DART-VLN.

Shaoheng Zhang¹, Zhichen Li², and Jie Mei^1,∗

Abstract

Memory-based agents for discrete vision-language navigation (VLN) operate under partial observability and can exhibit systematic inference-time failures even with strong pretrained backbones. We focus on two recurring problems: stale historical evidence during memory readout and inefficient local backtracking during action selection. We present DART-VLN, a training-free inference-time framework that combines Test-Time Memory Decay, which reweights stale and redundant memory slots without modifying their stored content, with Anti-Loop Regularization, a lightweight next-hop penalty that discourages immediate reversals. DART-VLN introduces no learnable parameters and leaves the navigation backbone unchanged. Experiments on R2R and REVERIE show that memory decay consistently preserves or improves task performance while reducing runtime. Adding anti-loop regularization further shortens trajectories, reduces local backtracking, and achieves the best overall balance between navigation quality and efficiency among the evaluated GridMM variants. These results indicate that lightweight inference-time control can improve the reliability and efficiency of memory-based discrete VLN without retraining.

I Introduction

Language-guided embodied navigation requires reliable sequential decision-making under partial observability. Vision-language navigation (VLN) provides a standard testbed for this problem by asking an embodied agent to move through an environment using language and visual observations [2, 22]. Among existing formulations, discrete VLN is especially attractive because it operates over explicit viewpoint graphs and supports controllable stepwise decision-making [19, 4, 1].

Recent advances in VLN have been driven by pretrained navigation models, explicit memory and map representations, larger training resources, and improved recovery and planning mechanisms [10, 9, 3, 19, 6, 5]. Together, these advances have substantially improved long-horizon reasoning and benchmark performance. Yet a practical gap remains at inference time: even strong memory-based discrete VLN backbones can behave unreliably when deployed with frozen parameters. Further gains often require retraining, architectural redesign, or heavier planning modules, making them less suitable when the goal is to improve a pretrained navigator without modifying its architecture or training procedure.

In this setting, two recurring failure modes become particularly important. The first appears at memory readout. Explicit navigation memory helps agents reason over longer trajectories by storing previously visited viewpoints, visual features, or map-level context [19, 3, 4, 1, 7, 21, 12]. Yet as navigation proceeds, stale or repeatedly observed evidence may remain active after its usefulness has faded, making memory aggregation noisier at decision time. The second appears at action selection. Even with a strong frozen backbone, agents still exhibit inefficient local behaviors such as immediate reversals and short loops [14, 18, 20]. These behaviors do not always prevent success, but they lengthen trajectories, waste steps, and increase runtime.

This motivates a simple question: how much can be gained from lightweight test-time control alone, without retraining the model or redesigning the navigation stack? We answer this question with DART-VLN, a training-free test-time control framework for memory-based discrete VLN. As summarized in Fig. 1, DART-VLN introduces two complementary mechanisms that operate directly inside the existing inference loop. Test-Time Memory Decay is a read-side reweighting rule that suppresses stale and redundant evidence during memory aggregation without rewriting stored content. Anti-Loop Regularization is a lightweight next-hop penalty that discourages immediate backtracking during action selection. Together, these components improve inference behavior while leaving the learned backbone untouched and introducing no new learnable parameters.

DART-VLN is designed as a plug-in test-time control layer for discrete VLN pipelines with explicit memory. In our experiments, we instantiate it on a GridMM-based navigator and evaluate it on R2R and REVERIE [19]. Across both benchmarks, read-side decay preserves or improves task performance, while anti-loop regularization reduces local reversals, trajectory length, and runtime. These results suggest that lightweight test-time control can strengthen memory-based discrete VLN without retraining.

I-A Contributions

•

We formulate DART-VLN as a training-free plug-in layer for discrete VLN pipelines with explicit memory, using read-side decay to suppress stale and redundant evidence without rewriting stored content.
•

We introduce a lightweight next-hop regularizer that discourages immediate backtracking and improves trajectory efficiency at inference time.
•

Experiments on R2R and REVERIE with a GridMM-based navigator show that read-side decay preserves or improves task performance, while combining it with anti-loop regularization offers the best navigation-efficiency balance among the evaluated variants.

