In Vision-Language Navigation (VLN) tasks involving multi-step instructions as guidance, an agent must associate its observations with the relevant instruction content at each decision point. Most graph-based methods commonly match candidate trajectories with the entire instruction, allowing already executed content to interfere with subsequent decisions. Although instruction-execution progress provides a direct cue for separating executed and pending content, existing progress estimation approaches often rely on explicit progress supervision, sophisticated progress-learning stages, or costly online reasoning with LLMs. In this paper, we propose a robust VLN framework with Awareness of Instruction-Execution Progress (VLN-AIEP), which couples progress estimation with navigation decision-making. VLN-AIEP associates the visited trajectory with the instruction to suppress embeddings corresponding to executed content, and then matches candidate locations with the pending content. This coupling makes correct navigation decisions depend on accurate progress estimation, allowing the progress estimator to learn directly from navigation decision labels without explicit progress annotations. To support progress estimation, we construct a landmark-anchored trajectory representation that encodes the semantic labels and viewpoint-relative geometry of instruction-referred landmarks. These landmarks serve as spatial references for associating the visited trajectory with executed instruction content. Extensive experiments on R2R, RxR, CVDN, and R2R-CE demonstrate that the proposed method achieves favorable performance across multiple metrics.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Illustration of our motivation. (a) Existing methods typically perform global coarse matching between candidate trajectories and the entire instruction. The agent is susceptible to interference from previously executed portions of the instruction, such as “turn left” in this case, leading to an incorrect decision. (b) Our method first estimates navigation progress by associating the visited trajectory with the instruction, where instruction-referred landmarks ( e.g. , “French doors”) serve as spatial references with semantic and spatial cues. It then performs fine-grained matching with the pending instruction parts, thereby avoiding interference from executed instructions.
Fig. 2: Overview of our method, which is based on a directed graph and comprises three components: (a) the landmark-anchored trajectory representation, (b) the progress-aware fine-grained matching module, and (c) the navigation decision-making module. Our method identifies the detour-free path from the initial node to the current node and then extracts the landmark-anchored trajectory representation of this path. With the historical trajectory embeddings, our method first estimates the navigation progress and then performs fine-grained matching to obtain the correlation embeddings for the new candidate locations. Finally, it makes a decision based on the correlation embeddings of both the new and historical candidate locations, as well as a stop embedding.
Fig. 3: Structure of the navigation progress estimator. It employs the instruction-to-trajectory (I2T) and trajectory-to-instruction (T2I) attentions to suppress the instruction embeddings that resemble the trajectory embeddings, yielding progress-aware instruction embeddings that indicate instruction-execution progress.
Methods
Publication
Progress awareness
Val Seen
Val Unseen
Test Unseen
TL
NE ↓
SR ↑
SPL ↑
TL
NE ↓
SR ↑
SPL ↑
TL
NE ↓
SR ↑
SPL ↑
Seq2Seq-SF [ 1 ]
CVPR’18
No
11.33
6.01
39
-
8.39
7.81
22
-
8.13
7.85
28
18
Self-Monitoring [ 9 ]
ICLR’19
Yes
-
3.22
67
58
-
5.52
45
32
-
5.99
43
32
Regretful [ 10 ]
CVPR’19
Yes
-
3.23
69
63
-
5.32
50
41
-
5.69
56
40
HAMT [ 26 ]
NIPS’21
No
11.15
2.51
76
72
11.46
2.29
66
61
12.27
3.93
65
60
DUET [ 6 ]
CVPR’22
No
12.32
2.28
79
73
13.94
3.31
72
60
14.73
3.65
69
59
TABLE I: Experimental results of VLN methods on R2R [ 1 ] dataset. ↓ and ↑ indicate that lower/higher values are preferred, respectively. Methods marked with ⧫ are based on large models. “Progress awareness” indicates whether navigation progress is estimated.
Methods
Progress awareness
Val Seen
Val Unseen
NE ↓
SR ↑
sDTW ↑
NE ↓
SR ↑
sDTW ↑
LSTM [ 18 ]
No
10.7
25.2
20.7
10.9
22.8
18.2
HAMT [ 26 ]
No
-
59.4
50.9
-
56.5
48.3
MARVEL [ 51 ]
No
3.0
75.9
68.8
4.5
64.8
57.5
BEVBert [ 8 ]
No
3.2
75.0
66.7
4.0
68.5
58.6
PRET [ 7 ]
No
2.4
79.3
70.7
3.2
72.8
62.4
TABLE II: Experimental results of the VLN methods on RxR [ 18 ] dataset. “Progress awareness” indicates whether navigation progress is estimated.
