Trajectory Diffusion for ObjectGoal Navigation

Authors: xinyao  yu
sixian  zhang
xinhang  song
xiaorong  qin
shuqiang  jiang
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-10 09:02:51

Abstract: Object goal navigation requires an agent to navigate to a specified object in an unseen environment based on visual observations and user-specified goals. 
Human decision-making in navigation is sequential, planning a most likely sequence of actions toward the goal. 
However, existing ObjectNav methods, both end-to-end learning methods and modular methods, rely on single-step planning. They output the next action based on the current model input, which easily overlooks temporal consistency and leads to myopic planning.
To this end, we aim to learn sequence planning for ObjectNav. Specifically, we propose trajectory diffusion to learn the distribution of trajectory sequences conditioned on the current observation and the goal. 
We utilize DDPM and automatically collected optimal trajectory segments to train the trajectory diffusion.
Once the trajectory diffusion model is trained, it can generate a temporally coherent sequence of future trajectory for agent based on its current observations.
Experimental results on the Gibson and MP3D datasets demonstrate that the generated trajectories effectively guide the agent, resulting in more accurate and efficient navigation.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 Embodied AI aims to develop agents with a comprehensive understanding of their environment, capable of interacting with humans, other agents and entities in real physical environments. As a fundamental task of embodied AI, visual object goal navigation (ObjectNav) task involves placing an agent in an unseen environment and tasking it to navigate to a user-specified object (e.g., 'find a toilet') based on visual sensory input. To efficiently complete the ObjectNav task, the agent needs to construct an information-rich memory to store past experiences (i.e., what it has previously seen) to avoid redundant searching. Additionally, it needs to learn a planner to plan the future (i.e., determine the most efficient sequence of actions to navigate to the target) to avoid unnecessary exploration.Humans are innately smart navigators, as they encode both short-term memories from current navigation and long-term memories from daily life into a cognitive map. This map records detailed information about the semantics, positions, and relationships within spatial environments [40] . In practice, the human decision-making process is understood as finding the most possible sequence of releases based on cognitive information [41] . Human planning is a sequential process that ensures temporal consistency and global optimality. However, prior methods of ObjectNav employ single-step planning rather than sequential planning for navigation. As illustrated in Fig. 1 , prior end-to-end learning methods [66, 45, 62, 28, 18, 33, 34] formulate their planners as end-to-end networks and train them using reinforcement learning (RL) [66, 45, 62, 28, 18] or imitation learning (IL) [ 33, 34] . These planners perform single-step planning at each moment, outputting an action based on the current egocentric view, which leads to a lack of temporal consistency and interpretability. Furthermore, these methods implicitly encode all past observations, leading to a loss of geometric spatial information, thus limiting their generalization in complex environments [28, 63] . Modular methods [4, 31, 65, 59, 64] attempt to address this by constructing a semantic map during navigation to geometrically store historical observations, helping the agent avoid redundant searching. However, their decision-making process is still single-step. They train a waypoint predictor via supervised learning to plan the next subgoal based on the current semantic map and target. Motivated by learning sequential planning, we propose to model the conditional distribution of the trajectory sequence, i.e., learning to plan a sequence of future trajectory conditioned on the current semantic map and target.Since both the semantic map and trajectory sequence are high-dimensional, the feature space and computational complexity are significantly high. Thus, directly learning this conditional distribution is challenging [1] . Recently, diffusion models have achieved great success in expressing complex distributions [16, 54] and generating high-quality images [37, 35, 32] . Diffusion models gradually add noise to the data during the diffusion process, transforming the data distribution into a simple distribution (e.g., Gaussian distribution). In the reserve process (i.e., denoising process), noise is iteratively predicted and removed, generating complex data distributions from the simple random distribution. This iterative refinement learning manner enhances the stability and controllability of learning high-dimensional data distributions. Therefore, we utilize diffusion models to learn this conditional distribution and propose the trajectory diffusion (T-diff) model as a navigation planner, which performs sequence planning and generates the future trajectory sequence for the agent.In this paper, we propose the trajectory diffusion for the ObjectNav task. The trajectory diffusion is a sequence planner designed to generate optimal trajectory sequence for an agent based on its historical observations (i.e., semantic maps) and target object. Specifically, we collect optimal trajectories by using precise maps in training rooms. Then, an agent equipped with a semantic map module is driven to follow these trajectories, gathering semantic maps and poses at each timestep along the way. The collected data are further divided into data pairs consisting of a semantic map at a given moment and the corresponding future trajectory segments. Based on the collected data pairs, we employ DDPM [16] to train our trajectory diffusion. Our trajectory diffusion is implemented by modifying Transformer-based diffusion, which takes noised latent as the starting input and iteratively refines them to produce trajectory sequence. Once the trajectory is generated, we drive the agent to move along the predicted trajectory sequence until the target is found. Evaluations on the Gibson [47] and MP3D [3] simulators show our trajectory diffusion model significantly outperforms baselines. Visualization results confirm effective guidance from generated trajectories. Additionally, we further showcase the scalability of our trajectory diffusion model across different simulators.Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We have clearly delineated the main claims of our proposed method in both the abstract and introduction. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper. • The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers. • The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings. • It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper. 
related work: 
 ObjectGoal Navigation. Goal-driven navigation [22, 42, 43, 44, 63] is a fundamental task in embodied AI, and this paper focuses on a specific variant of this task, namely the ObjectNav task, where the goal is defined by object semantics. Current works for ObjectNav task can be categorized into two types: end-to-end learning methods and modular methods. End-to-end learning methods develop a navigation policy by interacting with the environment trained by reinforcement learning (RL) [45, 66, 61] or imitation learning (IL) [34, 33] . These approaches typically take inputs such as target object categories and extra information, including visual representations [20, 29, 18] and object relationship graphs [51, 62, 11, 55] . Then they predict single-step planning in each timestep. The endto-end method implicitly encodes all past observations, which results in the loss of geographic spatial information. Consequently, its generalization ability in environments with complex layouts is limited. Modular methods [4, 5, 6] typically preserve a top-down geometric map enriched with semantic details. They are also single-step planners that predict waypoints as sub-goals at each time step based on the constructed semantic map. Through supervised learning, PONI [31] learns to predict the nearest frontier with the current semantic map to infer where to explore, while PEANUT [59] directly predicts the target location in the form of a probabilistic goal map. Current end-to-end learning methods are single-step planners with implicit memory, while modular methods are single-step planners with geometric memory. Alternatively, our trajectory diffusion approach is a sequence planner with geometric memory, predicting future sequential trajectories based on the current semantic map. Sequence planning ensures temporal consistency and interpretability of decisions. The geometric memory prevents the agent from redundant exploration.Diffusion Model. Diffusion models (DDPMs [16] ) are generative models that learn complex data distributions by iteratively predicting and removing randomly sampled noise to obtain target samples. Diffusion models have been successfully applied in image-related fields, including image generation [32, 37, 30] , super-resolution [36, 46] , image inpainting [26, 48] , and image editing [2, 39] . Diffusion models predominantly use UNet-based [36, 37] and Transformer-based [30, 32, 46] architectures. UNet excels in preserving spatial details for high-resolution images, while Transformers capture global context, suited for sequential data. Therefore, we adopt a Transformer-based diffusion model to implement our trajectory diffusion. Recently, diffusion models are gradually employed in the field of robotics. several works [8, 58, 25, 13] leverage Data collection from real-world often suffers from scarcity or lacks diversity. As natural data synthesizers, diffusion models are leveraged by several works [8, 58, 25, 13] for data augmentation purposes. Furthermore, methods like Diffuser [17] , Crossway Diffusion [21] and Diffusion policy [9] utilize diffusion models to fit multi-modal behavioral data of agents. In line with our work, the proposed Diffusion Trajectory aims to learn the distribution of trajectory sequence conditioned on semantic maps and the goal, primarily to address the ObjectNav task.Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We discuss the limitations of the proposed method in Sec. A.3. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper. • The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.• The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be. • The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated. • The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach.For example, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon. • The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size. • If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness. • While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations. Justification: We provide the related information in Sec. A.2.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage. • The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute. • The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make it into the paper). 
preliminaries of objectnav: 
 The task of ObjectNav involves navigating an agent to a specific type of object (e.g., 'chair') in unseen environments. At the beginning of each episode, the agent is initialized at a random position. During navigation, at every timestep t, the agent receives egocentric RGB-D images I t , the target object o, and the senor pose p t , which includes the spatial coordinates and the direction the agent is facing. The agent performs one of several discrete actions, includeing move_forward, turn_left, turn_right, and stop. The action stop is autonomously initiated by the agent once it determines to complete the task. An episode is considered successful if the agent stops within a preset number of steps at a spot where the target object is within a specified distance (e.g., less than 1m) and is visible in the agent's field of view.Existing works for the ObjectNav task can be categorized into end-to-end learning methods and modular methods, as shown in Fig. 1 . The end-to-end learning methods [66, 18, 33, 34] E χ∼π [R χ ] , R χ = t=1 γ t-1 r t ,where γ is a discount factor, and r t denotes the reward function, typically implemented as a sparse success reward. This is because dense rewards can inhibit agent's exploration [28] , thus impairing its generalization in unseen environments [33] . Sparse rewards are desirable, but they result in most sample trajectories having difficulty obtaining positive rewards, making the learning process challenging. Moreover, as the policy parameters are updated, previously sampled trajectories become obsolete, necessitating the collection of new data. Consequently, the low sample efficiency of end-to-end learning methods results in high computational costs for training. As for IL-based methods [33, 34] , the training objective is to minimize the difference between the policy's output and human demonstrations (i. demonstrations. However, collecting human demonstrations is highly expensive, making IL training costly. Additionally, end-to-end learning methods implicitly encode historical observations, which results in a lack of geometric memory. This also limits the generalization capability of these methods.Modular methods [4, 31, 65, 59 ] typically construct a local semantic map (the map module will be detailed in Sec. 4.2) during navigation. The semantic map geometrically stores historical observations, helping the agent avoid redundant exploration. For the navigation planner, they formulate it as f (Ω|m t , o), where Ω is a set of points in m t , e.g., Ω can be defined as frontiers of m t [31] or unknown regions outside m t [59] . The module f (Ω|m t , o) is trained as a supervised regression task with the training loss Ω L (V (Ω) , f (Ω|m t , o)), where V (Ω) represents the ground truth, and its values are calculated based on the actual location of the target (i.e. the closer Ω is to the target, the higher value of V (Ω)). Based on the predictions of f , the agent selects the point with the optimal value as a sub-goal to guide the agent. The planner f re-predicts at each timestep, which is also a form of single-step planning. Supervised learning is efficient for training, however, due to the limited room diversity (i.e., current simulators [47, 3, 49] mostly contain fewer than 1000 unique rooms), these location-related supervision constraints lead the learned planner f to overfit to the layouts of the training rooms [63] .In summary, end-to-end learning methods learn a single-step planner with implicit memory, and their learning process suffers from sample inefficiency and high training costs. On the other hand, modular methods learn a single-step planner with geometric memory, but the generalization of their planner is constrained by location-related supervision. In our work, our trajectory diffusion model is a sequence planner with geometric memory, which aims to learn the conditional distribution p(τ t |m t , o), where τ t represents the planned future sequential trajectory. The sequential plan ensures temporal consistency and interpretability of decisions, while the geometric memory ensures efficient exploration. Furthermore, in terms of model training, we leverage DDPM with automatically collected trajectories to learn this conditional distribution, effectively avoiding sample inefficiency, the necessity for expensive human demonstration collection, and the risk of overfitting location-related information.4 Trajectory Diffusion 
diffusion model: 
