PreprintCited by 69AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningReinforcement Learning in RoboticsRobot Manipulation and Learning

SayNav: Grounding Large Language Models for Dynamic Planning to Navigation in New Environments

Open access
Rajvanshi, Abhinav, Sikka, Karan, Lin, Xiao, Lee, Bhoram, Chiu, Han-Pang, Velasquez, Alvaro·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Semantic reasoning and dynamic planning capabilities are crucial for an autonomous agent to perform complex navigation tasks in unknown environments. It requires a large amount of common-sense knowledge, that humans possess, to succeed in these tasks. We present SayNav, a new approach that leverages human knowledge from Large Language Models (LLMs) for efficient generalization to complex navigation tasks in unknown large-scale environments. SayNav uses a novel grounding mechanism, that incrementally builds a 3D scene graph of the explored environment as inputs to LLMs, for generating feasible and contextually appropriate high-level plans for navigation. The LLM-generated plan is then executed by a pre-trained low-level planner, that treats each planned step as a short-distance point-goal navigation sub-task. SayNav dynamically generates step-by-step instructions during navigation and continuously refines future steps based on newly perceived information. We evaluate SayNav on multi-object navigation (MultiON) task, that requires the agent to utilize a massive amount of human knowledge to efficiently search multiple different objects in an unknown environment. We also introduce a benchmark dataset for MultiON task employing ProcTHOR framework that provides large photo-realistic indoor environments with variety of objects. SayNav achieves state-of-the-art results and even outperforms an oracle based baseline with strong ground-truth assumptions by more than 8% in terms of success rate, highlighting its ability to generate dynamic plans for successfully locating objects in large-scale new environments. The code, benchmark dataset and demonstration videos are accessible at https://www.sri.com/ics/computer-vision/saynav.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2309.04077

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Simulators take on the roles of plan evaluation and critiques performed by the respective critics in the LLM-Modulo framework.

    “Simulators takes on the roles of plan evaluation and critiques performed by the respective critics in the LLM-Modulo framework”

    From LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworks (2024) · cites this paper as Rajvanshi et al., 2023

    Section 4.3 uses AI2-Thor as the simulator for SayNav’s experiments, but does not assign it a plan-critique role. More decisively, Section 5 (Limitations and Discussion; page unavailable) says that mechanisms to verify and provide feedback on LLM-generated plans are future work, rather than roles already performed by the simulator. The paper does not discuss the LLM-Modulo framework. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Deitke, M.; et al. 2022. ProcTHOR: Large-Scale Embodied AI Using Procedural Generation. NeurIPS, 35: 5982-5994.
  2. Wu, Y.; et al. 2018. Group normalization. In ECCV, 3-19.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rajvanshi, A., Sikka, K., Lin, X., Lee, B., Chiu, H.-P., & Velasquez, A.
Affiliations
  • SRI International (US)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
34
Pages
464-474
ISSN
2334-0835 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399177289
Cited by
67
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 1
FWCI
19.48
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
Keywords
large language models, dynamic planning, robot navigation, 3D scene graphs, grounding, unknown environments, human knowledge, autonomous agents, point-goal navigation, instruction generation, benchmark dataset, indoor environment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review