Can MLLMs Find Their Way in a City? Exploring Emergent Navigation from Web-Scale Knowledge
Organizations: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Texas A&M University · Microsoft Research, Redmond
Abstract
Leveraging multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to develop embodied agents offers significant promise for addressing complex real-world tasks. However, current evaluation benchmarks remain predominantly language-centric or heavily reliant on simulated environments, rarely probing the nuanced, knowledge-intensive reasoning essential for practical, real-world scenarios. To bridge this critical gap, we introduce the task of Sparsely Grounded Visual Navigation, explicitly designed to evaluate the sequential decision-making abilities of MLLMs in challenging, knowledge-intensive real-world environment. We operationalize this task with CityNav, a comprehensive benchmark encompassing four diverse global cities, specifically constructed to assess raw MLLM-driven agents in city navigation. Agents are required to rely solely on visual inputs and internal multimodal reasoning to sequentially navigate 50+ decision points without additional environmental annotations or specialized architectural modifications. Crucially, agents must autonomously achieve localization through interpreting city-specific cues and recognizing landmarks, perform spatial reasoning, and strategically plan and execute routes to their destinations. Through extensive evaluations, we demonstrate that current state-of-the-art MLLMs, reasoning techniques (e.g., GEPA, chain-of-thought, reflection) and competitive baseline PReP significantly underperform in this challenging setting. To address this, we propose Verbalization of Path(VoP), which explicitly grounds the agent's internal reasoning by probing city-scale cognitive maps (key landmarks and directions toward the destination) from the MLLM, substantially enhancing navigation success. Project Webpage: https://dwipddalal.github.io/AgentNav/
Figures & tables
| Work | Bucket | World | Scope | Route-length | Visual input | Guidance | Landmark | MLLM role |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EmbodiedBench | Embodied-bench | Sim | Multi-env | Room-scale | RGB | Provided | – | Raw |
| NavGPT | Indoor VLN | Sim | MP3D | Room-scale | Text-description | Provided | – | LLM |
| NavCoT | Indoor VLN | Sim | MP3D | Room-scale | RGB | Provided | – | Fine-tune |
| Touchdown | Outdoor VLN | Real | Manhattan | 350 m | Panorama | Provided | Text | – |
| VELMA | Outdoor VLN | Real | Manhattan | 350 m | Panorama | Provided | CLIP | Fine-tune |
| Loc4Plan | Outdoor VLN | Real | M2S | 350 m | Panorama | Provided | Locate | Fine-tune |
| Cities | Region | Diversity | Distance | Decision Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York | USA | Grid-Based, Well Spaced, Rich Street Signs | 1.8 | 44 |
| São Paulo | Brazil | Non-Block Structure, Portuguese Language | 2.0 | 55 |
| Tokyo | Japan | Short Sightlines in Narrow Alleys, Japanese Language | 1.9 | 80 |
| Vienna | Austria | Road blocks because of rails, German Language | 2.1 | 60 |
| New York | Tokyo | Vienna | Sao Paulo | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MLLM | Agent Config | Success | SPL | D.A. | Success | SPL | D.A. | Success | SPL | D.A. | Success | SPL | D.A. |
| GPT 4o | Base | 13 | 0.064 | 39.04 | 4 | 0.046 | 36.79 | 4 | 0.031 | 35.67 | 3 | 0.040 | 34.69 |
| AgentNav | 88 | 0.539 | 72.91 | 14 | 0.099 | 40.90 | 26 | 0.170 | 46.32 | 20 | 0.06 | 43.45 | |
| GPT 5 | Base | 54 | 0.375 | 55.97 | 10 | 0.088 | 41.24 | 11 | 0.092 | 40.72 | 7 | 0.051 | 36.98 |
| AgentNav | 94 | 0.711 | 82.98 | 30 | 0.163 | 54.97 | 56 | 0.226 | 54.82 | 29 | 0.126 | 48.96 | |
| GPT 4.1 | Base | 15 | 0.097 | 42.27 | 5 | 0.044 | 38.83 | 2 | 0.037 | 34.66 | 5 | 0.049 | 35.46 |
| New York | Tokyo | Vienna | Sao Paulo | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Success(%) | SPL | D.A.(%) | Success(%) | SPL | D.A.(%) | Success(%) | SPL | D.A.(%) | Success(%) | SPL | D.A.(%) |
| GPT-4.1 | 15 | 0.097 | 42.27 | 5 | 0.044 | 38.83 | 2 | 0.037 | 34.66 | 5 | 0.049 | 35.46 |
| CoT | 21 | 0.173 | 44.59 | 9 | 0.077 | 41.09 | 4 | 0.039 | 34.88 | 7 | 0.055 | 37.93 |
| Self Reflection (GPT-4.1) | 16 | 0.112 | 42.90 | 4 | 0.040 | 36.20 | 3 | 0.042 | 36.33 | 12 | 0.052 | 41.95 |
| Self Reflection (GPT-5) | 22 | 0.168 | 48.14 | 8 | 0.079 | 41.48 | 5 | 0.045 | 37.84 | 13 | 0.050 | 41.64 |
| GEPA | 37 | 0.251 | 43.24 | 10 | 0.036 | 42.97 | 5 | 0.013 | 39.74 | 17 | 0.093 | 40.21 |
| Methods | Success(%) | SPL | D.A.(%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-4.1 | 15 | 0.097 | 42.27 |
| GPT-4.1 + Markovian Memory | 23 | 0.162 | 47.19 |
| GPT-4.1 + Decision History | 29 | 0.228 | 55.63 |
| GPT-4.1 + Previous Visit | 35 | 0.298 | 56.67 |
| GPT-4.1 + Partial VoP | 66 | 0.469 | 63.48 |
| AgentNav | 92 | 0.557 | 75.27 |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Prompt | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | Score (NY) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | ✓ | ✓ | 19 | |||||
| P2 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 27 | ||||
| P3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 23 | |||
| P4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 20 | ||||
| P5 | ✓ | ✓ | 29 | |||||
| P6 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 26 |
Visual Navigation
Visual navigation enables robots and embodied agents to reach goals by interpreting camera images and acting in unfamiliar or changing environments.
See all 71 papers