 Diffusion models are probabilistic generative models trained to learn data distributions by iteratively denoising variables sampled from Gaussian distributions. The forward process of diffusion models (DDPMs [16] ) is defined as the diffusion process, which is implemented via a Markov chain that gradually applies Gaussian noise to the real data which can be formulated as follows:EQUATIONwhere constants ᾱτ are hyper-parameters. x 0 is the real data, while x 1 , . . . , x T are noised latent data. The dimension of both latent and real data are the same, i.e., x 0:T ∈ R d . By applying the reparameterization trick, the noised data can be sampled byx τ = √ ᾱτ x 0 + √ 1 -ᾱτ ϵ τ, where ϵ τ ∼ N (0, I). Diffusion models learn the real data distribution by reversing the diffusion Markov chain, denoted as p(x τ -1 |x τ ), which is referred to as denoising process. Theoretically, this process reduces to predict the noise added to x τ . The noise prediction network ϵ θ is trained using the mean-squared error between the predicted noise and the ground truth sampled Gaussian noise ϵ τ . Additionally, diffusion models can be conditioned on other inputs (e.g., text [2, 30] or image [9, 52] ), then the training objective is formulated byEQUATION)where c is the embeddings of input condition. Once the model ϵ θ is trained, real data are iteratively generated starting from random noise.Our trajectory diffusion aims to generate the optimal future trajectory for the ObjectNav agent based on its current state, thereby assisting the agent in efficiently navigating to the target object.Trajectory collection. To train the trajectory diffusion, we collect a set of data pairs ((m t , o), ξ t ), where m t is the semantic map at time t, o denotes target object, and ξ t ∈ R 2×k = [p t+1 , . . . , p t+k ] represents the trajectory segment, defined as the concatenation of the senor poses from time t + 1 to t + k. Each sensor pose p t is recorded in 2 dimensions representing the 2D coordinates. To obtain efficient trajectories and corresponding semantic maps, we first randomly initialize a start position in the training room. Then, the Fast Marching Method (FMM) [38] is utilized to compute an optimal path from the start position to a specific target o based on the precise collision maps of the current training room. Note that such precise maps are unavailable during testing since the test rooms are unseen. Subsequently, we drive an agent equipped with semantic mapping module along this optimal path, recording the semantic map m t at each timestep. Based on the collected data, we sample a series of data pairs for training our trajectory diffusion. Furthermore, the collected trajectories are segmented into sub-trajectories ξ t of length k. Together with the corresponding semantic maps m t and target object o, these data pairs ((m t , o), ξ t ) ultimately constitute the training data for our trajectory diffusion, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (a) .Trajectory diffusion model. We utilize DDPM to train our trajectory diffusion to estimate the conditional distribution p(ξ t |m t , o). In the diffusion process, we sample noised data byξ τ t = √ ᾱτ ξ 0 t + √ 1 -ᾱτ ϵ τ, where ϵ τ ∼ N (0, I) represents Gaussian noise and ξ 0 t is the real data ξ t , i.e., the trajectory segments in the collected data pairs ((m t , o), ξ t ). ᾱτ and τ are hyper-parameters that control the variance schedule. Note that two timesteps (t and τ ) are involved here, where t represents a specific moment in navigation, and τ denotes the noise schedule in diffusion or denoising processes. We train the model to predict the added noise, and the training objective is modified from Eq. 2EQUATIONwhere θ represents the parameter for trajectory diffusion. The navigation state s t of the current agent acts as the condition for trajectory diffusion. The state s t is the concatenation of the embedding of the semantic map m t and the target object o. The semantic map m t is encoded by a ResNet18 (without pretrained), while the target object o is encoded using linear projection.Regarding the implementation of trajectory diffusion, since the navigation trajectory ξ t is a sequence of k tokens, each with a dimension of m, our trajectory diffusion follows DiT [30] , which is a diffusion model based on the Transformer architecture. As illustrated in Fig. 2 (b), the noised latent ξ τ t is encoded via a linear projection with added positional embeddings, and then processed through a series of transformer blocks. In addition to the noised latent input, trajectory diffusion also conditions on the diffusion timestep τ and the navigation state s t . The condition information interacts with the encoded noised latent through a multi-head cross-attention layer. After passing through N Transformer blocks, we utilize a standard linear decoder to output the noise prediction. Note that the output has a shape equal to the original noised latent.Navigating with generated trajectory. During navigation, at each timestep t, the agent receives the current egocentric RGB-D view I t , the current sensor pose p t , and the target object o as shown in Fig. 2 (c ). The semantic mapping module aids the agent in constructing an incrementally growing semantic map m t . At each timestep during navigation, the received RGB-D image is segmented into semantic categories using a pre-trained segmentation model [14] . Subsequently, the depth image is employed to project each pixel, along with its semantic label, into 3D space. Points within a specific height range (relative to the agent's height) are designated as obstacles. Then, This point cloud is transformed into a voxel occupancy grid, which is integrated across the height dimension to create an egocentric map. The egocentric map is then transformed into an allocentric coordinate system based on the agent's pose and is aggregated with the pre-existing global map. Consequently, the semantic map m t ∈ R (4+n)×h×w comprises (n + 4) × h × w elements, where n denotes the number of semantic categories, and h, w are the map size. Channels 1 and 2 depict the obstacle map and the explored regions, respectively. Channels 3 and 4 represent the agent's current position and all previous positions.The embeddings of the semantic map m t and target object o are concatenated to form the navigation state s t , serving as generation condition. The trained trajectory diffusion model ϵ θ begins with an initialized Gaussian noise ξ τmax t as the initial input, and predicts the noise ϵ θ (ξ τ t , s t , τ ) contained within the noised latent ξ τ t . Then, the noised latent trajectory is denoised by ξ τ -1 t = ξ τ t -ϵ θ (ξ τ t , s t , τ ). This denoising process is repeated for τ max steps, iteratively generated the final trajectory ξ 0 t . Once the generated trajectory ξ 0 t (i.e., ξ t ) is obtained, a local policy [4, 6] is employed to drive the agent along this trajectory. To prevent the agent from encountering unreachable points (i.e., obstacles) in the generated trajectory, we select the k g -th waypoint of ξ t as the navigation goal, where k g is a hyper-parameter discussed in Sec. 5.2. The local policy converts the navigation goal into low-level actions by computing a collision-free path using the FFM method based on the obstacle channel from the semantic map m t . It then determines deterministic actions according to the agent's step distance to navigate agent towards the navigation goal (i.e., k g -th waypoint of ξ t ). The trajectory diffusion generates a new trajectory every t T -dif f step, while the local policy replans deterministic action at each step of navigation. 
experimental setup: 
 Dataset. We evaluate the performance of our model on standard ObjectNav datasets, including Gibson [47] and Matterport3D (MP3D) [3] , in the Habitat simulator. For Gibson, we use 25 train / 5 val scenes from the tiny-split, following the settings of [31] , with 1000 validation episodes containing 6 target object categories. For MP3D, we utilize 56 train / 11 val scenes, with 2195 validation episodes containing 21 target object categories. The detailed goal categories are mentioned in Appendix.Implementation Details. For the training of trajectory diffusion model, we sample 84k and 465k data pairs from the training scenes in Gibson and MP3D (85% train / 15% val), respectively. The semantic maps are resized to 224 × 224. We implement the trajectory diffusion model based on the DiT [30] structure. Additionally, the semantic map in condition information is encoded by a ResNet-18 [15] with the first convolutional layer's input channel adjusted to accommodate the dimension of the semantic map. The diffusion process contains N = 8 Transformer blocks. Training is performed using AdamW optimizer [19, 24] with a base learning rate of 1e-4, warmed up for 1000 steps using linear warmup and cosine schedule. After the warmup steps, the learning rate for the diffusion model is decayed by a factor of 1e-3, and the learning rate of the semantic map encoder is decayed by a factor of 1e-6. Each model is trained for 200 epochs. Following some common generative methods, exponential moving average(EMA) is used with a maximum decay of 0.9999 during training. All reported results are obtained using EMA model. The maximum noise schedule τ max is set to 100. The length of the predicted trajectory k = 32 and the selected k g -th point is set to 28. The experiments on these three hyper-parameters are detailed in Sec. 5.2. The agent's turn angle is fixed at 30 degrees and each F orward step distance is 25 cm. The maximum timestep limit is set to 500 during navigation and t T -dif f is set to 5. Note that, since the navigation performance of multiple repeated experiments does not show significant differences, error bars are not reported.Evaluation metrics. Three standard metrics are utilized to quantify the performance of the model in ObjectNav task, following [31, 59, 4] . SR (Success Rate) indicates the proportion of success episodes. SPL (Success weighted by Path Length) represents the success rate of episodes weighted by path length, thereby reflecting the efficiency of the agent's path relative to the shortest path. DTS (Distane To Goal) denotes the distance of the agent from the goal when the episode ends. In addition, we use MSE (Mean Squared Error), which reflects the distance between the denoised generated trajectory and the real trajectory, to assess generation accuracy of our T-Diff.Hyper-parameter tuning of T-Diff. Hyper-parameter k determines the length of generated trajectory. We evaluate the impact of parameter k on the generated trajectory (on MSE metric) and navigation performance (on SR and SPL metrics), as shown in Fig. 3 (a) . The results indicate that both overly short and overly long generated trajectories are suboptimal. We infer that when the trajectory length is too short, original sequence-planning gradually turns into step-planning, which undermines the temporal consistency of the planning. Conversely, if the trajectory is too long (i.e., greater than 32), the distribution p(ξ t |m t , o) becomes more complex, making the learning process more difficult. Based on experimental results, we determine that k = 32 is the optimal value. The hyper-parameter τ max represents the maximum noise schedule, determining the upper limit of iterations in both the diffusion and denoising processes. As evaluation results shown in Fig. 3 (b) , the noise schedule τ max is empirically set to 100.Visualization of trajectory generation. We visualize the iterative trajectory generation process, as shown in Fig. 4 . Initially, the trajectories are initialized as random coordinate points. As the denoising process progresses, these points gradually converge, forming the final trajectory at τ = 0. Note that the visualization is conducted on the validation set of Gibson, where scene layout is unknown to our trajectory diffusion method. Despite this, the trajectory diffusion is still capable of generating the most efficient path to the target, as indicated by the goal position marked on the ground-truth map.Ablation study on minimal trajectory length for T-Diff training. We conduct an ablation study using minimal trajectory lengths (e.g., 1 and 4) for training T-Diff, as shown in Tab. 1. Note that when the length is set to 1, the prediction of T-Diff is a single waypoint. The results indicate that when the length is set to 1, T-Diff's performance is influenced by the choice of ground truth point (i.e., the i-th point from current position on the optimal trajectory). The performance with shorter lengths (1 or 4) is lower compared to longer lengths (32) .We hypothesize that predicting a sequence of trajectories, as opposed to a single point, allows each predicted point to receive contextual information from neighboring points. This helps correct and smooth out prediction errors of individual points, reducing the sensitivity of the results to single-point errors. Consequently, this ensures more stable predictions and enhances overall accuracy of trajectory prediction. This finding further supports our motivation for using sequence planning. [31] ) combined with a local policy (i.e., single-step planner with geometric memory). The 'X' marks in row 1 indicate that T-Diff is not used, but this alternative still employs semantic map and goal for navigation. Row 0 refers to the case where navigation process does not use any map or goal. The comparison between row 1 and T-Diff variants (rows 2-4) demonstrates that sequence planning achieves superior navigation performance. Moreover, compared to different T-Diff variants, row 2 represents the variant that utilizes only a single timestep observation I t for trajectory generation. Rows 3 and 4 represent variants that use a semantic map m t encompassing all historical observations as conditions for trajectory generation. Comparing rows 2 and 3, the results indicate that using m t not only improves trajectory generation but also enhances navigation performance. We hypothesize that navigation is a sequential decision-making task, and relying solely on current single-step observations can lead to suboptimal decisions due to a lack of temporal consistency, thereby reducing overall navigation efficiency. Furthermore, comparing rows 3 and 4, the inclusion of target object improves navigation accuracy, demonstrating that the agent's trajectory is goal-driven rather than aimless. Finally, compared to the baseline (comparing rows 1 and 4), integrating our trajectory diffusion method improves navigation performance by 7.3% in SR, 6.4% in SPL, and reduces DTS by 0.32m. These results validate the effectiveness of the proposed trajectory diffusion. In contrast, the diffusion model (DDPM), through its diffusion and denoising process, gradually simplifies complex distribution into multiple simpler distributions. This allows for better learning of P (τ t |m t , o) distribution. Therefore, our experiments and analysis confirm the necessity of using diffusion models for learning trajectory generation. Scalability. We compare the performance of our trajectory diffusion method with the modular method (i.e., PONI [31] ) across different simulators, as shown in Tab. 4. When training and testing are performed on the same simulator, despite the testing rooms being unseen, the layouts of the training and testing rooms are still similar. In this scenario, the modular method, which uses location-related information for supervision, achieves relatively good performance, as shown in line 1 of Tab. 4. However, when the training and testing rooms come from different simulators, the performance of the modular method significantly deteriorates (line 2). In contrast, our trajectory diffusion method demonstrates better scalability. Even when the training and testing rooms come from different simulators, it maintains good navigation performance (compare lines 3 and 4).Navigation with trajectory diffusion. The generated trajectory ξ t represents the future location points of the agent from time t + 1 to t + k. As mentioned in Sec.4.2, instead of directly using the first points on the generated trajectory as the waypoint to guide the agent, we select the k g -th point as the guidance.The impact of the hyper-parameter k g is evaluated as shown in Fig. 3 (c) , where the horizontal axis represents k g /k. The results indicate that the optimal value is achieved when k g /k = 0.875, i.e., when k = 32, k g = 28. We attribute this to the fact that, while the generated trajectory follows the correct overall trend, it still fluctuates within a certain range, as shown in Fig. 4 . Therefore, if the selected point is too close to the current coordinate, the planning of near-term actions is more frequently affected by these fluctuations, leading to a performance decline. Additionally, we visualize the navigation process of the agent, as shown in Fig. 5 . According to the ground truth map and target location on the right side, it is evident that during navigation, the trajectories generated by our trajectory diffusion are consistently correct and efficient, even when the target object is not visible in the early stages (t<76). Consequently, the agent efficiently finds the target guided by the generated trajectories. More visualizations can be found in the Appendix.Comparisons with the related works. We evaluate the performance of our T-Diff on ObjectNav task by comparing it with related baselines, categorizing into end-to-end [44, 53, 28, 23, 18, 34, 20, 56] and modular [50, 5, 4, 31, 12, 27, 60, 57] methods. It is worth noting that some methods incorporate additional information [28, 10, 34] or auxiliary tasks [53, 7] , making it challenging to achieve a fair comparison. Therefore, we primarily focus on the following baselines: SemExp [4] , PONI [31] , OVG-Nav [56] , L3MVN [57] , L2M [12] , and SSCNav [23] . PONI enhances SemExp by introducing supervised learning to predict goal-related information. OVG-Nav uses semantic topological maps to plan sub-goal nodes at a high level for the agent. L3MVN leverages LLM to infer unknown regions based on semantic information of the current boundary. L2M and SSCNav improve navigation by learning to build a top-down map that is egocentric in a single timestep. Since L2M and SSCNav only report results on their custom datasets, we use either re-implementation results from other work [60] with similar experimental settings or our own implementation results for comparison.We compare our T-Diff with these methods on the validation sets of Gibson and MP3D, as shown in Tab. 5. On the Gibson, our T-Diff outperforms the current state-of-the-art method [57] by 2.7%, 6.1%, and -0.01m in SR, SPL, and DTS metrics, respectively. On the MP3D, T-Diff improves by 3.8%, 2.9%, and -0.53m in the same metrics compared to the current state-of-the-art method [56] . 
conclusion: 
 We propose a trajectory diffusion model (T-Diff) as a sequence planner for ObjectNav task. Our method leverages agent's historical observations and target object as conditions to iteratively generate the future sequential trajectory. Experimental results on standard datasets, including Gibson and MP3D, demonstrate that our T-Diff effectively improves navigation performance compared to the baselines. Furthermore, additional visualizations and experiments, detailed in the Appendix and supplementary materials, show that the future trajectory generated by T-Diff provides effective guidance for the agent and exhibits scalability and generalizability across different simulators.  
code of ethics: 
 Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines?Answer: [Yes] Justification: The research conforms with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.• If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics. • The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction). 
broader impacts: 
 Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative impacts in Sec. A.4.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact.• Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations. • The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. • The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology. • If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML). 
safeguards: 
 Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)? Answer: [NA] Justification: The paper poses no such risks. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters. • Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images. • We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort. 12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected? Answer: [Yes] Justification: See in Sec. A.5. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL. • The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.• For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided. • If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset. 
 
