Evaluates large multimodal models' ability to perform goal-oriented embodied navigation in complex urban 3D airspace. It probes geometric perception, cross-view understanding, spatial imagination, and long-term memory by requiring models to navigate from a start point to a semantic goal using visual observations and historical context. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Embodied Navigation Benchmark, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports SR.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill goal-oriented-embodied-navigation-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Goal Oriented Embodied Navigation Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-goal-oriented-embodied-navigation-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: goal-oriented-embodied-navigation-eval
description: Evaluates large multimodal models' ability to perform goal-oriented embodied navigation in complex urban 3D airspace. It probes geometric perception, cross-view understanding, spatial imagination, and long-term memory by requiring models to navigate from a start point to a semantic goal using visual observations and historical context. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Embodied Navigation Benchmark, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports SR.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2604.07973
bibtex_key: zhao2026embodiednavigationbench
confidence: high
---
# goal-oriented-embodied-navigation-eval
> How Far Are Large Multimodal Models from Human-Level Spatial Action? A Benchmark for Goal-Oriented Embodied Navigation in Urban Airspace — Zhao et al. (2026) (arXiv:2604.07973, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates large multimodal models' ability to perform goal-oriented embodied navigation in complex urban 3D airspace. It probes geometric perception, cross-view understanding, spatial imagination, and long-term memory by requiring models to navigate from a start point to a semantic goal using visual observations and historical context.
## Datasets
- **Embodied Navigation Benchmark** — total 5037; splits: short (-1), middle (-1), long (-1); repo https://github.com/serenditipy-AC/Embodied-Navigation-Bench
## Metrics
- `SR` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Success Rate: the percentage of navigation trajectories that successfully reach the goal location within the allowed steps or distance threshold.
- `SPL` — range: [0, 1]
- Success weighted by Path Length: SR multiplied by the ratio of the optimal path length to the actual path length taken. Measures both success and path efficiency.
- `accuracy` — range: percent
- Reported as the percentage of correctly completed navigation tasks across different trajectory length groups (short, middle, long).
## Input / output format
**Input**: Current RGB observation combined with a memory buffer containing previous observations, actions, and rationales. For VLA baselines, inputs are aligned to match the goal-oriented navigation task format.
**Output**: Discrete spatial action commands expressed in natural language with an accompanying rationale, high-level reasoning/planning steps, or discrete action tokens, depending on the evaluation paradigm.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def evaluate_navigation(traj, goal, initial_pos, optimal_len):
reached = distance(traj[-1], goal) < threshold
progress = [distance(step, goal) / distance(initial_pos, goal) for step in traj]
sr = 1.0 if reached else 0.0
spl = sr * (1.0 if optimal_len == 0 else optimal_len / len(traj))
return sr, spl
# Aggregate over dataset
SR = mean([sr for sr, _ in results]) * 100
SPL = mean([spl for _, spl in results])
```
## Common pitfalls
- Models are evaluated across three distinct paradigms (action-as-language, action-as-reasoning, action-as-token), so comparing raw scores across paradigms without accounting for output format differences is misleading.
- Navigation completion progress is non-linear; errors often trigger irreversible 'Critical Decision Bifurcations' (CDBs) where distance to goal increases monotonically, making standard linear error accumulation metrics insufficient.
- Trajectory length significantly impacts difficulty; short, middle, and long groups must be evaluated separately as performance gaps widen non-linearly with distance.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Both the random and action sample methods exhibit SR and SPL scores close to 0 in middle-distance and long-distance groups. This indicates that the task encompasses a vast action space.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{zhao2026embodiednavigationbench,
title={How Far Are Large Multimodal Models from Human-Level Spatial Action? A Benchmark for Goal-Oriented Embodied Navigation in Urban Airspace},
author={Zhao et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2604.07973}
}
```
- arXiv: 2604.07973
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!