here's the link to the PIGEON paper - https://lukashaas.github.io/PIGEON-CVPR24/
Robotics (using physics sims)
Cybersecurity (red team / blue team)
Math (using automated proof checkers)
Programming (using compilers)
For the record I think robotics is a totally logical place to use this training approach and this is very impressive. But if we zoom out and think about LLMs in general I’m not sure this inspires confidence in AGI arriving any time soon. I would also propose that this is a form of overfitting / training-test contamination.
Take cybersecurity for example. Through brute force techniques you will gradually memorize all of the possible exploits. So when fable breaks into a DoD network everyone is shocked but in reality it basically memorized all possible exploits including some zero day.
I’d be much more interested to see if fables performance is preserved as new exploits arise (NOT zero day - negative day meaning exploits that don’t exist yet). Would fable still find them? Or would they need to retrain it on the new software stack continuously in order to identify the zero days.
This is an important distinction that I have not seen made before.
This analysis by Toby Ord demonstrates why it’s a problem if frontier improvements are coming from reinforcement learning (brute force methods) from a purely computational perspective: https://www.tobyord.com/writing/inefficiency-of-reinforcemen...
I would like to know what it did the other 23.4% of the time!
While impressive at 8B, what would the expectation be in real life, that it's run remotely or autonomously with a strapped on GPU and battery?
It may come late but it‘ll be safe and reliable. It also requires a lot of OCR.
But I'm scared for when those home helpers get drafted to fight in wars, either for or against me...
SOTA 80% means a practically useless robot. What are they really imagining their ICP to be here?
[/joke]
On their page where the result graph is, go to navigation error, that's the one that matters for your question, and you see their model is great at not navigating "wrong", so their failure rate was that it couldn't figure it out.
I imagine the EU would block any attempted takeover of Mistral given recent Anthropic and US govt actions.
All I can think of are robot dogs, Tesla bots, and whatever flavor of the month Japanese robots show up at trade shows.
Costs of simple tasks grow extensively: OCR with "Mistral OCR" at $4 per 1000 pages vs OCR with Opus 4.8 at sometimes¹ $1 per "page".
Or just the immense costs when burning tokens in an unoptimized agentic coding environment costing tens of dollars for a few simple classes or functions versus a highly optimized "autocomplete" model costing under $10 for thousands of such classes and functions.
Or the, over ten dollars worth of tokens when some "agent" using a general model, tries to perform the task I gave it to "read the event on example.com/event/1337 and put it in my calendar", include commute time as well"
The "general models" currently only become smarter by growing bigger and having larger context windows - by becoming exponentially more expensive to train and to run and to interact with. Whereas "Niche" models can do the things that "normal code" cannot do, and improve by tuning and tweaking only that. Their goal is then to fill in gaps that traditionally are hard or impossible with normal software. Wheras the goal of a general model (with agentic reasoning)is to replace that entire "normal software".
One example: I am not interested in "chatting with my calendar". I'm interested in a calendar because it is a well known view (UI) of my planning and tasks, but I see a lot of opportunities where AI can improve my working with this calendar. I may be interested in a smarter screen when I hit "+ Add event"; one that has knowledge of my previous events and patterns (some RAG vector db maybe). One that maybe has access to content I just copied, or read (though: privacy?) or can open my camera to let me shoot a pic of something that has the event info on it. In such a set-up, Niche LLMs perform dedicated tasks: determine patterns (he always books a Yoga class on wednesday or thursday, two days in advance, so lets suggest a yoga class), determine existing content (event is planned 100Km from his home, so lets suggest the commute based on previous commutes like this). Or an OCR model. Or an autocomplete model. Relatively simple, niche models, called from within software to aid me when "calendaring". Not replace the entire calendar with some chat.
¹Edit: This was a rather unscientific research of mine, where I compared some models to read from photographs, compared purely on costs and timing. "Opus" or other generic LLMS with image input capabilities commonly did better on "performance" esp with difficult input such as a picture of a poster of some rock event.
And even if you use all the tricks in the book to make them work for you, the cost can easily be 1000 _times_ more than the specialized model. Ditto for speed.
This is especially important for things like robotics or navigation.
One could maybe autogenerate these text planning commands, but it would require a map and the robot's current location, so it doesn't really solve that, unless it can find a specific thing completely on its own. How much of a planning horizon does it have?
The advantage over traditional approaches is presumably flexibility. LIDAR isn't going to solve an instruction like "find the man with the pink shirt".
Posts like this just reminds me of the end to end demos AV companies built in the early days using a single camera - only to realize that it’s harder than it looks years later into development.
Unless you are in military robotics or automotive of course :)
I'm also skeptical that you can cleanly differentiate between "safety critical actions" and "actions", though this is less of a practical concern given how laissez-faire some manufacturers are. For context, I work on safety critical robotics (in automotive).
