Revealing and Bridging the Physical Executability Gap in Vision-Language Navigation
Organizations: Xidian University · Dartmouth College
Abstract
Continuous vision-and-language navigation (VLN) is typically evaluated by goal-reaching success, assuming it reflects an agent's ability to execute language-grounded behavior. We show that this assumption can fail: permissive contact models in current simulators may mask physically infeasible actions, creating a physical executability gap between semantic competence and embodied realization. To bridge this gap, we introduce Visual-Semantic Traversability Alignment (VeSTA), a framework that aligns VLN policies with physically executable futures. We define visual-semantic traversability as the ability to predict instruction-conditioned trajectories that are semantically valid, geometrically feasible, and physically robust. VeSTA addresses this misalignment through two complementary mechanisms: improving executable support in trajectory generation and risk-aware selection among multimodal futures. Specifically, Trajectory Relative Group Policy Optimization uses strict-contact feedback to reshape the candidate distribution toward executable regions, while the Traversability Risk Critic learns a risk-adjusted scalar utility for candidate-wise future selection. Experiments on R2R and RxR reveal substantial dependence of existing VLN agents on simulator contact semantics. Under strict-contact evaluation, VeSTA substantially reduces collision-induced failures while preserving or improving goal-reaching performance, and controlled real-world robot experiments provide evidence that the learned preference transfers beyond simulation.
Figures & tables
| Method | NE | OS | SR | SPL | Coll. Avg. | Coll. W. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NaVid | 6.48 | 30.46 | 25.49 | 23.16 | 18.20 | 15.80 |
| NaVILA | 6.62 | 38.39 | 28.55 | 26.43 | 35.18 | 59.62 |
| UniNaVid | 6.16 | 35.43 | 32.26 | 30.50 | 22.46 | 21.18 |
| StreamVLN | 6.19 | 37.74 | 30.30 | 27.59 | 39.03 | 67.85 |
| JanusVLN | 6.79 | 30.40 | 24.80 | 23.39 | 54.52 | 77.64 |
| DualVLN | 4.84 | 57.64 | 51.50 | 47.61 | 13.22 | 34.00 |
| Method | NE | OS | SR | SPL | nDTW | Coll. Avg. | Coll. W. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DualVLN (baseline) | 6.78 | 49.06 | 41.54 | 35.99 | 59.13 | 21.79 | 39.17 |
| VeSTA (Ours) | 6.48 | 50.50 | 42.41 | 36.51 | 60.45 | 9.36 | 15.53 |
| Method | Contact Sem. | NE | OS | SR | SPL | Coll. Avg. | Coll. W. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| StreamVLN | permissive | 4.87 | 64.38 | 57.10 | 50.53 | 5.58 | 22.64 |
| StreamVLN | strict | 6.19 | 37.74 | 30.30 | 27.59 | 39.03 | 67.85 |
| JanusVLN | permissive | 4.96 | 63.30 | 58.02 | 54.53 | 8.17 | 25.04 |
| JanusVLN | strict | 6.79 | 30.40 | 24.80 | 23.39 | 54.52 | 77.64 |
| DualVLN | permissive | 4.03 | 70.96 | 65.31 | 59.08 | 2.47 | 9.03 |
| DualVLN | strict | 4.84 | 57.64 | 51.50 | 47.61 | 13.22 | 34.00 |
| Variant | NE | OS | SR | SPL | Coll. Avg. | Coll. W. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DualVLN | 4.84 | 57.64 | 51.50 | 47.61 | 13.22 | 34.00 |
| +TR-GRPO | 4.88 | 56.82 | 50.84 | 46.61 | 12.23 | 29.71 |
| +TRiC | 4.64 | 59.65 | 52.15 | 47.29 | 7.03 | 14.31 |
| VeSTA (Ours) | 4.63 | 59.38 | 53.56 | 48.93 | 6.08 | 12.73 |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Comparison | SR (95% CI) | SPL (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| +TR-GRPO vs. DualVLN | [ ] | [ ] |
| +TRiC vs. DualVLN | [ ] | [ ] |
| VeSTA vs. DualVLN | [ ] | [ ] |
| Comparison | CollAvg (95% CI) | CollW (95% CI) |
| +TR-GRPO vs. DualVLN | [ ] | [ ] |
| +TRiC vs. DualVLN | [ ] | [ ] |
| Metric | Difference | Paired bootstrap 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| SR | ||
| SPL | ||
| NE | ||
| nDTW | ||
| CollAvg | ||
| CollW |
| R2R group | Episodes | Share | SR (95% CI) | CollAvg (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doorway terms present | 1,130 | 61.4% | [ ] | [ ] |
