Embodied navigation (EN) advances traditional navigation by enabling robots to perform complex egocentric tasks through sensing, social, and motion intelligence. In contrast to classic methodologies that rely on explicit localization and pre-defined maps, EN leverages egocentric perception and human-like interaction strategies. This survey introduces a comprehensive EN formulation structured into five stages: Transition, Observation, Fusion, Reward-policy construction, and Action (TOFRA). The TOFRA framework serves to synthesize the current state of the art, provide a critical review of relevant platforms and evaluation metrics, and identify critical open research challenges. A list of studies is available at https://github.com/Franky-X/Awesome-Embodied-Navigation.

Purposeful behavior is a hallmark of natural and artificial intelligence. Its acquisition is often believed to rely on world models, comprising both descriptive (what is) and prescriptive (what is desirable) aspects that identify and evaluate state of affairs in the world, respectively. Canonical computational accounts of purposeful behavior, such as reinforcement learning, posit distinct components of a world model comprising a state representation (descriptive aspect) and a reward function (prescriptive aspect). However, an alternative possibility, which has not yet been computationally formulated, is that these two aspects instead co-emerge interdependently from an agent's goal. Here, we describe a computational framework of goal-directed state representation in cognitive agents, in which the descriptive and prescriptive aspects of a world model co-emerge from agent-environment interaction sequences, or experiences. Drawing on Buddhist epistemology, we introduce a construct of goal-directed, or telic, states, defined as classes of goal-equivalent experience distributions. Telic states provide a parsimonious account of goal-directed learning in terms of the statistical divergence between behavioral policies and desirable experience features. We review empirical and theoretical literature supporting this novel perspective and discuss its potential to provide a unified account of behavioral, phenomenological and neural dimensions of purposeful behaviors across diverse substrates.

Classical methods for AMR depend on heuristics or expensive error estimators, hindering their use for complex simulations.

In this interview series, we're meeting some of the AAAI/SIGAI Doctoral Consortium participants to find out more about their research. In this latest interview, Haimin Hu tells us about his research on the algorithmic foundations of human-centered autonomy and his plans for future projects, and gives some advice for PhD students looking to take the next step in their career. My PhD research, conducted under the supervision of Professor Jaime Fernández Fisac in the Princeton Safe Robotics Lab, focuses on the algorithmic foundations of human-centered autonomy. By integrating dynamic game theory with machine learning and safety-critical control, my work aims to ensure autonomous systems, from self-driving vehicles to drones and quadrupedal robots, are performant, verifiable, and trustworthy when deployed in human-populated space. The core principle of my PhD research is to plan robots' motion in the joint space of both physical and information states, actively ensuring safety as they navigate uncertain, changing environments and interact with humans.

Developing better RL algorithms to address these challenges requires a means of empirically bench-marking and comparing the performance of different algorithms in real-world settings.

The rapid progress in AI and Robotics may lead to a profound societal transformation, as humans and robots begin to coexist within shared communities, introducing both opportunities and challenges. To explore this future, we present Virtual Community-an open-world platform for humans, robots, and society-built on a universal physics engine and grounded in real-world 3D scenes. With Virtual Community, we aim to study embodied social intelligence at scale: 1) How robots can intelligently cooperate or compete; 2) How humans develop social relations and build community; 3) More importantly, how intelligent robots and humans can co-exist in an open world. To support these, Virtual Community features: 1) An open-source multi-agent physics simulator that supports robots, humans, and their interactions within a society; 2) A large-scale, real-world aligned community generation pipeline, including vast outdoor space, diverse indoor scenes, and a community of grounded agents with rich characters and appearances. Leveraging Virtual Community, we propose two novel challenges. The Community Planning Challenge evaluates multi-agent reasoning and planning ability in open-world settings, such as cooperating to help agents with daily activities and efficiently connecting other agents. The Community Robot Challenge requires multiple heterogeneous robots to collaborate in solving complex open-world tasks. We evaluate various baselines on these tasks and demonstrate the challenges in both high-level open-world task planning and low-level cooperation controls. We hope that Virtual Community will unlock further study of human-robot coexistence within open-world environments.

