Organizations: The Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. Work done during an internship at CyberAgent AI Lab. · CyberAgent AI Lab, Tokyo, Japan · The Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering, Nagoya University, Aichi, Japan
Visual Navigation Models (VNMs) enable robots to navigate from egocentric visual observations without geometric localization and planning, but long-range navigation still requires pre-built maps. This paper presents the Remote Visual Navigation Model (ReVNM), which uses a single remote surveillance camera to serve as both an observation source and an implicit environmental map for visual navigation. While the use of remote cameras could eliminate the need for pre-built maps as well as onboard vision processing, their limited field of view instead of egocentric observations makes it hard to achieve collision-free navigation. The lack of existing data with diverse remote viewpoints, which are crucial for training robust VNMs, further complicates the challenge. In this work, we propose a learning-by-synthesis approach to address this two-fold challenge. Our ReVNM extends a state-of-the-art VNM architecture with an exocentric-to-egocentric (exo2ego) module that predicts an egocentric depth observation from remote-camera observations. This helps the VNM to plan a path while considering obstacles in front of the robot. Trained only on randomly generated worlds with diverse obstacle layouts and camera viewpoints, ReVNM can generalize well to real robot navigation without additional fine-tuning. Experiments in both simulation and real-world environments confirmed the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
Figures & tables
Fig. 2: Model architecture of ReVNM. (a) The navigation policy is an ACT-style CVAE. It encodes the ego and exo depth with ResNet-34 and predicts a chunk of waypoints from these, the robot pixel, orientation, and goal. (b) exo2ego is a Diffusion Transformer that synthesizes the ego depth from the cropped exo depth, conditioned on the robot pixel and orientation.
Method
Random Pillar
Book Store
Warehouse
SR ↑
SPL ↑
SR ↑
SPL ↑
SR ↑
SPL ↑
NoMaD w/o FT
5 ± 3%
0.02 ± 0.01
18 ± 5%
0.08 ± 0.02
20 ± 5%
0.08 ± 0.02
NoMaD w/ FT
40 ± 3%
0.33 ± 0.03
22 ± 3%
0.09 ± 0.02
22 ± 4%
0.09 ± 0.02
IBVS
78 ± 2%
0.61 ± 0.05
75 ± 5%
0.53 ± 0.04
52 ± 7%
0.36 ± 0.06
Ours
88 ± 3%
0.78 ± 0.03
88 ± 5%
0.65 ± 0.05
70 ± 6%
0.46 ± 0.05
TABLE I: Navigation performance in simulation.
Fig. 3: Results in the simulation experiments. Each column is one environment, with the remote camera view on top and a top view of the same trials below. S and G mark the start and the goal, and a cross marks where a run failed.
Fig. 4: Egocentric depth synthesized by the exo2ego module in Book Store (top) and Warehouse (bottom).
Fig. 5: Synthesized ego depth with and without the DAgger-based recovery data. Only w/ DAgger reproduces the obstacle in front of the robot (top), while in open space the two are comparable (bottom).
Method
DAgger
Random Pillar
Book Store
Warehouse
SR ↑
SPL ↑
SR ↑
SPL ↑
SR ↑
SPL ↑
Ours
✓
88 ± 3%
0.78 ± 0.03
88 ± 5%
0.65 ± 0.05
70 ± 6%
0.46 ± 0.05
87 ± 4%
0.69 ± 0.04
74 ± 6%
0.59 ± 0.06
43 ± 6%
0.29 ± 0.05
Ours w/o exo2ego
✓
91 ± 3%
0.79 ± 0.03
84 ± 5%
0.61 ± 0.05
26 ± 8%
0.17 ± 0.06
78 ± 6%
0.64 ± 0.06
44 ± 7%
0.33 ± 0.05
12 ± 4%
0.07 ± 0.03
Ours w/ oracle-ego
✓
99 ± 1%
0.89 ± 0.01
90 ± 4%
0.78 ± 0.04
83 ± 5%
0.58 ± 0.05
TABLE II: Ablation study.
exo2ego
Random Pillar
Book Store
Warehouse
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
w/ DAgger
15.2
0.611
14.5
13.1
0.454
24.6
13.8
0.480
23.7
w/o DAgger
14.4
0.601
17.3
12.7
0.494
25.9
12.5
0.488
26.0
TABLE III: Quality of the synthesized ego depth.
Method
Forest
Wall
SR ↑
SR ↑
IBVS
12% (3/25)
0% (0/5)
Ours w/o exo2ego
92% (23/25)
40% (2/5)
Ours
76% (19/25)
100% (5/5)
TABLE IV: Navigation performance in the real-world.
Fig. 6: Results in the real-world experiments, overlaid on the remote camera view.