| Doorway terms absent | 709 | 38.6% | [ ] | [ ] |
| Instruction words | 558 | 30.3% | [ ] | [ ] |
| Instruction words | 1,281 | 69.7% | [ ] | [ ] |
| Contains straight | 413 | 22.5% | [ ] | [ ] |
| Does not contain straight | 1,426 | 77.5% | [ ] | [ ] |
| Risk signal quartile | Episodes | SR | CollAvg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collision-risk score Q1 (lowest) | 105 | 84.76 | 0.70 |
| Collision-risk score Q2 | 104 | 74.04 | 3.69 |
| Collision-risk score Q3 | 105 | 49.52 | 3.87 |
| Collision-risk score Q4 (highest) | 105 | 22.86 | 19.19 |
| Stuck-risk score Q1 (lowest) | 105 | 90.48 | 3.31 |
| Stuck-risk score Q2 | 104 | 80.77 | 3.91 |
| Scene | DualVLN count, CFSR [Wilson 95% CI] | VeSTA count, CFSR [Wilson 95% CI] |
|---|---|---|
| Hallway | 16/20, 80.0 | 19/20, 95.0 |
| Bedroom | 11/20, 55.0 | 13/20, 65.0 |
| Room-to-Room | 6/20, 30.0 | 9/20, 45.0 |
| Pooled | 33/60, 55.0 | 41/60, 68.3 |
| Scene | CFSR | Approx. 95% CI for difference |
| Hallway |
| Metric | TR-GRPO | TRiC | Additive | Full VeSTA | Residual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CollAvg | 0.99 | 6.19 | 7.19 | 7.14 | |
| CollW | 4.29 | 19.69 | 23.98 | 21.27 |
| Data | Method | Mean | Median | Success | Failure | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2R | DualVLN | 172.88 | 75 | 21.15 | 73.29 | 278.61 |
| R2R | VeSTA | 171.16 | 89 | 15.39 | 100.70 | 252.42 |
| RxR | DualVLN | 254.00 | 152 | 36.49 | 92.93 | 368.44 |
| RxR | VeSTA | 243.04 | 170 | 26.55 | 119.17 | 334.26 |
| Failure mode | Relation to VeSTA | Remaining limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Semantic planning failure | Neither component directly corrects an incorrect high-level interpretation. | Requires stronger language grounding or global planning. |
| Candidate support failure | TR-GRPO is intended to shift generation toward executable local candidates. | Historical probes do not provide a baseline-versus-TR-GRPO coverage comparison. |
| Candidate selection failure | TRiC ranks available candidates using predicted execution risk and progress. | Logged data do not expose full counterfactual utility for every final-policy decision. |
| Local controller failure | Both components may reduce risky commands presented to the controller. | Neither changes low-level tracking dynamics or guarantees command feasibility. |
| Persistent-contact failure | Strict-contact training and risk-aware selection directly discourage repeated contact. | Minor isolated contacts may remain or be introduced on previously safe episodes. |
| Premature stopping | Positive-progress preferences can discourage non-progress candidates. | Goal-stop calibration is not separately evaluated. |
| Data | Method | Median | P75 | P90 | P95 | Free | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2R | DualVLN | 0.00 | 16.24 | 55.93 | 66.69 | 66.61 | 27.24 | 20.72 | 13.38 |
| R2R | VeSTA | 0.00 | 7.23 | 23.11 | 33.33 | 57.59 | 21.48 | 5.98 | 0.27 |
| RxR | DualVLN | 2.31 | 45.31 | 63.27 | 72.65 | 47.51 | 45.24 | 35.87 | 19.98 |
| RxR | VeSTA | 2.97 | 15.84 | 28.95 | 36.93 | 39.87 | 34.26 | 9.21 | 0.25 |
| Data | Baseline stratum | Range | Base | VeSTA | SR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2R | Zero | 1225 | 0–0 | 0.00 | 3.97 | |
| R2R | Positive T1 | 205 | 0.23–24.77 | 10.07 | 5.94 | |
| R2R | Positive T2 | 205 | 24.80–53.49 | 41.23 | 10.11 | |
| R2R | Positive T3 | 204 | 53.49–87.82 | 67.65 | 14.85 | |
| RxR | Zero | 1743 | 0–0 | 0.00 | 5.23 | |
| RxR | Positive T1 | 642 | 0.20–31.48 | 13.94 | 9.65 |
| Signal | Spearman | Kendall | Failure AUC | Any-coll. AUC | High-coll. AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collision risk | 0.655 | 0.532 | 0.794 | 0.876 | 0.860 |
| Stuck risk | 0.522 | 0.420 | 0.867 | 0.804 | 0.766 |
Vision-Language Navigation
Vision-Language Navigation studies how embodied agents use natural-language instructions and visual observations to plan and execute routes.
See all 310 papers