The role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education is undergoing a rapid transformation, moving beyond its historical function as an instructional tool towards a new potential as an active participant in the learning process. This shift is driven by the emergence of agentic AI, autonomous systems capable of proactive, goal-directed action. However, the field lacks a robust conceptual framework to understand, design, and evaluate this new paradigm of human-AI interaction in learning. This paper addresses this gap by proposing a novel conceptual framework (the APCP framework) that charts the transition from AI as a tool to AI as a collaborative partner. We present a four-level model of escalating AI agency within human-AI collaborative learning: (1) the AI as an Adaptive Instrument, (2) the AI as a Proactive Assistant, (3) the AI as a Co-Learner, and (4) the AI as a Peer Collaborator. Grounded in sociocultural theories of learning and Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), this framework provides a structured vocabulary for analysing the shifting roles and responsibilities between human and AI agents. The paper further engages in a critical discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of collaboration, examining whether an AI, lacking genuine consciousness or shared intentionality, can be considered a true collaborator. We conclude that while AI may not achieve authentic phenomenological partnership, it can be designed as a highly effective functional collaborator. This distinction has significant implications for pedagogy, instructional design, and the future research agenda for AI in education, urging a shift in focus towards creating learning environments that harness the complementary strengths of both human and AI. For decades, the integration of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) has been a subject of intense research and development, promising to transform teaching and learning (Yan, Greiff, Teuber and Gašević, 2024; Giannakos, Azevedo, Brusilovsky, Cukurova, Dimitriadis, Hernandez-Leo, Järvelä, Mavrikis and Rienties, 2025; Chen, Zou, Xie, Cheng and Liu, 2022). Historically, this promise has been pursued primarily through the lens of individualization and efficiency. The predominant applications of AIED have been Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) and adaptive learning platforms, which leverage AI to provide personalized instruction, real-time feedback, and customized learning pathways (Ouyang and Jiao, 2021; Kulik and Fletcher, 2016). These systems, often built on cognitive and mastery-learning principles, have demonstrated effectiveness in specific, well-defined domains (Kulik and Fletcher, 2016). However, they have also faced criticism for frequently replicating traditional, teacher-centric pedagogical models, where knowledge is transmitted to a passive learner (Ouyang and Jiao, 2021; Kulik and Fletcher, 2016).

Can LLM Agents Solve Collaborative T asks? Abstract -- The ability to coordinate actions across multiple agents is critical for solving complex, real-world problems. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in communication, planning, and reasoning, raising the question of whether they can also support effective collaboration in multi-agent settings. In this work, we investigate the use of LLM agents to solve a structured victim rescue task that requires division of labor, prioritization, and cooperative planning. Agents operate in a fully known graph-based environment and must allocate resources to victims with varying needs and urgency levels. We systematically evaluate their performance using a suite of coordination-sensitive metrics, including task success rate, redundant actions, room conflicts, and urgency-weighted efficiency. This study offers new insights into the strengths and failure modes of LLMs in physically grounded multi-agent collaboration tasks, contributing to future benchmarks and architectural improvements.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and reasoning frameworks have opened new possibilities for improving the perspective -taking capabilities of autonomous agents. However, tasks that involve active perception, collaborative reasoning, and perspective taking (understanding what another agent can see or knows) pose persistent challenges for current LLM-based systems. This study investigates the potential of structured examples derived from transformed solution graphs generated by the Fast Downward planner to improve the performance of LLM-based agents within a ReAct framework. We propose a structured solution-processing pipeline that generates three distinct categories of examples: optimal goal paths (G-type), informative node paths (E-type), and step-by-step optimal decision sequences contrasting alternative actions (L-type). These solutions are further converted into ``thought-action'' examples by prompting an LLM to explicitly articulate the reasoning behind each decision. While L-type examples slightly reduce clarification requests and overall action steps, they do not yield consistent improvements. Agents are successful in tasks requiring basic attentional filtering but struggle in scenarios that required mentalising about occluded spaces or weighing the costs of epistemic actions. These findings suggest that structured examples alone are insufficient for robust perspective-taking, underscoring the need for explicit belief tracking, cost modelling, and richer environments to enable socially grounded collaboration in LLM-based agents.