 Appendix: . SR measures the success rate of the agent in successfully finding the target object.It is defined asSR = 1 N N i=1 S i ,where N is the total number of validation episodes and S i is an indicator that representing whether the i-th episode is successful or not. SPL (Success weighted by Path Length). SPL considers whether the path length of navigation is efficient based on success rate which is formulated asSP L = 1 N N i=1 S i l * i max(li,l * i ), where l * i means the shortest path length calculated by the simulator and l i refers the actual path length of i-th episode.). DTS evaluates the distance L i,g of the agent towards the target object when the episode ends. It can be calculated as DT S = 1 N N i=1 max(L i,g -ξ, 0), where success threshold ξ = 1m. DTS is 0 when an episode is successful. 2 , where n is the number of validation set of our collected trajectory data pairs. x i refers the ground truth trajectory and xi is the generated trajectory.M SE = 1 n n i=1 (x i -xi )Object Categories. Our experimental setup follows previous settings [31, 60, 4] , and the adopted object categories are detailed in Tab. 6. For Gibson, we choose 15 categories for training and 6 for evaluating. For MP3D, there are 21 categories for both training and evaluating. More Visualizations. Fig. 6 illustrates more visualizations of the generated trajectory by our T-Diff during navigation process. As shown in Fig. 6 , T-Diff precisely generates the agent's future trajectory conditioned on the current state, thus effectively steering the agent towards the target object. The accuracy of the generated future trajectory reduces unnecessary exploration and guides the agent along an almost optimal path, ulimately navigating it to stop directly in front of the target object, demostrating that our T-Diff significantly improves the efficiency of navigation. Furthermore, we provide a video demo that presents a more intuitive view of the process of trajectory denoising and navigation. Please refer to the MP4 file in the supplements zip archive.To compare the computational complexity of our T-Diff with the modular baselines(SemExp [4] , PONI [31] and 3D-aware [60] ), we utilize FLOPs(Floating Point Operations) metric to assess the computational complexity, as shown in Tab. 7, where a higher value of FLOPs refers greater computational complexity. Note that, T-Diff iterates τ max = 100 steps for each time step to generate the denoised future trajectory, and this trajectory is generated every t T -dif f = 5 steps during navigation. Thus, we compute the computation complexity of 100 iterations and average it over every 5 steps. The results in Tab. 7 indicate that the computation complexity of our T-Diff is higher than that of SemExp, comparable to that of 3D-aware, but significantly lower than that of PONI. Although T-Diff requires multiple iteration, its operating latents is relatively small (when k = 32, the input dimension is B × 2 × 32) compared to PONI's input (the input dimension is B × (4 + n) × 480 × 480, where n refers to the number of semantic categories). Therefore, the compuation complexity of T-Diff is considered acceptable.(1) The method of generating future trajectories based on diffusion has prediction biases. The proposed trajectory diffusion model primarily considers the current semantic map, historical trajectory information, and target category. However, other information such as the egocentric view and the relationships between object semantics, may help generate better trajectories for the ObjectNav task. Therefore, in future work, we plan to apply more conditions into the trajectory diffusion model.(2) The training data for the trajectory diffusion model mainly comes from the collection of optimal paths, which are relatively straight and short. The types of training data pairs are not yet diverse enough, and the collection of complex trajectories requiring multiple turns and detours is still insufficient. In future work, we plan to introduce data pairs of complex paths to enhance the model's applicability to more complex scenarios.Our trajectory diffusion model is a general method applied to the ObjectNav task. Although our training and testing are currently limited to the simulator stage, the trajectory diffusion model can be deployed on real robots. However, prediction errors in the model may lead to incorrect actions by the robot, potentially causing damage to personal or social property. Therefore, it must be used cautiously to ensure safety in real-world applications.We use two datasets (Gibson [47] and MP3D [3] ), and employ Habitat simulator. All of them are published on the official papers with no licenses stated on their papers and websites. Thus, we just cite all corresponding papers without licenses. 