Refer to caption — Figure 1: Overview of DART-VLN as a plug-in test-time control layer for discrete VLN pipelines with explicit memory. Memory decay reweights historical slots at readout, while anti-loop regularization applies next-hop penalties before argmax. The backbone remains frozen with no new learnable parameters.

II Related Work

Memory and map-based discrete VLN: Explicit memory and map representations support long-horizon reasoning in discrete VLN by storing visited viewpoints, aggregating graph context, or building richer topological states [19, 4, 1, 8, 7, 21]. As a plug-in layer, DART-VLN complements this line by controlling how existing memory is read at inference time, without introducing a new memory structure or map encoder.

Backtracking, rewind, and local recovery: A second line of work studies local navigation failures such as wrong turns, backtracking, and short loops [14, 18, 20]. Regret-aware, foresighted, and planning-oriented methods show that recovery behavior matters for trajectory efficiency, but often rely on learned correction policies or heavier planning modules. Our method shares this motivation but implements it as a lightweight next-hop regularizer applied directly to local action scores.

Inference-time control versus retraining-heavy improvement: Strong VLN gains also come from architectural extensions, richer scene modeling, and heavier planning [6, 5]. Although effective, these approaches can be less suitable when the goal is to improve a deployed navigator without retraining. Recent studies have also explored training-free improvements to VLN at inference time [17, 11]; DART-VLN follows this direction through read-side memory control and action-side local regularization.

III Method

III-A Problem Setting and Baseline Navigation Inference

We consider a memory-based agent operating on a discrete navigation graph $G=(V,E)$ , where each node denotes a viewpoint and each edge represents a feasible transition. Given a natural-language instruction $x$ , the agent starts from an initial viewpoint $v_{0}$ and makes sequential navigation decisions over the graph, producing a trajectory $\tau=(v_{0},v_{1},\dots,v_{T})$ . At each step $t$ , the agent receives the current visual observation at $v_{t}$ , retrieves historical information from an explicit navigation memory, and scores the candidate actions reachable from the current viewpoint.

For evaluation, we instantiate DART-VLN on a GridMM-based discrete VLN pipeline [19]. The navigator encodes the instruction and current observation, aggregates historical evidence from explicit memory slots $\{m_{i}\}$ , and computes action scores $s_{t}(v)$ for candidate target viewpoints $v$ . This explicit-memory design provides useful long-horizon context, but stale or repeatedly observed evidence may continue to influence the current decision.

More generally, DART-VLN requires only explicit memory readout and pre-selection candidate scores, enabling plug-in use without modifying the backbone. It reweights memory slots during aggregation and regularizes candidate scores before argmax decoding. The backbone remains frozen, and no learnable parameters are introduced.

Motivated by reliable embodied navigation under partial observability [13], DART-VLN is designed for memory-based discrete VLN pipelines but validated here only on a GridMM-based navigator. The following subsections describe its read-side memory control and action-side regularization.

III-B Test-Time Memory Decay

III-B1 Motivation

In memory-based navigation, stale or repeatedly observed slots may remain active after their usefulness has faded [7, 21]. We therefore use a conservative read-side strategy: stored memory content is not rewritten, and only slot contributions are reweighted during aggregation.

III-B2 Slot Metadata

For each memory slot $m_{i}$ , we maintain three lightweight metadata variables: slot age $a_{i}$ , visit count $c_{i}$ , and novelty $n_{i}$ . The slot age is defined as

a_{i}=t-t_{i}^{\mathrm{last}},

where $t_{i}^{\mathrm{last}}$ is the most recent step at which slot $i$ was refreshed. The visit count $c_{i}$ records how often the corresponding region has been observed. The novelty term $n_{i}$ captures recent feature change and is smoothed over time.