Thinking
Summary
Robostral Navigate is an 8B model that enables robots to autonomously navigate complex environments using only a single RGB camera, achieving 76.6% success on unseen R2R-CE benchmarks—outperforming multi-sensor approaches while being more efficient. Built entirely in-house with simulation-trained data and token-efficient techniques, it generalizes across robot types and adapts to real-world obstacles unseen during training. The model combines pointing-based navigation with reinforcement learning for continuous improvement, paving the way for unified embodied AI in robotics.
Today we're introducing Robostral Navigate, our first model built for embodied navigation. It's an 8B model that takes RGB images and a plain-language instruction and moves a robot through an environment:
“Leave the lobby, walk through the corridor, enter the supply room, and stop to face the second shelf.”
To perform such tasks, other models often employ depth sensors, LiDAR, or several cameras working together. Robostral Navigate uses only one ordinary RGB camera and no depth sensors, yet still achieves 76.6% on R2R-CE (Room-to-Room in Continuous Environments) validation unseen, the benchmark for following instructions in environments held out of training. Consequently, it beats the best single-camera approach by 9.7 points and the best system using depth or multiple cameras by 4.5 points, despite using neither.
Our model is designed for robotic navigation, enabling robots to autonomously navigate complex environments, including offices, residential and commercial buildings, and outdoor settings.
Robostral Navigate running fully autonomously in one long-horizon instruction route through a working office.
This technology unlocks numerous applications across manufacturing, delivery, logistics, and hospitality, making it one of the most in-demand capabilities for our customers today. Give Robostral Navigate one instruction and it completes the entire task on its own, moving through a live space full of people and obstacles it was never shown, capable of adapting to any setting.
State-of-the-art performance on R2R-CE
79.4% Success Rate on validation seen
76.6% Success Rate on validation unseen
Operates from a single RGB camera, with no LiDAR or depth sensors
8B model, built in-house and trained entirely in simulation
Runs on wheeled, legged, and flying robots, and generalizes across robot sizes
Robust to differences in camera intrinsics
Token-efficient training via prefix-caching
Given a task and a history of observations, Robostral Navigate predicts where the robot should move next via pointing: it infers the image coordinates of the target location in the robot's current camera view, together with the desired orientation upon arrival. Unlike commands relying on metric displacements, pointing makes the policy naturally robust to changes in camera intrinsics and world scale.
However, this method cannot handle cases where the target location lies outside the current field of view. When pointing does not apply, the model falls back to displacements in the robot's local coordinate frame, such as:
"Move 2 meters forward, 1.5 meters to the left, and turn 25 degrees left."
Robostral Navigate is built entirely in-house and does not rely on existing open-source VLMs.
The model is initialized from our vision-language model specialized for grounding tasks such as pointing, counting, and object localization. Navigation emerges as a natural extension of these capabilities: once it understands where things are, it learns how to move.
We built an efficient data generation pipeline entirely in simulation. This enabled rapid iteration on the data, resulting in a dataset of approximately 400,000 trajectories collected across 6,000 scenes.
A key ingredient of Robostral Navigate is an efficient training algorithm based on prefix-caching. Using a tree-based attention-masking strategy, our method compresses an entire episode into a single sequence, enabling training on all time steps in a single forward pass while preventing information leakage between time steps.
Compared to training with one sample per time step, our approach reduces the number of training tokens by 22× while preserving all of the learning signals. In practice, this method transforms training runs that would take months into runs that complete in days.
Online reinforcement learning
We leverage our knowledge of post-training LLMs at scale, using online reinforcement learning, to boost the performance of Robostral Navigate. After the supervised training stage, we further improve the model's performance using CISPO, an online reinforcement learning algorithm. This enables the model to learn from trial and error, recover from failures, and acquire exploratory behaviors, effectively mitigating the distribution shift issue of vanilla behavior cloning. This alone improved the success rate by 3.2%. We are not seeing any plateauing, so we are confident that more training and more experiments will continue to push this number up.
Robostral Navigate is only the first step toward a unified embodied agent.
We believe navigation is a foundational capability for general-purpose robotics. By combining large-scale simulation, efficient training, and strong grounding priors, Robostral Navigate demonstrates that state-of-the-art embodied navigation can be achieved with a compact model and a single RGB camera.
Start your journey to embodied frontier AI, talk with our team.
The release of our navigation models marks a significant step forward, but our journey is far from over. Our ambition is to enable robots to autonomously navigate complex environments—offices, homes, commercial buildings, and outdoor spaces—and there's a lot more work to do. We are actively expanding our robotics team and looking for talented research scientists and engineers who share our ambition.
If you're interested in joining us on our mission to bring seamless navigation to robots everywhere, we welcome your applications to join our team!
By Théo Cachet, Arjun Majumdar, Srijan Mishra, Thomas Chabal, Chris Bamford, Elliot Chane-Sane, Benjamin Tibi, Ludovic Ho Fuh, Olivier Duchenne - AI Science Robotics