Decision: The paper "Trajectory Diffusion for ObjectGoal Navigation" presents a novel approach for object goal navigation using a trajectory diffusion model called T-Diff. The proposed method leverages a conditional diffusion model to generate trajectories based on a semantic map and target object, guiding the agent toward potential target locations in unseen environments. The reviewers agree that the paper makes a contribution to the field of embodied AI and recommend its acceptance. The strengths of the paper lie in its innovative use of a diffusion model for trajectory generation in the context of object goal navigation. By conditioning the diffusion process on a semantic map and target object, T-Diff can generate temporally consistent and interpretable trajectories that guide the agent towards potential target locations in unobserved areas. This approach addresses the limitations of existing end-to-end and modular methods, which often suffer from temporal inconsistencies and inefficient exploration.

The reviewers raised several important questions and concerns, which the authors addressed in their rebuttal. They provided additional experiments and analyses to support their claims, including the effectiveness of using optimal trajectories for training, the impact of map size on performance, and the comparison with simpler models for trajectory generation. The authors also clarified the differences between T-Diff and related works, such as modular methods and zero-shot navigation approaches. The authors addressed the concerns regarding the temporal consistency of end-to-end and modular methods, and provided evidence that T-Diff achieves more consistent planning by considering past trajectories and current agent pose. They also explained the advantages of sequence planning over single-step prediction, highlighting the importance of balancing the sequence length to ensure timely corrections. While some reviewers raised concerns about the small map size potentially limiting T-Diff's generalization to large-scale environments, the authors demonstrated that their method is compatible with different map sizes and can be scaled up for larger environments. They also provided additional real-world experiments to validate the effectiveness of T-Diff in practical scenarios.

The AC also considers this work to be both interesting and important, as it introduces a novel approach for object goal navigation that addresses the limitations of existing methods. The use of trajectory diffusion for generating temporally consistent and interpretable trajectories based on semantic maps and target objects is a significant contribution to the field. The experiments and analyses provided by the authors further demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of their approach. The reviewers' concerns have been adequately addressed in the rebuttal, and the authors have shown a commitment to improving the paper based on the feedback received. 

Based on the above reasons, the AC recommends accepting this paper for publication.

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper presents a novel, diffusion-based modular sequential planning algorithm for image-based goal-conditioned ObjectNav tasks. Concretely, the method performs supervised training to solve the following task: given a partial map constructed from past image observations and a user-specified object, predict a finite sequence of future 2D waypoints that would lead the object.

The method's main novelty is a diffusion-based conditional sequence generator. Specifically, the condition denoted $s_t$ is a learned embedding of the incomplete map and the target object. The whole training pipeline starts with data preparation, where ground truth paths are used to generate the incomplete map incrementally, serving as the diffusion model conditions.