Concretely, let $f_{i}^{\mathrm{old}}$ and $f_{i}^{\mathrm{new}}$ denote the previous and current slot features. We first compute an instantaneous novelty score

\nu_{i}=\mathrm{clip}\big(1-\cos(f_{i}^{\mathrm{old}},f_{i}^{\mathrm{new}}),\,0,\,1\big),

(1)

and then update the novelty estimate with an exponential moving average:

n_{i}^{(t)}=\rho n_{i}^{(t-1)}+(1-\rho)\nu_{i}.

(2)

Here, $\rho\in[0,1)$ controls how strongly past novelty estimates are retained over time. In our implementation, $\rho=0.5$ . Together, these metadata provide a lightweight summary of whether a slot is recent, repeatedly observed, or still undergoing meaningful feature changes.

III-B3 Memory Reweighting

Based on the metadata above, we assign a heuristic readout weight $w_{i}$ to each memory slot. Since $\nu_{i}$ is clipped to $[0,1]$ and $n_{i}$ is obtained by exponential smoothing, we also have $n_{i}\in[0,1]$ . The readout weight is defined as

	$\displaystyle w_{i}=\mathrm{clip}\Bigl($	$\displaystyle\exp(-\lambda a_{i})\Bigl(1-\alpha\frac{c_{i}}{c_{i}+1}\Bigr)(5+5n_{i}),$		(3)
		$\displaystyle w_{\min},\,w_{\max}\Bigr).$		(3)

This formulation combines three factors. The recency term $\exp(-\lambda a_{i})$ downweights slots that have not been refreshed for many steps. The repetition term $\bigl(1-\alpha\frac{c_{i}}{c_{i}+1}\bigr)$ reduces the influence of repeatedly observed regions, with $\alpha$ controlling the suppression strength. The novelty term $(0.5+0.5n_{i})$ assigns greater weight to slots showing recent feature changes. Finally, clipping to $[w_{\min},w_{\max}]$ prevents overly weak or aggressive reweighting.

In the default DART-VLN configuration, these weights are applied only during memory readout. The weighted memory is then passed into the original navigation pipeline without modifying the stored slot content. This keeps the intervention training-free and straightforward to isolate in ablation studies.

III-B4 Boundary of Decay-Only

In the decay-only setting, only the read-side reweighting in Eq. (3) is applied; stored slot representations and baseline memory updates remain unchanged. Thus, decay-only is a read-side denoising rule rather than a learned memory update mechanism.

III-B5 Write-Side Memory Update Variants

Beyond read-side decay, we test a more aggressive write-side update in which matched slots are refreshed by a heuristic gate based on novelty, age, and repetition, while unmatched observations are appended as new slots. We report this as update-only and its combination with decay as full-mode. Because these variants are less stable, we include them as stress tests of more aggressive memory intervention rather than as part of the default configuration.

Notation :

h(v)

: graph next hop of candidate viewpoint

v

p_{t}(v)

: anti-loop penalty

s^{\prime}_{t}(v)

: adjusted action score

Input : Instruction

x

; initial viewpoint

v_{0}

; max step

T_{\max}

; memory slots

\{m_{i}\}

with metadata

\{a_{i},c_{i},n_{i}\}

Output : Navigation trajectory

\tau

3Function DART-VLN-Infer( $x,v_{0},\{m_{i},a_{i},c_{i},n_{i}\},T_{\max}$ ):

4 Initialize

\tau\leftarrow(v_{0})

and the visit counts from the start viewpoint

5 for $t\leftarrow 0$ to $T_{\max}-1$ do

6 Encode the instruction and current observation at

v_{t}

7 Compute read-side memory weights

w_{i}

using Eq. (3)

8 Aggregate weighted memory and obtain candidate scores

\{s_{t}(v)\}

9 for each candidate target viewpoint $v$ do

10 Compute graph next hop

h(v)

from the current viewpoint

11 Compute penalty

p_{t}(v)

using Eq. (4)

