Rethinking Embodied Navigation via Relational Inductive Bias

Object navigation requires an agent to locate a target in an unknown environment through visual observations. Existing methods typically rely on open-vocabulary detectors or vision-language models (VLMs) to answer where to search, but often overlook what not to trust - which semantic cues are unreliable. Open-vocabulary perception is prone to systematic misleading evidence: false positives, outdated static priors, and repeated failed exploration due to lack of embodied verification, which contaminates mapping and decision-making. Such errors are rooted in structured object relations in real-world scenes. To address this, we propose DB-Nav, a framework that reshapes the search space via dual relational biases. It factorizes target-centric relations into an Activation Bias (propagates contextual evidence) and an Inhibition Bias (suppresses unreliable regions via perceptual confusion and action-level falsification). These biases are unified into a Relational Activation-Inhibition Exploration Graph that modulates frontier exploration values using online observations and failed accesses. Experiments on ObjectNav benchmarks show that DB-Nav significantly outperforms existing methods in success rate (SR) and Success weighted by Path Length (SPL), offering a lightweight, interpretable, and robust navigation framework without costly online VLM reasoning.

DSCD-Nav: Dual-Stance Cooperative Debate for Object Navigation

Adaptive navigation in unfamiliar indoor environments is crucial for household service robots. Despite advances in zero-shot perception and reasoning from vision-language models, existing navigation systems still rely on single-pass scoring at the decision layer, leading to overconfident long-horizon errors and redundant exploration. To tackle these problems, we propose Dual-Stance Cooperative Debate Navigation (DSCD-Nav), a decision mechanism that replaces one-shot scoring with stance-based cross-checking and evidence-aware arbitration to improve action reliability under partial observability. Specifically, given the same observation and candidate action set, we explicitly construct two stances by conditioning the evaluation on diverse and complementary objectives: a Task-Scene Understanding (TSU) stance that prioritizes goal progress from scene-layout cues, and a Safety-Information Balancing (SIB) stance that emphasizes risk and information value. The stances conduct a cooperative debate and make policy by cross-checking their top candidates with cue-grounded arguments. Then, a Navigation Consensus Arbitration (NCA) agent is employed to consolidate both sides' reasons and evidence, optionally triggering lightweight micro-probing to verify uncertain choices, preserving NCA's primary intent while disambiguating. Experiments on HM3Dv1, HM3Dv2, and MP3D demonstrate consistent improvements in success and path efficiency while reducing exploration redundancy.