The authors perform extensive empirical studies in the Gibson and MP3D simulated environment. The results show that the proposed method is more generalizable across domains than the existing approach. Moreover, it outperforms a collection of end-to-end and modular algorithms, some of which are trained on more data.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: - I find myself scrolling back and forth to read the figures. Maybe their placements could be adjusted.
- The method uses a heuristic $k_g$ to select the one point within the sequence as guidance. While this design seems to work as is, it would be nice if some post-processing on the sequence could be used to pick the point more smartly.
- Additional studies could make the design choices more convincing:
    * If only one point is eventually used as guidance, what would a model perform if trained to directly predict the $k_g$-th point?
    * How would simpler conditional generation models work, for example, directly predicting the sequence or learning a latent variable model?
questions: questions: - For the hyper-parameter search experiment in Figure 3, how are the other variables chosen when experimenting with one specific parameter?
- The method seems able to plan correct sequences with a very limited initial map. Does this indicate the model learns some inductive bias on where objects are in the rooms? Are there examples where the agent makes a wrong prediction and has to back out?
limitations: limitations: The authors cover the limitations and broader impacts on pages 14 and 15.
paper_summary: paper_summary: The paper "Trajectory Diffusion for ObjectGoal Navigation" introduces a novel method called "trajectory diffusion" for the task of ObjectGoal Navigation (ObjectNav), where an agent is required to navigate to a specified object in an unseen environment based on visual observations. The existing methods for ObjectNav often rely on single-step planning, leading to a lack of temporal consistency. The proposed approach leverages diffusion models to learn the distribution of trajectory sequences conditioned on the current observation and the goal. By training with Diffusion Denoising Probabilistic Models (DDPMs) and using optimal trajectory segments, the model can generate a coherent sequence of future trajectories for the agent. The paper demonstrates significant improvements in navigation accuracy and efficiency using the Gibson and MP3D datasets, showcasing the effectiveness of trajectory diffusion in guiding agents in real-world navigation tasks.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. The paper does not compare its approach with other methods that might use a sequence of waypoints for navigation, leaving a gap in understanding the uniqueness or superiority of using diffusion models for this purpose.
2. The necessity of using diffusion models to predict waypoints is not well justified. There is no comparison with simpler models, such as a standard decoder that outputs a sequence of waypoints, to establish the added value of the diffusion approach.
3. The study might be better suited for a robotics-focused conference rather than NeurIPS, as it leans more towards robot learning than core machine learning innovations.
4. The differences in performance across various hyperparameter settings in the ablation study are relatively small, suggesting that the problem may not be as challenging as presented. For example, varying the length of generated trajectories from 8 to 32 only changes performance by about 3%.
5. There is no exploration of the performance with minimal trajectory lengths, such as 4 or even 1, which could provide insights into the importance of multi-step planning versus single-step planning.
questions: questions: 1. Are there other papers in the literature that use a sequence of waypoints for ObjectGoal Navigation, and how does this method compare?
2. How necessary are diffusion models for predicting waypoints? Could simpler methods like a standard decoder suffice?
3. How would the performance change if the trajectory length were reduced further, possibly to the point of a single-step planner?
limitations: limitations: n/a
paper_summary: paper_summary: The authors propose a diffusion trajectory planner in the context of indoor object navigation that takes current semantic maps (could be partial) and the target object as input to produce a planned future sequential trajectory.
Evaluation is done in simulation using the habitat simulator on two datasets.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: - The main weakness of the paper is the lack of novelty in the methods/architecture; using DDPM for trajectory generation as well as goal and observation conditioning have all been presented in the literature as cited by the authors in the related works.
- Given the previous point, although the authors propose a sequential implementation with the capability of predicting trajectories based on partial semantic maps, the work lacks demonstrations of a complete solution, including semantic map building and diffusion planning in parallel.
- An agent can either see the target or not, if it does not see the target and is in a new room it has to explore, if it does see it then the task comes down to reaching a goal. The authors claim based on results in table 1 that the sequential nature of the task is sufficient motivation for the approach chosen. However, in that same table the results seem to suggest that even without any conditioning, let alone image or goal conditioning the success rate is above 70%, while with the use of semantic maps the score does not exceed 80%. This is very odd and seems to go against the authors’ claim or suggests that the task is ill specified.
- The manuscript’s quality is below average, with multiple typos (the use of “senor” instead of “sensor” in multiple instances and grammatical errors (“They are is also single-step planners that predict waypoints”, “For the navigation planner, they formulate it as” amongst many other instances). It need a lot of polishing to make it enjoyable to read.
questions: questions: -  Why does it make sense to use optimal trajectories from an omniscient planner for training when at deployment partial semantic maps do not know where the goal is ? How does using the Fast Marching Method (FMM) to compute optimal paths to a specific targets with knowledge of precise collision maps translate to efficient exploration in unseen rooms ?
- How is this expected to generalise across objects and scenes? What modifications would it require to become generalisable?
- When does the size of the map become an obstacle in itself as rescaling to 224x224 reduces the granularity of trajectories.
limitations: limitations: - No real world experiments to validate the approach’s practicality (goes hand in hand with the lack of semantic map+planning)
- Limited technical novelty that is not convincingly motivated.
- Poor manuscript quality

On the basis of these limitations, in my appreciation the paper does not meet the conference's quality level for acceptance.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper argues that the previous object navigation algorithms generally only consider one-step decision-making, which can lead to temporal inconsistency and shortsightedness. Therefore, the authors propose using diffusion models to learn sequential decision-making. By collecting expert trajectories and then using the DiT model to learn trajectory diffusion, experimental results have demonstrated that the trajectory diffusion model significantly improves object navigation performance across multiple benchmarks.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. I would cautiously suggest that authors might appropriately streamline some of the discussion in Section 3 or place too much of it in supplemental material. Sec 3 also has some overlap with what's in Sec 1, and I would cautiously suggest some adjustments.
   
2. I'm not very convinced about the motivation of the paper. In Line 35, The authors claim that the previous end-to-end approach suffered from temporal inconsistencies, and I suggest that the authors provide some examples to demonstrate this. And I think there seems to be no difference between the waypoint prediction among modular methods and the method in this paper: because after the waypoint prediction, a trajectory is also formed. And let's consider a sample case like this: when the policy predicts only the next step, the robot executing this step may receive new information that makes the further next step better; whereas predicting a sequence, if the robot finds a better direction before it has finished executing the sequence, then the robot will continue in the wrong direction. In such an example, it seems that only one step is predicted to perform better.

3. In Line 147， the authors claim that "end-to-end learning methods .... suffers from sample inefficiency and high training costs". Can the authors provide the number of samples and training consumption required for the trajectory diffusion model? How effective would these samples be if they were used to train methods of imitation learning?
   
4. In Line 148, "the generalization of their planner is constrained by location-related supervision". I think that the current modular algorithms based on LLM and VLM segmentation models in the field of zero-shot object navigation do not have the problems described by the authors and outperform many trained algorithms. Could the authors have some discussion or comparison of this like Table 2?
questions: questions: 1. In Line 6 and Line 35, what does the "temporal consistency" mean in the paper? Can the authors give an example?

2. Is the generated trajectory a coordinate or an action? In context, it appears to be an xy coordinate, so is this equivalent to some waypoints?

3. Is predicting a sequence really better than predicting a step? The information used to make decisions is all the same, and a well-trained policy can theoretically accomplish the task by simply predicting the optimal next step.



# After Rebuttal
The authors' paper and rebuttal demonstrated to me very well, the motivation and necessity of diffusion models applied in the field of navigation, and more importantly, that diffusion models significantly improve navigation performance. What the authors supplement is so convincing. 

While the novelty level is still limited, the paper's analysis on diffusion models and navigation makes enough of a contribution to boost my score.
limitations: limitations: the authors discussed the limitations.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper tackles the object goal navigation problem, where given visual observations and a target goal object, the task is to plan a navigation path to find said object. The paper proposes a trajectory diffusion model, where the future navigation trajectory is predicted starting from random points. The diffusion model is conditioned on an a semantic map and past trajectories, and these choices are validated in an ablation study. Finally, the proposed approach is compared with previous methods on two different simulators, demonstrating its effectiveness.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: Since a fixed 224x224 size is used for the semantic map, the effectiveness of the proposed approach is limited on large-scale environments. Either fine details are lost by representing the full map at that resolution, or distant regions are lost by representing a local neighborhood.

Experiments are only conducted in simulation. Experiments on a real robot would further improve the quality of the paper.

No error bars. Although explained in the paper that the variance is low, reporting quantitative values is more precise and complete.
questions: questions: How is the goal object represented? By text, one-hot vector, or something else?