12 Update adjusted score

s^{\prime}_{t}(v)\leftarrow s_{t}(v)-p_{t}(v)

14 Select the next action by

\arg\max_{v}s^{\prime}_{t}(v)

15 if STOP is selected then

16 return

\tau

18 Execute the transition and append the new viewpoint to

\tau

19 Update visit counts, memory, and slot metadata for the next step

21 return

\tau

Algorithm 1 Default DART-VLN Inference

TABLE I: Results on the R2R dataset

Methods	Val Unseen					Test Unseen
Methods	TL $\downarrow$	NE $\downarrow$	SR $\uparrow$	SPL $\uparrow$	Runtime(s) $\downarrow$	TL $\downarrow$	NE $\downarrow$	SR $\uparrow$	SPL $\uparrow$	Runtime(s) $\downarrow$
VLNBERT [10]	12.03	3.93	63	57	–	12.37	4.11	63	57	–
AirBERT [9]	11.78	3.99	62	56	–	12.40	4.15	62	57	–
SEvol [5]	12.22	3.96	62	57	–	13.42	4.17	62	57	–
HOP [16]	12.28	3.81	64	57	–	12.71	3.87	64	59	–
HAMT [3]	11.44	2.31	66	61	–	12.27	3.95	65	60	–
TD-STP [23]	–	3.23	70	63	–	–	3.72	67	61	–
DUET [4]	13.92	3.33	72	60	–	14.71	3.63	69	59	–
BEVBert [1]	14.52	2.83	74	64	–	15.88	3.15	73	62	–
GridMM (baseline) [19]	13.27	2.83	74	64	937.99	14.43	3.35	73	62	2312.52
update-only	13.92	2.86	75	63	891.12	16.2	3.37	72	59	1725.22
decay-only	13.29	2.59	76	65	742.61	14.52	3.19	73	62	1621.34
full-mode	13.77	2.80	75	64	1000.84	15.95	3.30	72	60	2475.63
decay+anti-loop	12.41 $\downarrow$	2.69	76 $\uparrow$	66 $\uparrow$	666.37 $\downarrow$	13.80 $\downarrow$	3.38	74 $\uparrow$	63 $\uparrow$	1329.56 $\downarrow$

Note: Runtime is reported only for GridMM and its variants under the same implementation and hardware; cross-paper runtime is not directly comparable.

III-C Anti-Loop Regularization for Navigation Decision-Making

III-C1 Motivation

Immediate backtracking and short loops waste steps and expose the agent to additional error-prone decisions [14, 18, 20]. We therefore introduce a lightweight action-side regularizer that discourages local reversals while keeping the frozen policy otherwise unchanged.

III-C2 Next-Hop-Based Penalty

Let $s_{t}(v)$ denote the original action score assigned at step $t$ to a candidate target viewpoint $v$ . Rather than penalizing the target directly, we examine its graph next hop $h(v)$ , the first local transition on the path from the current viewpoint to $v$ . We then define the penalty

p_{t}(v)=\beta_{\mathrm{back}}\cdot\mathbb{I}[h(v)=v_{t-1}]+\beta_{\mathrm{rev}}\cdot\mathbb{I}[\mathrm{visit}(h(v))\geq k],

(4)

and use it to adjust the action score:

s^{\prime}_{t}(v)=s_{t}(v)-p_{t}(v).

(5)

The first term penalizes a next hop that returns directly to the previous viewpoint $v_{t-1}$ . The second applies a smaller penalty to repeated revisits. Here, $\mathrm{visit}(h(v))$ denotes prior visits to the next-hop viewpoint, $\beta_{\mathrm{rev}}$ controls the revisit penalty, and $k$ is its threshold. In the default setting, this term remains small and is applied only after repeated revisits, with $k=2$ . Immediate-backtracking suppression therefore remains the module’s dominant effect.