Methods
Progress awareness
Val Seen
Val Unseen
Test Unseen
Params
HAMT [ 26 ]
No
6.91
5.13
5.58
-
VLN-PETL [ 52 ]
No
7.76
5.69
6.13
-
NaviLLM ⧫ [ 53 ]
No
-
6.16
7.90
∼7.4B
VLN-AIEP(Ours)
Yes
8.06
6.44
6.90
<0.5B
TABLE III: Goal Progress (GP, ↑ ) of the VLN methods on CVDN [ 19 ] dataset. Methods marked with ⧫ are based on large models. “Progress awareness” indicates whether navigation progress is estimated.
Methods
Publication
Progress awareness
NE ↓
OSR ↑
SR ↑
SPL ↑
Seq2Seq [ 20 ]
ECCV’20
No
7.37
40
32
30
BEVBert [ 8 ]
ICCV’23
No
4.57
67
59
50
ETPNav [ 29 ]
TPAMI’24
No
4.71
65
57
49
Open-Nav ⧫ [ 17 ]
ICRA’25
Yes
6.70
23
19
16
Fast-SmartWay ⧫ [ 42 ]
ICRA’26
Yes
7.72
-
28
25
StreamVLN ⧫ [ 36 ]
ICRA’26
No
4.98
64
57
52
TABLE IV: Experimental results on val-unseen split of R2R-CE [ 20 ] dataset. Methods marked with ⧫ are based on large models. “Progress awareness” indicates whether navigation progress is estimated.
Trajectory representation
PAM
TL
NE ↓
SR ↑
SPL ↑
1) Panorama features
×
15.83
3.74
67.39
56.45
2) Panorama & OA features
×
13.68
3.12
72.92
62.44
3) Landmark-anchored panorama & OA features
×
13.31
2.88
74.15
64.05
4) Panorama features
✓
13.91
3.32
69.47
60.02
5) Panorama & OA features
✓
13.44
2.85
74.02
63.82
6) Landmark-anchored panorama & OA features
✓
13.21
2.76
76.40
65.73
TABLE V: Ablation study on the core designs of VLN-AIEP. PAM denotes progress-aware fine-grained matching; OA denotes orientation-aware.
Variants
TL
NE ↓
SR ↑
SPL ↑
1) w/o I2T attention
12.71
3.04
72.62
63.30
2) w/o T2I attention
12.41
2.85
73.81
64.92
3) full model (I2T+T2I)
13.21
2.76
76.40
65.73
TABLE VI: Ablation study on combining I2T and T2I attention.
Variants
TL
NE ↓
SR ↑
SPL ↑
1) w/o landmark-anchored MLM
12.64
3.02
72.32
63.77
2) w/ landmark-anchored MLM
13.21
2.76
76.40
65.73
TABLE VII: Ablation study on landmark-anchored MLM.
Variants
TL
NE ↓
SR ↑
SPL ↑
1) w/o rethink
13.21
2.76
76.40
65.73
2) w/ rethink
13.28
2.74
76.81
65.85
TABLE VIII: Ablation study on rethinking strategy for termination decision.
Fig. 4: An R2R example of instruction-execution progress estimation. The left panel shows the navigation trajectory. The middle panel shows observations at key steps 1, 3, and 5. Landmark labels identify spatial references mentioned in the instruction. The right panel shows the average pending score for each of four sub-instructions. Each score decreases after the corresponding sub-instruction is executed. This indicates that VLN-AIEP accurately perceives instruction-execution progress. For visualization, the four sentences are treated as four sub-instructions. The model does not use this division during training.
Fig. 5: An R2R example of instruction-execution progress estimation. The left panel shows the navigation trajectory, with the instruction divided into three sub-instructions for visualization. The right panel shows their average pending scores. Each score decreases after the corresponding sub-instruction is executed, indicating accurate execution progress estimation.
Fig. 6: Navigation trajectories of PRET [ 7 ] and VLN-AIEP under the same instruction. At the key step, the pending instruction requires a left turn beside the photos landmark. PRET remains influenced by the executed phrase, turns right again, and stops incorrectly at the red node. VLN-AIEP uses photos as a spatial reference, focuses on the pending instruction, turns left into the target bedroom, and terminates correctly at the yellow node.
Fig. 7: Navigation trajectories of PRET [ 7 ] and VLN-AIEP under the same instruction. At the key step, both agents have completed the required left turn and should walk straight down the hallway . PRET remains influenced by the executed instruction and turns left again, resulting in the incorrect trajectory shown in red. VLN-AIEP focuses on the pending instruction and walks down the hallway, resulting in the correct trajectory shown in yellow.
w/o PAM
w/o PAM (perturbed)
w/ PAM
w/ PAM (perturbed)
74.2
72.3 (-1.9)
76.4
75.5 (-0.9)
TABLE IX: SR on val-unseen split of R2R [ 1 ] with and without PAM under perturbation.
