CATNAV: Cached Vision-Language Traversability for Efficient Zero-Shot Robot Navigation
Organizations: Field Robotics Engineering and Science Hub (FRESH), Illinois Autonomous Farm, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), IL
Abstract
Navigating unstructured environments requires assessing traversal risk relative to a robot's physical capabilities, a challenge that varies across embodiments. We present CATNAV, a cost-aware traversability navigation framework that leverages multimodal LLMs for zero-shot, embodiment-aware costmap generation without task-specific training. We introduce a visuosemantic caching mechanism that detects scene novelty and reuses prior risk assessments for semantically similar frames, reducing online VLM queries by 85.7%. Furthermore, we introduce a VLM-based trajectory selection module that evaluates proposals through visual reasoning to choose the safest path given behavioral constraints. We evaluate CATNAV on a quadruped robot across indoor and outdoor unstructured environments, comparing against state-of-the-art vision-language-action baselines. Across five navigation tasks, CATNAV achieves 10 percentage point higher average goal-reaching rate and 33% fewer behavioral constraint violations.
Figures & tables
| Method | Traversability | Planning | VLM Efficiency | ||||
| Zero-Shot Travers. | Dynamic Obj. Segmentation | Motion Prim. Aware Plan. | Multi-Embod. Support | Multi-Modal Costmap | Novelty-Driven VLM Polling | Low-Compute VLM Use | |
| WayFASTER / W-RIZZ / CHUNGUS [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] | – | ✓ | – | – | – | ✓ | |
| BEHAV [ 11 ] | – | – | – | ✓ | – | ✓ | |
| ConVOI [ 12 ] | – | – | – | – | ✓ | – | |
| VLM-Social-Nav / Hey Robot [ 13 , 14 ] | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| VAMOS / OmniVLA [ 15 , 16 ] | – | – | ✓ | – | – | ||
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | |
| Neighbors ( ) | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Novelty Threshold ( ) | 0.55 | 0.1 | 0.55 |
| Scene Queries | 16 | 125 | 9 |
| Path Selector Calls | 156 | 295 | 157 |
| Total VLM Queries | 172 | 420 | 166 |
| Cache Rate (C/s) | 0.044 | 0.104 | 0.194 |
| Method | Goal Reaching(%) | Dist. to Goal (m) | Collisions (%) | Behavior Breaks(%) |
| Task 1: Navigate to cone, stay on right side of path (Static) | ||||
| OmniVLA | 60 | 2.7 | 20 | 40 |
| CATNAV (Ours) | 70 | 2.8 | 10 | 30 |
| Task 2: Navigate to cone, stay in center of path (Static) | ||||
| OmniVLA | 50 | 2.3 | – | 20 |
| CATNAV (Ours) | 70 | 2.25 | – | 20 |