This next-hop formulation is important because it targets the local transition actually executed at the current step, rather than only adjusting a more distant target score. It therefore aligns the regularizer with the trajectory-level behavior we aim to change.

III-C3 Inference Scope

The anti-loop module is applied only at test time and targets deterministic, argmax-based navigation. In the default configuration, it is combined with read-side memory decay and applied to candidate scores before action selection. The module does not modify the stop head, add a planner, or alter the learned backbone. Its scope is deliberately narrow: it is a graph-local regularizer that improves trajectory efficiency with a frozen backbone. Because the penalty is finite and no action is masked, the agent can still backtrack when the original score provides sufficiently strong evidence.

III-D Design Principle: Conservative Test-Time Control

DART-VLN follows a conservative test-time control principle: read-side reweighting suppresses stale evidence without perturbing stored representations, and the action-side regularizer discourages wasteful local loops without acting as a planner. We therefore treat the more aggressive write-side variants as stress tests rather than components of the default configuration. Algorithm 1 summarizes the resulting inference flow.

IV Experiments

IV-A Experimental Setup

We evaluate DART-VLN on Room-to-Room (R2R) [2] and REVERIE [15]. For R2R, Table I reports TL, NE, SR, SPL, and runtime on val unseen and test unseen. For REVERIE, Table II reports TL, OSR, SR, SPL, RGS, RGSPL, and runtime on val unseen, as the official test server is unavailable. We treat SR, SPL, and RGSPL as primary task metrics; TL characterizes path efficiency, NE measures endpoint accuracy, and runtime reflects computational cost.

All variants use the same baseline checkpoints and differ only in their inference-time control settings; none requires retraining. Unless stated otherwise, DART-VLN denotes decay+anti-loop under deterministic argmax inference. We report update-only, decay-only, and full-mode as auxiliary ablations and stress tests. The default configuration uses $\lambda=0.12$ , $\alpha=0.15$ , $w_{\min}=0.35$ , $w_{\max}=1.0$ , $\beta_{\mathrm{back}}=0.22$ , $\beta_{\mathrm{rev}}=0.06$ , and $k=2$ . We use these hyperparameters in all DART-VLN comparisons without retraining or checkpoint selection. Write-side variants use $g_{0}=0.15$ , $\lambda_{n}=0.35$ , $\lambda_{a}=0.20$ , $\lambda_{c}=0.15$ , $g_{\min}=0.05$ , $g_{\max}=0.85$ , $T_{\max}=20$ , and $r_{\mathrm{match}}=0.75$ . Runtime is reported only for GridMM and its variants, evaluated with the same implementation on an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti; cross-paper runtime is not directly comparable. The reduction mainly reflects lower memory-access and downstream inference pressure, as decay concentrates readout on a distilled set of informative slots.

IV-B Main Results on R2R and REVERIE

Tables I and II show a consistent pattern: decay-only preserves or improves task performance while reducing runtime, whereas decay+anti-loop achieves the best balance among the GridMM variants. We discuss the main trends below and return to the stress-test variants in Sec. IV-C.

R2R. Table I reports results on both val unseen and test unseen. On this benchmark, decay-only already shows the value of conservative read-side control: compared with GridMM, it improves NE from 2.83 to 2.59 on val unseen and from 3.35 to 3.19 on test unseen, while also reducing runtime from 937.99 s to 742.61 s and from 2312.52 s to 1621.34 s, respectively. Its SR and SPL are maintained or slightly improved, suggesting that read-side decay reduces the influence of stale memory while improving inference efficiency.

Among the GridMM variants, decay+anti-loop achieves the best overall balance on R2R. It produces the shortest trajectories and lowest runtime on both splits while improving SR/SPL from 73/62 to 74/63 on test unseen. Its test NE is slightly worse than GridMM (3.38 versus 3.35), so the result reflects a better balance between task performance and efficiency rather than a uniform improvement in endpoint accuracy.

