MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416756242 · doi:10.1109/lra.2025.3632119

X-Nav: Learning End-to-End Cross-Embodiment Navigation for Mobile Robots

2025· article· en· W4416756242 on OpenAlexafffund
Haitong Wang, Aaron Hao Tan, Angus Fung, Goldie Nejat

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMobile robotRobotReinforcement learningRobot learningRoboticsGeneralizability theoryMobile robot navigation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing navigation methods are primarily designed for specific robot embodiments, limiting their generalizability across diverse robot platforms. In this paper, we introduce X-Nav, a novel framework for end-to-end cross-embodiment navigation where a single unified policy can be deployed across various embodiments for both wheeled and quadrupedal robots. X-Nav consists of two learning stages: 1) multiple expert policies are trained using deep reinforcement learning with privileged observations on a wide range of randomly generated robot embodiments; and 2) a single general policy is distilled from the expert policies via navigation action chunking with transformer (Nav-ACT). The general policy directly maps visual and proprioceptive observations to low-level control commands, enabling generalization to novel robot embodiments. Simulated experiments demonstrated that X-Nav achieved zero-shot transfer to both unseen embodiments and photorealistic environments. A scalability study showed that the performance of X-Nav improves when trained with an increasing number of randomly generated embodiments. An ablation study confirmed the design choices of X-Nav. Furthermore, real-world experiments were conducted to validate the generalizability of X-Nav in real-world environments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207