How can the method work at all without goal information (rows 1-3 in Table 1) or without environment knowledge (i.e. no map or image in row 1)? Or does this only refer to the diffusion process and the model always takes the object and map as input? Does row 1 correspond to predicting trajectory points directly?

What happens if the model explores the wrong part of the room, i.e. when two directions are equally good at first glance? Does the model stop prematurely or does it manage to backtrack, overlapping its previous path and find the goal?
limitations: limitations: Some limitations are discussed in the appendix, such as prediction biases and optimal paths for supervision.

Additional limitations include:
* The proposed approach seems to assume known pose, which is a limiting factor if it is not available.
* The fixed map resolution limits the generalization to large-scale environments.

Comments: title: Reply to author response
Re: reply to k5Ci Part-2/2
Re: reply to k5Ci Part-1/2
Required Action: Please Respond to the Author Rebuttal
Required Action: Please Respond to the Author Rebuttal
Required Action: Please Respond to the Author Rebuttal
Reply to k5Ci Part-3/3
Reply to k5Ci Part-2/3
Reply to k5Ci Part-1/3
Response for DH2d - Part 2
comment: I appreciate the authors' response to my review, it is helpful for better understanding the paper. I'd like to keep my score as I remain my evaluation to the paper.
I appreciate the authors for addressing my concerns in the original review!

The additional experiment results are convincing.
- The scoring model seems to help compared to a fixed heuristic step number.
- Predicting a trajectory is shown to outperform single-point predictions.
- The decoding process is non-trivial, and the diffusion process excels.

The additional visualizations in the rebuttal are nice to have and answer my questions.

Overall, this work is solid, and I will keep my good rating.
### (Q2-2) Further Explanation for Q2-2
The reviewer's viewpoint that 'modular methods can be temporal consistency with certain modifications' is one we agree with. Our statement that 'existing modular methods lack temporal consistency' is not intended to suggest that modular methods lack the potential for temporal consistency. Instead, it only highlights that current methods predict waypoints without considering past trajectories, thus lack of temporally consistent planning. The T-Diff is actually built upon modular methods by using semantic maps from modular methods (including recorded objects and past trajectories) and takes a further step by predicting temporally consistent sequences with the proposed T-Diff.

---
### Clarification for Motivation
We apologize for the imprecise statement ('Implicit memory leads to redundant exploration') in the rebuttal. This needs to be corrected to 'Implicit memory leads to the loss of geometric spatial information, thus failing to prevent redundant exploration' which is supported by relevant literature [1,2]. This statement intends to highlight the necessity of using geometric memory.

As for the necessity of T-Diff design, our motivation is to learn sequential trajectory prediction based on geometric memory and goals. Given that both the input and output are high-dimensional, and considering the success of diffusion models in learning high-dimensional distributions, we choose to use a diffusion model for trajectory generation.
However, there are alternatives without using diffusion models.
To verify the necessity of T-Diff design, we evaluate possible alternatives to T-Diff as follows:

- Using a simple decoder rather than a diffusion model for trajectory prediction (see Common Q2).
- Predicting a single waypoint instead of the full trajectory with T-Diff (see Common Q1).
- Fine-tuning existing modular models with collected trajectories instead of using T-Diff (see the discussions in Q2-2 and W3-2).
- Enhancing existing modular methods by incorporating past trajectories for waypoint prediction, as shown in the table below.

These experiments demonstrate the necessity of our key T-Diff design, including learning to predict trajectory segments and using the diffusion model for learning.

| ID | Method | SR(%) ↑ | SPL(%) ↑ | DTS(m) ↓ |
|-|-|-|-|-|
| 1 | PONI | 73.6 | 41.0 | 1.25 |
| 2 | PONI (w/ encoded past trajectory) | 73.8 | 41.3 | 1.46 |
| 3 | T-Diff | 79.6 | 44.9 | 1.00 |

[1] Neural Topological SLAM for Visual Navigation, CVPR 2020.

[2] Object Goal Navigation using Goal-Oriented Semantic Exploration, NeurIPS 2020.
Thanks for the reply. We explain the question below:

### (Q1) Trajectory Curvature for evaluation
The reviewer raised concerns regarding the previous evaluation of trajectory curvature in the following cases:
- Trajectory A: (0,0) -> (0,1) -> (0,2) -> (0,3) -> (1,3) -> (2,3) -> (3,3)
- Trajectory B: (0,0) -> (0,1) -> (1,1) -> (1,2) -> (2,2) -> (2,3) -> (3,3)

The previous curvature measure only considered adjacent steps, resulting in an evaluation where $\kappa(B)>\kappa(A)$.
However, considering a larger step interval (e.g., from (0,0) to (3,3)), both trajectories have the same goal, yet the previous metric still favored Trajectory A.

To address this, we improve the previous metric $\kappa$ by introducing a curvature scale $i$. The new definition of trajectory curvature at $i$ scale is:

$\kappa @i=\mathbb{E}{\tau}[\sum_{t=i}^{T}\frac{|\theta_{t}-\theta_{t-i}|}{1+||l_{t}-l_{t-i}||_{2}}]$

When $i=6$, the results of metric($\kappa @6$) align with the reviewer's expected outcomes for the given cases.
Therefore, to comprehensively evaluate goal-switching scenarios, it is necessary to assess using different curvature scales. 

To this end, we supplement the experiments in 'Reply to k5Ci Part-1/3' with the newly defined metric and obtain updated results, as shown in the table below.
|Methods (end-to-end)| **$\kappa @1$** (rad/m) | **$\kappa @4$** (rad/m) | **$\kappa @6$** (rad/m) | **$\kappa @8$** (rad/m) | **$\kappa @10$** (rad/m) | **$\kappa_{avg.}$** (rad/m) |
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
| DD-PPO | 179.07 | 131.29 | 129.32 | 125.11 | 117.64 | 136.49 |
| EmbCLIP | 121.78 | 95.52 | 93.90 | 94.26 | 90.57 | 99.21 |
| T-Diff | 63.96 | 51.14 | 50.58 | 50.21 | 48.37 | 52.85 |

The updated results further support that end-to-end methods perform more frequent goal switching than T-Diff.

---
### Necessity of Using Diffusion Model
To address the reviewer's concerns regarding the contributions of 'Gradual goal' and 'using Diffusion model', we conduct the following ablation experiments. Note that some results are derived from Common Questions 1 and 2, which discuss the necessity of T-Diff's design.
| ID | Method | SR(%) ↑ | SPL(%) ↑ | DTS(m) ↓ |
|-|-|-|-|-|
| 1 | SemExp | 71.1 | 39.6 | 1.39 |
| 2 | SemExp (gradual goal) | 72.6 | 40.5 | 1.44 |
| 3 | T-Diff (trajectory length=1) | 73.8 | 41.3 | 1.40 |
| 4 | T-Diff (trajectory length=32)| 79.6 | 44.9 | 1.00 |

- Comparing rows 1 and 2, the results indicate that finetuning the existing modular method (SemExp) with Gradual goal outperforms the original version. This supports our conclusion that Gradual goal alleviates the issue of sparse supervision, thereby aiding better waypoint prediction.
- Comparing rows 2 and 3, the results show that using the Diffusion model leads to better waypoint prediction. This supports our design of 'using Diffusion model' (see Common Q2 for more details): Given that both the input (goal and local map) and the output waypoint are high-dimensional, the Diffusion model simplifies high-dimensional distributions into multiple simpler distributions through its diffusion and denoising process. This enables better learning of high-dimensional distributions.
- Comparing rows 3 and 4, the results indicate that predicting a trajectory rather than a single point yields better outcomes. This supports our motivation of learning sequential trajectory prediction (see Common Q1 for more details): Predicting a sequence of trajectories, as opposed to a single point, allows each predicted point to receive contextual information from neighboring points. This helps to correct and smooth out prediction errors of individual points, reducing the sensitivity of the results to single-point errors.

Therefore, the above experiments demonstrate that: 1) Gradual goals help in better learning, and 2) the key design of T-Diff, including the use of the Diffusion Model and trajectory generation, are essential.
I thank the authors for their comprehensive rebuttal, additional experiments, and clarifications. I especially appreciate the real world experiments in RFigure 1, and the visualization in RFigure 2 showing that the agent can successfully re-plan its path when necessary.

I have read the other reviews and rebuttals and followed the discussion. Overall I retain my original high rating of the paper.
Dear Reviewer sqUP,


As the Area Chair for NeurIPS 2024, I am writing to kindly request your attention to the authors' rebuttal for the paper you reviewed.

The authors have provided additional information and clarifications in response to the concerns raised in your initial review. Your insights and expertise are invaluable to our decision-making process, and we would greatly appreciate your assessment of whether the authors' rebuttal adequately addresses your questions or concerns.

Please review the rebuttal and provide feedback. Your continued engagement ensures a fair and thorough review process.