Fig. 8: A representative case showing how PAM supports recovery from a manually induced erroneous deviation. After the agent is forced to move from node 2 to node 3, the agent still focuses on the pending sub-instruction “walk straight following cabinet”. Since no cabinet is observed around node 3, the agent backtracks to historical candidate node 4, which is aligned with the pending instruction at node 2. Notably, after backtracking, the historical trajectory is corrected to the detour-free path 2 → 4, rather than 2 → 3 → 2 → 4, for subsequent decision-making.
Fig. 9: A representative visualization example showing the effect of landmarks as spatial references for progress estimation. Compared with the setting without landmarks, incorporating landmarks produces a clearer boundary between executed and pending sub-instructions, indicating more accurate progress perception.
Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) requires an agent to follow a route-level instruction by executing its constituent steps from egocentric visual observations. Existing VLM-based navigators typically supervise both capabilities through next-action prediction alone, making progress-tracking errors difficult to distinguish from execution errors. When an agent deviates from the route, a corrective action label may recover the next movement but does not indicate whether the agent selected the wrong sub-instruction or failed to execute the correct one. Consequently, the agent may continue making decisions from an erroneous progress state. To resolve this ambiguity, we propose Route2Step, a framework that decouples semantic progress tracking from action generation through an explicit step-level interface. The Instruction Analysis Module (MIA) predicts this state from the global instruction and visual history. Conditioned on the predicted state and recent observations, the Action Generation Module (MAG) generates local action chunks. To supervise the progress state without manual temporal labels, E-SPA, a step-alignment procedure, associates sub-instructions with their corresponding portions of route-level demonstrations. These alignments enable state supervision for incorrect progress estimates, while direct action supervision is reserved for rollout groups that repeatedly fail under the correct active sub-instruction. On R2R-CE, Route2Step improves SR from 48.1% to 55.3% and SPL from 43.3% to 48.2%, using 190K state-level corrective samples while requiring only 11.5K directly action-supervised states. Experiments in real-world indoor and outdoor environments further demonstrate the practical applicability of Route2Step. The project page is: https://sisyphus-hxy.github.io/Route2Step/.
Xiangyun Huang, Xiangchen Wang, Runfeng Lin +5
1Beihang University · 2Southern University of Science and Technology · 3Central South University +2
Vision-and-language navigation (VLN) requires an agent to track progress through an extended instruction, identify landmarks relevant to its current objective, and understand the surrounding spatial structure to act. End-to-end navigation policies typically rely on action supervision to implicitly learn these capabilities. Without explicit guidance on the evidence underlying each decision, however, policies can overfit to correlations predictive of training actions rather than learn the task-relevant grounding and geometry needed for generalization. Our insight is to guide the representations that connect instructions to actions: identifying what remains to be done determines which visual evidence matters, while understanding the geometry around that evidence informs how to move. We introduce GuidedNav, a unified framework that explicitly shapes these representations through training-time guidance. Subtask and landmark guidance steer native pre-action attention toward the active instruction segment and relevant visual regions, grounding action prediction in the current objective. Spatial guidance aligns the policy's internal representations with geometric features that capture long-horizon context and local spatial structure. Together, these objectives strengthen navigation capabilities while avoiding the inference overhead of intermediate textual reasoning and online geometric encoding. We also introduce Guided-R2R and Guided-RxR, two annotation-enriched navigation datasets that support more interpretable VLN research. GuidedNav establishes state-of-the-art performance among the compared monocular RGB policies, improving success rates by 8.1% and 13.1% relative to the strongest prior results on R2R-CE and RxR-CE val-unseen, respectively, while achieving faster inference. Extensive experiments further demonstrate the effectiveness and real-world transferability of our approach.
Jingyu Guo, Jiaxin Huang, Chengxing Lin +6
University of Melbourne · AgiBot · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence +3
Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) policies increasingly benefit from strong semantic priors provided by large vision-language models (VLMs). However, standard action supervision does not explicitly encourage intermediate representations to preserve scene geometry, relative orientation, or global episode progress. Incorporating depth estimators, explicit maps, point clouds, or geometry foundation models at inference can provide such structure but introduces additional computation, memory overhead, and architectural dependence during deployment. We introduce StageVLN, a training framework that shapes navigation representations through privileged spatial and trajectory guidance while preserving the original inference pathway. A frozen geometry foundation model provides multi-level spatial guidance to hierarchical navigator states, while relative-heading and expert-route progress objectives provide complementary trajectory-state supervision. All auxiliary components are used only during training and removed at deployment. On R2R-CE validation-unseen, StageVLN achieves 56.3% SR and 51.4% SPL with a 4B-parameter backbone, without an additional geometry encoder at inference. On RxR-CE, it achieves 54.3% SR without additional navigation training data or a geometry encoder at inference.
Anh Dao, Quan-Dung Pham, Le Danh Vinh +6
VinMotion, Inc., Vietnam · University of Southern California, USA