Good Papers

Language-Conditioned World Modeling for Visual Navigation

LCVN introduces a language-conditioned navigation benchmark and compares diffusion-based latent imagination against unified autoregressive prediction for embodied agents. Latent imagination yields more temporally coherent rollouts, while unified prediction generalizes better to unseen environments.

Yifei Dong, Fengyi Wu, Yilong Dai, Lingdong Kong, Guangyu Chen, Qiyu Hu, Yetong Sha, Feng Liu, Siyu Huang, Qi Dai, Zhi-Qi Cheng

Published 2026Atlanta Poster Session 5 · Fri, Dec 11, 10:00 AM–1:00 PM local time · Hall C1arXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

86%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel14/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 4/5
medium 7/10
strict 3/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

Abstract

Goal-conditioned visual navigation has been a long-standing testbed for embodied AI. We study a natural language-conditioned variant, language-conditioned visual navigation (LCVN), in which an embodied agent must follow a natural language instruction given only an initial egocentric observation. Without access to goal images, the agent must rely on language to shape its perception and continuous control. We introduce the LCVN Dataset, a benchmark of 39,016 trajectories and 117,048 human-verified instructions spanning diverse environments and instruction styles. Building on this benchmark, we study two complementary paradigms: (i) latent-imagination policy learning, in which a diffusion-based world model (LCVN-WM) imagines future observations and an actor-critic agent (LCVN-AC) learns its policy entirely within the imagined latent space; and (ii) unified autoregressive prediction, in which a single multimodal backbone (LCVN-Uni) jointly predicts actions and observations in one forward pass over a shared token sequence. Experiments show that two paradigms offer complementary strengths: latent imagination produces more temporally coherent rollouts, whereas unified prediction generalizes better to unseen environments. Targeted ablations further isolate the contributions of language guidance, conditioning signals, and instruction style, clarifying when language grounding versus dynamics modeling is the performance bottleneck. Together, these findings position LCVN as a testbed for studying how language, imagination, and decision-making interact in embodied agents.