Thank you for your time and dedication to NeurIPS 2024.


Best regards,

Area Chair, NeurIPS 2024
Dear Reviewer JCTG,


As the Area Chair for NeurIPS 2024, I am writing to kindly request your attention to the authors' rebuttal for the paper you reviewed.

The authors have provided additional information and clarifications in response to the concerns raised in your initial review. Your insights and expertise are invaluable to our decision-making process, and we would greatly appreciate your assessment of whether the authors' rebuttal adequately addresses your questions or concerns.

Please review the rebuttal and provide feedback. Your continued engagement ensures a fair and thorough review process.

Thank you for your time and dedication to NeurIPS 2024.


Best regards,

Area Chair, NeurIPS 2024
Dear Reviewer ria9,


As the Area Chair for NeurIPS 2024, I am writing to kindly request your attention to the authors' rebuttal for the paper you reviewed.

The authors have provided additional information and clarifications in response to the concerns raised in your initial review. Your insights and expertise are invaluable to our decision-making process, and we would greatly appreciate your assessment of whether the authors' rebuttal adequately addresses your questions or concerns.

Please review the rebuttal and provide feedback. Your continued engagement ensures a fair and thorough review process.

Thank you for your time and dedication to NeurIPS 2024.


Best regards,

Area Chair, NeurIPS 2024
I am grateful to the author for his detailed reply. The author's response alleviated some of my concerns, but I still have some questions. 

For Q1, I am thankful that the authors get a statistical result, but I cautiously think that trajectory curvature doesn't respond well to goal switches. For example, let us assume that the robot is at (0, 0) and the target is at (3, 3), and the robot is required to walk along the grid points. The trajectory A is defined as (0,0)->(0,1)->(0,2)->(0,3)>(1,3)->(2,3)->(3,3).  The trajectory B is defined as (0,0)->(0,1)->(1,1)->(1,2)>(2,2)->(2,3)->(3,3). Clearly, both trajectory A and trajectory B are optimal, but Trajectory B has higher curvature. But if we consider the goal switches, the goals of trajectories A and B do not change, and indeed both move towards (3,3).

For Q2-1, I am very thankful to the author for making a detailed comparison. As the authors say, current modular methods directly predict the absolute position of the goal, but I'm curious if we let a modular method directly predict multiple gradual goals, can this have similar performance? In other words, is the diffusion model necessary? Is it the gradual goal or the diffusion model that makes a contribution to navigation performance? It's really a question of "why use a diffusion model". I think the current conclusions do not convince me of the necessity of the diffusion model.

For Q2-2, I am sorry that I don't quite understand what the authors are trying to express.

For Motivation and Novelty, I think the previous questions remain. The authors claim that "Implicit memory leads to redundant exploration". What is the evidence for this conclusion? 
"current modular methods do not consider past trajectories", This doesn't seem to fit very well with the motivation for using the diffusion model, as adding a module that records past trajectories is not a very difficult thing to do. From my personal point of view, temporal consistency doesn't seem to be a good motivation to use diffusion model.
I acknowledge the authors' comprehensive response, and appreciate the quality of the rebuttal and addition of valuable elements: - real world experiments
- clarification of strength of the method for exploration (which I believe warrants a clear discussion in the paper)

I have reviewed my score to represent the solidity of the work, although I maintain that novelty is borderline limited.
I have no further questions.
Thanks to the reviewer for the concerns and suggestions for this work. We hope our response has resolved the confusion and questions in the review. If there are any questions or further comments, please let us know and we will try our best to answer them!
Thanks to the reviewer for the concerns and suggestions for this work. We hope our response has resolved the confusion and questions in the review. If there are any questions or further comments, please let us know and we will try our best to answer them!
Many thanks for the valuable feedback and detailed questions. The suggestions have been very helpful in improving our work. We hope our response has addressed the concerns and questions. If there are any further comments or questions, please let us know, and we will do our best to address them.
### About Motivation and Novelty: Why it's being used or what difficulties need to be solved to use it?
We would like to summarize our motivation as follows:

The ObjectNav task requires the agent to predict the potential location of a target in an unknown area to explore more efficiently, making planning crucial for this task. Current end-to-end learning methods for the ObjectNav task use single-step planners with implicit memory. Single-step planning lacks consideration of past trajectories, resulting in a lack of temporal consistency in planning outcomes (as previously discussed). Implicit memory leads to redundant exploration. In contrast, modular methods introduce semantic maps as geometric memory to record historical observations, helping to avoid redundant exploration. However, current modular methods do not consider past trajectories when predicting new waypoints at each timestamp, which also leads to temporal inconsistency issues.

Our method extends modular approaches by using historical trajectories, prior observations, and the target from the semantic map. With the proposed T-Diff, we can plan a sequence trajectory that guides the agent to worth-exploring unobserved areas. Compared to previous waypoint prediction methods in modular approaches, T-Diff offers the following advantages:
(1) Gradual goals for easier learning and higher reachability. (2) Temporal consistency. (3) Interpretability.

T-Diff is compatible with existing modular methods, providing mutual benefits.


### Reference 
[1] DD-PPO: Learning Near-Perfect PointGoal Navigators from 2.5 Billion Frames, ICLR 2020

[2] Simple but Effective: CLIP Embeddings for Embodied AI, CVPR 2022

[3] Stubborn: A Strong Baseline for Indoor Object Navigation, IROS 2022

[4] 3D-Aware Object Goal Navigation via Simultaneous Exploration and Identification, CVPR 2023

[5] PONI: potential functions for objectgoal navigation with interaction-free learning, CVPR 2022

[6] Object Goal Navigation using Goal-Oriented Semantic Exploration, NeurIPS 2020

[7] Peanut: Predicting and navigating to unseen targets, ICCV 2023

[8] A frontier-based approach for autonomous exploration, CIRA 1997

[9] VLFM: Vision-Language Frontier Maps for Zero-Shot Semantic Navigation, ICRA 2024
### (Q2-2) Modular method is also Temporal consistent.
As noted by the reviewer, modular methods can record past trajectory and avoid redundant area exploration.
We agree that modular methods have the potential to achieve temporal consistency. However, current modular methods lack the consideration of temporal consistency as they do not predict waypoints based on past trajectories. In order to implement the reviewer's suggestion, we try our best to extend previous works for a quick comparison as follows:  

Our work builds upon modular method by inheriting the use of semantic maps (which record observed obstacles, objects, and past trajectories) and local policies. We take a further step by proposing T-Diff, a new method for predicting planning, which differs from previous waypoint prediction methods in the following ways:
- Gradual Goal Learning: It helps improve the accuracy of waypoint prediction and ensures the reachability of the agent (as discussed earlier).
- Temporal Consistency: It ensures that the predicted waypoints are consistent over short time intervals, preventing frequent waypoint switching. Additional evaluations supporting this point are shown below.
- Interpretability: It makes the predictions interpretable.

|Methods (modular)| **$\kappa$** (rad/m) | SR (%) | SPL (%) |
|-|-|-|-|
| FBE[8] | 110.21 | 64.3 | 28.3 |
| SemExp[6] | 103.88 | 71.1 | 39.6 |
| PONI[5] | 83.43 | 73.6 | 41.0 |
| T-Diff | 63.96 | 79.6 | 44.9 |

In summary, T-Diff is not mutually exclusive with existing modular methods; it is a further advancement. It can be integrated into current modular methods and leverage their more powerful modules (e.g., more robust maps) as they improve.
Conversely, modular methods can utilize T-Diff to learn more accurate and temporally consistent waypoints, thereby further enhancing navigation performance.

