GG-Nav: Goal-oriented Grounding Chain-of-Thought Elicits Reasoning in Navigation Foundation Models

Although vision-language models (VLMs) possess strong visual understanding and reasoning capabilities, existing vision-and-language navigation (VLN) agents struggle to connect semantic reasoning with spatial execution. Two coupled gaps remain in this connection, as intermediate reasoning is not explicitly anchored to visual evidence and high-level decisions lack precise spatial goals to guide low-level motion. Cognitive science suggests that human navigation bridges these levels hierarchically by anchoring cognition to relevant landmarks and guiding locomotion toward spatial goals. Motivated by this principle, we propose GroundingVLN, which uses visual grounding as a shared interface between reasoning and action. GroundingVLN first reasons with grounding by anchoring task-relevant visual evidence to precise image locations throughout structured reasoning. It then acts through grounding by predicting a progress-aligned pixel goal that a geometric planner translates into primitive actions. To learn these capabilities, we construct GroundingCOTVLN-188K, a dataset of temporally aligned grounded reasoning traces, and introduce Grounded and Execution-Aware Reinforcement Learning (GEAR), which aligns grounded reasoning and spatial decisions with downstream execution. Experiments demonstrate that GroundingVLN achieves state-of-the-art performance (69.9% SR on R2R-CE and 75.1% SR on RxR-CE) with high sample efficiency, using just 0.9% as much training data as the strongest baseline. It also generalizes strongly across datasets, attaining 59.9% SR on RxR-CE when trained solely on R2R, a gain of 20.1% over the strongest baseline. Code and models will be released after review. Code is available at https://github.com/Teacher-Tom/GroundingVLN.

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.

Pretrained VLMs bring rich world knowledge and semantic priors to object-goal navigation, and fine-tuning a VLM into a navigation policy has become a common recipe. Despite this progress, success rates remain low, and it is unclear which capability these fine-tuned policies lack. Our diagnosis identifies goal grounding as the dominant failure. These policies explore well, yet often fail to notice that the goal is already in view or to estimate how far away it is. To address this failure, we ground the goal explicitly. Explicit grounding substantially improves success and reaches state-of-the-art results on six benchmarks across three scene collections. We also correct annotation defects in these benchmarks, so that future methods are evaluated more faithfully. Our analysis on the clean benchmarks shows that, with ground-truth grounding, our policy nearly matches the expert that generated its demonstrations, leaving the headroom in perception rather than policy learning. Our work points to goal grounding as a missing piece of object-goal navigation and offers a simple and effective solution to the task.