TABLE II: Results on the REVERIE val-unseen split.

Methods	Val Unseen						Runtime(s) $\downarrow$
	Navigation				Grounding
	TL $\downarrow$	OSR $\uparrow$	SR $\uparrow$	SPL $\uparrow$	RGS $\uparrow$	RGSPL $\uparrow$
VLNBERT [10]	16.75	35.08	30.63	24.90	18.72	15.23	–
AirBERT [9]	18.71	34.51	27.88	21.83	18.19	14.16	–
HOP [16]	16.46	36.24	31.78	26.15	18.82	15.73	–
HAMT [3]	14.08	36.84	32.91	30.23	18.90	17.26	–
TD-STP [23]	–	39.48	34.89	27.34	21.13	16.52	–
DUET [4]	22.12	51.08	46.96	33.77	32.12	23.01	–
BEVBert [1]	–	56.38	51.79	36.35	34.70	24.46	–
GridMM [19]	23.20	57.48	51.37	36.47	34.57	24.56	4329.67
update-only	23.77	57.12	50.84	35.85	33.98	23.80	4276.31
decay-only	23.15	58.12	51.98	36.60	34.68	24.72	2998.49
full-mode	23.18	57.94	51.80	36.45	34.65	24.68	4603.40
decay+anti-loop	21.57	57.99	52.34	37.53	35.37	25.44	1497.98

Note: Runtime is reported only for GridMM and its variants under the same setting; the official test unseen server is unavailable.

REVERIE. Table II shows the same qualitative trend on val unseen. decay-only slightly improves navigation and grounding metrics while reducing runtime, indicating that the benefits of read-side memory control extend to grounding-related metrics. Among the GridMM variants, decay+anti-loop achieves the strongest overall performance, improving SR/SPL/RGSPL from 51.37/36.47/24.56 to 52.34/37.53/25.44 and reducing runtime from 4329.67 s to 1497.98 s. Together, the two benchmarks show that memory decay provides consistent improvements and that anti-loop regularization further reduces trajectory length and runtime.

IV-C Ablations and Stress-Test Variants

The comparison among update-only, decay-only, full-mode, and decay+anti-loop clarifies the role of each component. Among the single-module variants, decay-only consistently preserves or improves task metrics while reducing runtime. By contrast, update-only and full-mode rewrite memory before readout and show less consistent gains, suggesting that aggressive write-side intervention can disturb representations already used by the frozen policy.

decay+anti-loop builds on this read-side improvement with a narrow action-side controller that reduces local reversals, trajectory length, and runtime. The ablation supports the main design principle: with a frozen backbone, well-scoped test-time control is more reliable than heavier intervention.

IV-D Navigation Behavior and Efficiency Analysis

Anti-loop regularization is not meant to guarantee monotonic gains on all endpoint metrics; its direct value is local trajectory control. Figure 2 illustrates this effect, while Table III quantifies it through backtracking rate, average action count, and trajectory length.

TABLE III: Behavioral analysis on the R2R and REVERIE val-unseen splits.

Methods	R2R Val Unseen
Methods	Backtrack Rate(%) $\downarrow$	Avg. Steps $\downarrow$	Avg. TL $\downarrow$
GridMM (baseline)	2.30	6.02	13.27
decay-only	3.51	6.00	13.29
decay+anti-loop	2.01 $\downarrow$	5.90 $\downarrow$	12.41 $\downarrow$

Methods	REVERIE Val Unseen
Methods	Backtrack Rate(%) $\downarrow$	Avg. Steps $\downarrow$	Avg. TL $\downarrow$
GridMM (baseline)	8.43	8.52	23.20
decay-only	8.45	8.52	23.15
decay+anti-loop	5.99 $\downarrow$	8.46 $\downarrow$	21.57 $\downarrow$

Note: Backtrack rate is the percentage of executed actions that return to the viewpoint from two steps earlier; Avg. Steps counts actions before STOP. Because the default configuration uses only a weak revisit penalty, the observed changes are dominated by immediate-backtracking suppression.

On R2R, decay-only leaves local reversal behavior largely unchanged: its average action count changes only marginally, and its immediate-backtracking rate remains higher than that of the baseline. This is consistent with its role as a read-side denoising rule rather than a motion regularizer. By contrast, adding anti-loop regularization reduces the immediate-backtracking rate from 3.51% to 2.01% while also decreasing the average number of actions and trajectory length.

REVERIE exhibits the same pattern. The baseline and decay-only remain nearly identical in local reversal behavior, whereas decay+anti-loop reduces the backtracking rate from 8.45% to 5.99% and follows shorter trajectories. This consistency across benchmarks supports the intended role of anti-loop regularization as a graph-local controller rather than a general planning mechanism.

V Conclusion

We presented DART-VLN, a training-free plug-in control layer for discrete VLN pipelines with explicit memory. Instantiated on a GridMM-based navigator, DART-VLN improves navigation performance and efficiency on R2R and REVERIE without retraining or architectural changes. Read-side decay preserves or improves task performance while reducing runtime, whereas anti-loop regularization further reduces local backtracking and trajectory length. Together, these results support conservative test-time control as a practical way to improve frozen memory-based navigation.

Beyond the aggregate gains, our behavioral analysis clarifies how the two modules contribute at different stages of inference: decay stabilizes memory readout, while anti-loop regularization improves local trajectory control. Their combination provides a compact and interpretable intervention for frozen navigators.

Our experiments focus on a GridMM-based instantiation, which provides a controlled setting for isolating these effects. A natural next step is to examine their transfer across other explicit-memory backbones and hyperparameter settings, as well as to explore stochastic decoding and continuous navigation. Such extensions could further clarify the broader applicability of conservative test-time control.

