang, Haoran Liu, Gengze Zhou, Yuze Wu, Xingxing Li, Yuxin Fan, Wenjun Li, Zhibo Chen, Fei Gao, Qi Wu, Zhizheng Zhang, and He Wang. Embodied navigation foundation model, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.12129

    arXiv 2025

  74. [78]

    Navid: Video-based vlm plans the next step for vision-and-language navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15852, 2024

    Jiazhao Zhang, Kunyu Wang, Rongtao Xu, Gengze Zhou, Yicong Hong, Xiaomeng Fang, Qi Wu, Zhizheng Zhang, and He Wang. Navid: Video-based vlm plans the next step for vision-and-language navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15852, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [79]

    Cot-vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models

    Qingqing Zhao, Yao Lu, Moo Jin Kim, Zipeng Fu, Zhuoyang Zhang, Yecheng Wu, Zhaoshuo Li, Qianli Ma, Song Han, Chelsea Finn, et al. Cot-vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 1702–1713, 2025

    2025

  76. [80]

    Qwen-robotnav technical report: A scalable navigation model designed for an agentic navigation system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.18112, 2026

    Jiazhao Zhang, Gengze Zhou, Hale Yin, Yiyang Huang, Zixing Lei, Qihang Peng, Haoqi Yuan, Jie Zhang, Xudong Guo, Xiaoyue Chen, et al. Qwen-robotnav technical report: A scalable navigation model designed for an agentic navigation system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.18112, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  77. [81]

    Navgpt-2: Unleashing navigational reasoning capability for large vision-language models

    Gengze Zhou, Yicong Hong, Zun Wang, Xin Eric Wang, and Qi Wu. Navgpt-2: Unleashing navigational reasoning capability for large vision-language models. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 260–278. Springer, 2024

    2024

  78. [82]

    Empowering embodied visual tracking with visual foundation models and offline rl

    Fangwei Zhong, Kui Wu, Hai Ci, Churan Wang, and Hao Chen. Empowering embodied visual tracking with visual foundation models and offline rl. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 139–155. Springer, 2024

    2024

  79. [84]

    Fantasyvln: Unified multimodal chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-and-language navigation

    Jing Zuo, Lingzhou Mu, Fan Jiang, Chengcheng Ma, Mu Xu, and Yonggang Qi. Fantasyvln: Unified multimodal chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-and-language navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2026. 36

    2026

  80. [2026]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv