OASIS: Online Anchor-centric Scene Inference System for Open-Vocabulary Retrieval and Navigation in Dynamic Environments
Organizations: Beihang University, Beijing, China · Hangzhou Innovation Institute of Beihang University, Hangzhou, China · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
Abstract
Reliable robotic mapping in dynamic real-world environments is essential for embodied intelligence and long-term autonomy. However, existing methods often involve a trade-off: lightweight online mapping is efficient but captures limited semantic context, while dense mapping provides richer semantics at higher computational cost and is more vulnerable to distractors. They also struggle to relocalize objects after scene changes. To address these challenges, we propose the Online Anchor-centric Scene Inference System (OASIS), a unified system for online mapping, complex open-vocabulary retrieval, and navigation in dynamic environments. Motivated by the observation that indoor scenes are organized around stable semantic anchors, OASIS represents the environment using a sparse set of anchor nodes, each maintaining a unified multimodal representation that integrates semantic descriptions, visual features, and geometric states for reasoning, verification, and navigation. Its compact anchor-centric memory supports on-demand evidence extraction and hierarchical retrieval, reducing redundant storage while improving retrieval reliability. To handle scene dynamics, OASIS further reuses transient observations collected during navigation to relocalize moved objects. Experiments in both simulation and real-world environments, including standard retrieval benchmarks and navigation tasks under both static and dynamic settings, demonstrate that our system can perform complex open-vocabulary retrieval and navigation, while also enabling relocation of displaced objects after scene changes.
Figures & tables
| Method | mAP | AP 50 | AP 25 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ConceptGraphs ( Gu et al., 2024 ) | 2.74 | 6.18 | 13.82 |
| HOV-SG ( Werby et al., 2024 ) | 3.72 | 7.59 | 14.94 |
| Kassab2024 ( Kassab et al., 2024 ) | 0.66 | 2.15 | 5.34 |
| OpenMask3D ( Takmaz et al., 2023 ) | 2.10 | 4.93 | 12.63 |
| DualMap ( Jiang et al., 2025 ) | 6.19 | 11.72 | 20.06 |
| Ours | 6.58 | 12.52 | 20.63 |
| Method | Regions | Trials | SR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ConceptGraphs ( Gu et al., 2024 ) | 15.6 | 34.9 | 29.3 |
| HOV-SG ( Werby et al., 2024 ) | 31.5 | ||
| DualMap ( Jiang et al., 2025 ) | 53.8 | ||
| Ours | 57.7 |
| Method | Overall (%) | Easy (%) | Hard (%) | View-Dependent (%) | View-Independent (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected] | |
| OpenFusion ( Yamazaki et al., 2024 ) | 12.6 | 2.4 | 14.0 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 13.7 | 2.4 |
| BBQ-CLIP ( Linok et al., 2025 ) | 14.4 | 8.8 | 15.4 | 9.0 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 11.4 | 5.1 | 14.4 | 8.8 |
| ConceptGraphs ( Gu et al., 2024 ) | 13.3 | 6.2 | 13.0 | 6.8 | 16.0 | 1.3 | 15.2 | 5.1 | 13.1 | 6.4 |
| DualMap ( Jiang et al., 2025 ) | 28.4 | 21.6 | 29.9 | 22.4 | 17.3 | 16.0 | 16.5 | 11.4 | 30.1 | 23.0 |
| BBQ ( Linok et al., 2025 ) | 34.2 | 22.7 | 34.3 | 22.7 | 33.3 | 22.7 | 32.9 | 20.3 | 34.4 | 23.0 |
| Scene Type | Method | 00829 | 00848 | 00880 | Trials | Avg. SR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Static | ConceptGraphs ( Gu et al., 2024 ) | 69.2 | 53.8 | 61.5 | 78 | 61.5 |
| HOV-SG ( Werby et al., 2024 ) | 53.8 | 46.2 | 57.7 | 52.6 | ||
| DualMap ( Jiang et al., 2025 ) | 73.1 | 69.2 | 69.2 | 70.5 | ||
| Ours | 76.9 | 92.6 | 84.6 | 85.9 | ||
| In-Anchor | DualMap ( Jiang et al., 2025 ) | 66.7 | 66.7 | 61.1 | 54 | 64.8 |
| Ours | 83.3 | 83.3 | 77.8 | 81.5 |
| Clustering | Global | Local | Adaptive | Avg. Clusters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial-Only | 87.18 | 83.08 | 83.99 | 5.3 |
| Visual-Only | 84.79 | 72.92 | 86.64 | 3.8 |
| Hybrid (Ours) | 90.82 | 89.30 | 91.13 | 6.5 |
| LLM reasoning | VLM verification | [email protected] (%) | [email protected] (%) |
| ✗ | ✗ | 28.4 | 21.6 |
| ✗ | ✓ | 36.5 | 30.2 |
| ✓ | ✗ | 32.8 | 26.9 |
| ✓ | ✓ | 44.0 | 37.4 |
| Method | Attempts | SR (%) | SPL (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Random Anchor | 2.9 | 17.0 | 3.9 |
| Ours w/o Transient Visual Buffer | 2.5 | 56.6 | 17.3 |
| Ours w/o Semantic Reasoning | 1.8 | 73.6 | 24.1 |
| Ours (Full) | 1.6 | 77.4 | 25.8 |
| Method | Static | Dynamic | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SR (%) | SPL (%) | SR (%) | SPL (%) | Attempts | |
| DualMap ( Jiang et al., 2025 ) | 63.3 | 58.2 | 56.7 | 18.1 | 2.1 |
| Ours | 86.7 | 76.3 | 76.7 | 27.6 | 1.4 |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Parameter | Value | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0.7 | Balance weight between coverage and entropy | |
| 0.7 | Weight for anchor count in the global score | |
| 5.0, 10.0 | Saturation thresholds for counts | |
| 0.5 | Weight for completeness in the local score | |
| 5.0 | Saturation threshold for interactions | |
| 0.7 | Weight for max aggregation in local score fusion |
| Dataset | Method | Avg. Mem (MB) | Peak Mem (MB) | TPF (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Replica | ConceptGraphs | 7148.9 | 23551.9 | 4.188 |
| HOV-SG | 73368.0 | 158126.6 | 42.005 | |
| DualMap | 3095.2 | 4564.0 | 0.276 | |
| Ours | 3231.2 | 4971.1 | 0.312 | |
| ScanNet | ConceptGraphs | 9780.3 | 26155.2 | 6.301 |
| HOV-SG | 9223.0 | 25735.0 | 8.039 |
| Stage | API | Avg. Image Count | Mean Latency (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | GPT-5.2 | – | 4.2 |
| Stage 2 | Gemini-3-Pro | 6.4 | 14.9 |
| Stage 3 | Gemini-3-Pro | 2.0 | 8.1 |
| Stage 4 | Gemini-3-Pro | 6.0 | 12.7 |
| Stage 5 | Gemini-3-Pro | 2.0 | 7.6 |