References

[1] D. An, Y. Qi, Y. Li, Y. Huang, L. Wang, T. Tan, and J. Shao (2022) BEVBert: topo-metric map pre-training for language-guided navigation. arXiv:2212.04385. Cited by: §I, §I, §II, TABLE I, TABLE II.
[2] P. Anderson, Q. Wu, D. Teney, J. Bruce, M. Johnson, N. Sünderhauf, I. Reid, S. Gould, and A. van den Hengel (2018) Vision-and-language navigation: interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., pp. 3674–3683. Cited by: §I, §IV-A.
[3] S. Chen, P. Guhur, C. Schmid, and I. Laptev (2021) History aware multimodal transformer for vision-and-language navigation. In Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Cited by: §I, §I, TABLE I, TABLE II.
[4] S. Chen, P. Guhur, M. Tapaswi, C. Schmid, and I. Laptev (2022) Think global, act local: dual-scale graph transformer for vision-and-language navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., pp. 16537–16547. Cited by: §I, §I, §II, TABLE I, TABLE II.
[5] X. Dong, H. Zhao, J. Gao, H. Li, X. Ma, Y. Zhou, F. Chen, and J. Liu (2025) SE-VLN: a self-evolving vision-language navigation framework based on multimodal large language models. arXiv:2507.13152. Cited by: §I, §II, TABLE I.
[6] C. Gao, X. Peng, M. Yan, H. Wang, L. Yang, H. Ren, H. Li, and S. Liu (2023) Adaptive zone-aware hierarchical planner for vision-language navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., pp. 14911–14920. Cited by: §I, §II.
[7] J. Gao, R. Liu, and W. Wang (2025) 3D Gaussian map with open-set semantic grouping for vision-and-language navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pp. 9252–9262. Cited by: §I, §II, §III-B1.
[8] G. Georgakis, K. Schmeckpeper, K. Wanchoo, S. Dan, E. Miltsakaki, D. Roth, and K. Daniilidis (2022) Cross-modal map learning for vision and language navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., pp. 15460–15470. Cited by: §II.
[9] P. Guhur, M. Tapaswi, H. Chen, I. Laptev, and C. Schmid (2021) Airbert: in-domain pretraining for vision-and-language navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pp. 1614–1623. Cited by: §I, TABLE I, TABLE II.
[10] Y. Hong, Q. Wu, Y. Qi, C. Rodriguez-Opazo, and S. Gould (2021) VLN-BERT: a recurrent vision-and-language BERT for navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., pp. 1643–1653. Cited by: §I, TABLE I, TABLE II.
[11] H. Ko, S. Kim, G. Oh, J. Yoon, H. Lee, S. Jang, S. Kim, and S. Kim (2025) Active test-time vision-language navigation. In Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., Cited by: §II.
[12] J. Krantz, S. Banerjee, W. Zhu, J. Corso, P. Anderson, S. Lee, and J. Thomason (2023) Iterative vision-and-language navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., pp. 14921–14930. Cited by: §I.
[13] J. Krantz, E. Wijmans, A. Majumdar, D. Batra, and S. Lee (2020) Beyond the nav-graph: vision-and-language navigation in continuous environments. In Proc. Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., pp. 104–120. Cited by: §III-A.
[14] C. Ma, Z. Wu, G. AlRegib, C. Xiong, and Z. Kira (2019) The regretful agent: heuristic-aided navigation through progress estimation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., pp. 6732–6740. Cited by: §I, §II, §III-C1.
[15] Y. Qi, Q. Wu, P. Anderson, X. Wang, W. Y. Wang, C. Shen, and A. van den Hengel (2020) REVERIE: remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., pp. 9979–9988. Cited by: §IV-A.
[16] Y. Qiao, Y. Qi, Y. Hong, Z. Yu, P. Wang, and Q. Wu (2023) HOP+: history-enhanced and order-aware pre-training for vision-and-language navigation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 45 (7), pp. 8524–8537. Cited by: TABLE I, TABLE II.
[17] N. Rajabi and J. Kosecka (2025) TRAVEL: training-free retrieval and alignment for vision-and-language navigation. arXiv:2502.07306. Cited by: §II.
[18] H. Wang, W. Liang, L. Van Gool, and W. Wang (2023) DREAMWALKER: mental planning for continuous vision-language navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pp. 10839–10849. Cited by: §I, §II, §III-C1.
[19] Z. Wang, X. Li, J. Yang, Y. Liu, and S. Jiang (2023) GridMM: grid memory map for vision-and-language navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pp. 15579–15590. Cited by: §I, §I, §I, §I, §II, §III-A, TABLE I, TABLE II.
[20] P. Xu, X. Gong, and Y. Mu (2025) NavQ: learning a Q-model for foresighted vision-and-language navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pp. 6327–6341. Cited by: §I, §II, §III-C1.
[21] S. Zhang, Y. Qiao, Q. Wang, Z. Yan, Q. Wu, Z. Wei, and J. Liu (2025) COSMO: combination of selective memorization for low-cost vision-and-language navigation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., pp. 5511–5522. Cited by: §I, §II, §III-B1.
[22] Y. Zhang, Z. Ma, J. Li, Y. Qiao, Z. Wang, J. Chai, Q. Wu, M. Bansal, and P. Kordjamshidi (2024) Vision-and-language navigation today and tomorrow: a survey in the era of foundation models. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res.. Cited by: §I.
[23] Y. Zhao, J. Chen, C. Gao, W. Wang, L. Yang, H. Ren, H. Xia, and S. Liu (2022) Target-driven structured transformer planner for vision-language navigation. In Proc. 30th ACM Int. Conf. Multimedia, pp. 4194–4203. Cited by: TABLE I, TABLE II.

DART-VLN: Test-Time Memory Decay and Anti-Loop Regularization for Discrete Vision-Language Navigation††thanks: * Corresponding author. Code will be released at https://github.com/Japluto/DART-VLN.