CostNav: A Navigation Benchmark for Real-World Economic-Cost Evaluation of Physical AI Agents

Real-world navigation is fundamentally driven by Points of Interest (POIs), yet reaching a precise POI remains a critical "final-meters" challenge. Existing Vision-Language Navigation (VLN) benchmarks of POI-goal navigation often suffer from coarse granularity or significant sim-to-real gaps due to generated scene. To bridge this gap, we present POINav-Bench, the first benchmark designed for closed-loop evaluation of real-world POI-goal navigation. It comprises 11 commercial areas reconstructed from real-world captures using 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS), covering 126,398 $m^{2}$ in total and spanning 163 distinct POIs. With traversability-aware annotations and reference trajectories, POINav-Bench enables high-fidelity evaluation of navigation agents in realistic, POI-rich real-world environments. Building on this, we propose the POINav Brain-Action Framework where a Brain module performs POI-grounded reasoning to guide an Action module in predicting continuous waypoints for real-world execution. We further curate the POINav-Dataset, containing 70K real-world signage-entrance pairs. Experiments show that our framework provides a viable path toward refining real-world POI-goal navigation.

Robots deployed in delivery, campus, and emergency-response settings often need to navigate from buildings to streets within a single continuous episode. Existing benchmarks usually evaluate indoor and outdoor navigation separately, and many abstract away robot execution, leaving exit finding, boundary traversal, adaptation, and kinodynamic failures underexplored. We introduce NavVerse, a physics-enabled benchmark for indoor-to-outdoor embodied navigation. NavVerse contains 100 indoor scenes, 50 urban outdoor scenes, and 50 indoor-to-outdoor scenes, and 10,000 episodes spanning Object Navigation, Vision-and-Language Navigation, and Place Navigation tasks, where agents search for semantic points of interest such as restaurants or banks. Agents are evaluated through executable robot interfaces using task-success, path-efficiency, and safety metrics. Zero-shot experiments with RL, VLA, and modular baselines show that current agents remain far from solving cross-context navigation: end-to-end VLAs obtain the highest zero-shot success, while the modular method provides the strongest safety profile. PlaceNav further reveals a clear drop from outdoor to indoor-to-outdoor scenes, indicating that adaptation remains major bottleneck.

Zero-shot vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments (VLN-CE) increasingly places foundation vision-language models (VLMs) inside the navigation loop. Existing systems commonly request cardinal outputs such as waypoints, pixels, headings, progress values, or absolute arrival decisions, coupling a generative response to geometric magnitude or an irreversible commitment. We study a complementary model-robot interface: the VLM compares controller-constructed alternatives, while geometry, thresholds, action magnitude, and execution remain on the physical side. We instantiate this idea in C2Nav, a training-free framework with three coordinated faculties. Seeing performs ordinal Gaze Election over physically vetted candidate views; Remembering maintains a compact route sketch and compares adjacent instruction-leg hypotheses; and Arriving combines a hesitation ladder, look-back comparison, and revocable walk-back for reliable stopping. On the public OpenNav R2R-CE 100 protocol, C2Nav with Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct obtains 41.0% OSR, 31.0% SR, and 16.7% SPL, while the same interface with the standard GPT-5.5 model reaches 54.0% OSR, 44.0% SR, and 29.0% SPL. Whole-faculty ablations reduce SR to 14.0% without Seeing, 25.0% without Remembering, and 29.0% without Arriving. Matched role inversions that replace only the comparative answer form with cardinal/absolute questions reduce SR to 12.0%, 28.0%, and 21.0% in the spatial, transition, and terminal slots, respectively. The results indicate that a constrained decision interface and stronger VLM reasoning are complementary rather than interchangeable.