### (Q2-3) Comparison with VLFM
The performance difference between T-Diff and VLFM primarily arises from the different visual perception modules used, affecting the accuracy of map construction. Specifically, T-Diff utilizes Mask RCNN, while VLFM employs the Grounding DINO and SAM architecture, which serves as a stronger baseline. To ensure a fair comparison, we also adopted the same visual perception module. The new comparison results are as follows:
| Methods | Gibson-SR (%) | Gibson-SPL (%) | MP3D-SR (%) | MP3D-SPL (%) |
|-|-|-|-|-|
| VLFM[9] | 84.0 | 52.2 | 36.4 | 17.5 |
| T-Diff (Mask RCNN) | 79.6 | 44.9 | 39.6 | 15.2 |
| T-Diff (Grounding DINO+SAM) | 85.3 | 52.9 | 44.2 | 19.9 |

The results indicate that with the same visual perception module, T-Diff outperforms VLFM on both the Gibson and MP3D simulators. This advantage is particularly pronounced in larger rooms within the MP3D simulator. The results also demonstrate that T-Diff is compatible with existing modular methods and can achieve further improvements as these methods advance.
We appreciate the reviewer's timely and detailed feedback. We will address the raised concerns below.
### (Q1) More evidence for end-to-end methods performing more frequent goal switching than T-Diff
According to our statistical analysis, frequent goal switching will lead to frequent changes in agent movement trends.
We employ average trajectory curvature as a statistical metric to evaluate these changes.
Formally, the agent's trajectory in one episode $\tau=[p_0...p_t..p_T]$ during navigation, where $p_t=(l_t,\theta_t)$, $l_t$ is a 2D position coordinate, and $\theta_t$ is the agent orientation angle, the average trajectory curvature is defined as:

$\kappa=\mathbb{E}{\tau}[\sum_{t=1}^{T}\frac{|\theta-\theta_{t-1}|}{1+||l_{t}-l_{t-1}||_{2}}]$

where $\kappa$ is in units of rad/m.
We evaluate the following end-to-end learning methods and T-Diff on the Gibson test set with the same initial positions and goals, as shown in the table below:
|Methods (end-to-end)| **$\kappa$** (rad/m) | SR (%) | SPL (%) |
|-|-|-|-|
| DD-PPO[1] | 179.07 | 15.0 | 10.7 |
| EmbCLIP[2] | 121.78 | 68.1 | 39.5 |
| T-Diff | 63.96 | 79.6 | 44.9 |

The statistical results indicate that end-to-end methods exhibit greater changes in motion trends, supporting our claim that end-to-end methods perform more frequent goal switching than T-Diff.

---
### (Q2-1) Direct goal vs. Gradual goal
Following most works settings, the ObjectNav task is set in unseen scenes where the entire map is not available, and the location of the goal could not be observed at first, requiring the agent to infer potential target locations in unobserved areas. 

Typically, for navigation in unseen scenes, it seems different from the reviewer said "the predicted waypoints will generally be on the established point clouds." Instead, the predicted waypoints are out of the observed area in most cases, in pursuit of achieving better efficiency in exploration. Waypoints are set to the target location when the target is observed; in this case, the waypoint is within the observed local map (i.e., established point clouds). However, in other cases, the predicted waypoint is in the unknown area, rather than "on the established point clouds." We will discuss these two cases.

(1) Target is observed

When the target is observed in the local semantic map, its location is set as the waypoint. Since the target's location is accurate and obstacles from the current position to the target are observed, point-to-point planning is done with computational methods (e.g., FMM, Dijkstra, BFS). In this case, T-Diff's local policy uses the FMM algorithm for path planning, which is equivalent to other computational methods mentioned by the reviewer.

(2) Target is not observed

This case accounts for the majority of navigation cases, approximately 88.46%. Our previous discussion on Direct goal vs. Gradual goal pertains to this case.
When the target is unobserved, the agent needs to predict a waypoint out of observed map to infer the target's possible location for further exploration. The current modular methods predict waypoints as follows:

- Corner-based method (Stubborn[3], 3D aware[4]). In these methods, the waypoint is not predicted but simply alternates between the four farthest corners of the map, leading to greedy exploration.
- Frontier-based method (PONI[5]). This method selects waypoints on the frontier (the boundary between the observed map and the unknown area). The selection is based on predicting the distance from each frontier point to the target and selecting the closest one.
- Position-based method (SemExp[6], Peanut[7]). These methods directly use the target's location as supervision to train the model to predict the coordinates points as the waypoints.

Existing waypoint prediction is supervised only by the target's absolute location (direct goal), which is sparse in unknown area. T-Diff, however, uses segments of the trajectory to the target as training supervision, effectively inserting several gradual goals in the state space of unknown regions, reducing supervision sparsity, and improving waypoint prediction. Additional evaluations for waypoint prediction accuracy, as shown in the table below, demonstrate that T-Diff predicts waypoints more accurately.

|Methods (modular)| Distance between predicted waypoint and its GT on MP3D (m) |
|-|-|
| SemExp[6] | 15.36 |
| PONI[5] | 9.84 |
| PEANUT[7] | 8.62 |
| T-Diff | 5.48 |

Furthermore, after the waypoint is predicted on unobserved area, current modular methods perform path planning using computational methods. Since obstacles in unobserved areas are unknown, path planning in unknown regions is unreliable. On the contrary, T-Diff not only predicts waypoints but also the trajectory path, which is trained with obstacles from training rooms, making it more reachable for the agent.

Therefore, in case (2), T-Diff surpasses current modular methods in waypoint accuracy and path planning reliability.
Many thanks to the authors for their replies! I am very grateful to the authors for the additional experiments. The author's rebuttal addresses part of my questions, however there are a few questions that need to be discussed further. 

**First Question:** For W2-1 & Q1, end-to-end methods encode past information, which **theoretically** avoid revisiting past trajectories to prevent redundant exploration. The authors claim that the end-to-end methods can not avoid frequent goal switching, which I think requires some evidence rather than **drawing conclusions from intuition**. So I would suggest that the authors provide some mathematical proof or statistical results to show that the end-to-end methods do indeed perform more frequent goal switching than T-Diff. 


**Second Question:** As for "Direct goal vs. Gradual goal.", the author claim that "Gradual goals are more reachable for the agent." But generally among modular methods, the predicted waypoints will generally be on the established point clouds and some path planning algorithms (e.g. the Dijkstra algorithm, BFS) will be used to get the path. What is the difference between the predicted gradual goals/subgoals of T-Diff and the intermediate points obtained by the path planning algorithm? If the waypoints prediction is accurate in modular methods, I don't think the subgoal of T-Diff planning can outperform the Dijkstra algorithm. As for "Temporal consistency", I think modular method can easily mark which areas are explored and which are not (e.g. set visible areas less than three meters away as explored by depth cameras' projection and building a point cloud map). And recording past trajectories is something that can be done for the modular method. From these two points, it seems that modular method is also Temporal consistent. Moreover, the recently SOTA modular method in Zero-Shot Object Navigation exceeds the performance of T-Diff. Please see ICRA2024 "_VLFM: Vision-Language Frontier Maps for Zero-Shot Semantic Navigation_", which was released at December 2023, several months before NeurIPS 2024 deadline. **On Gibson, they achieved _SR 84.0_ and _SPL 52.2_, while T-Diff was _SR 79.6_ and _SPL 44.9_. On MP3D, they achieved _SR 36.4_ and _SPL 17.5_, while T-Diff was _SR 39.6_ and _SPL 15.2_.** To summarize, I suggest that the author reconsider the modular method.


As reviewer DH2d said, "The main weakness of the paper is the lack of novelty in the methods/architecture; " Actually, that's also my biggest concern. It's okay to use methods from other fields in navigation, however if it's just used without explaining why it's being used or what difficulties need to be solved to use it, I think that hardly makes up a sufficiently contributing paper. The authors explain that by the fact that past methods have been unable to follow behavioral consistency, but these conclusions are drawn intuitively and thus unconvincing. And, T-Diff does not exceed the current SOTA object navigation method, which is not discussed by the authors. So I choose to keep my score at this moment.  **I am very willing to continue the discussion with the authors on the two questions above**, and hope that the authors will forgive me for some of the inappropriate wording in this paragraph.
### (Q2-1) How is this expected to generalize across objects and scenes?
Our T-diff focuses on transferring navigation capabilities to unseen rooms, with target object categories encountered during training, which is consistent with current definition of the ObjectNav task[4, 6, 7].

T-diff achieves a 79.6% success rate in unseen rooms, and 78.2% even when unseen rooms are from different simulators, significantly outperforming single-step planners like PONI[4], which only achieves 43.9% under same conditions.
### (Q2-2) What modifications would it require to become generalizable?
T-diff's generalizability hinges on the representativeness of collected trajectory segments.
To enhance T-diff's generalizability, possible modifications include increasing the diversity of rooms and targets for trajectory collection and refining selection of trajectory segments to better represent the scene layout.

---
### (Q3) When does map size constrain performance?
We have addressed this concern in the Overall Response above. Please refer to Common Q3.

---
### (L1) Real world experiments.
Please refer to the Overall Response, Common Q4.

---
### (W4 & L3) Typos and grammatical errors.
We appreciate your detailed feedback. 
We have corrected all the pointed-out grammatical errors and carefully revised manuscript to ensure its readability and quality.

### Reference 
[1] Planning with Diffusion for Flexible Behavior Synthesis, ICML 2022

[2] Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion, Robotics 2023

[3] Crossway Diffusion: Improving Diffusion-based Visuomotor Policy via Self-supervised Learning, ArXiv 2024

[4] PONI: potential functions for objectgoal navigation with
interaction-free learning, CVPR 2022

[5] Habitat-Web: Learning Embodied Object-Search Strategies from Human Demonstrations at Scale, CVPR 2022

[6] Peanut: Predicting and navigating to unseen targets, ICCV 2023

[7] Imagine Before Go: Self-Supervised Generative Map for Object Goal Navigation, CVPR 2024