SafeBranch is proposed, a framework that aligns an embodied actor on safety through branch pairs constructed from the actor's own unsafe rollouts via environment rollback, achieving roughly ten times more safe successes than the untrained baseline on the unseen-object variant.
Abstract
Vision-language-model-based embodied agents can complete instructed tasks but often violate safety constraints in the process, a problem recently framed as interactive safety. Training such agents to act safely is difficult, since safety and task success are distinct objectives, and safety arises only at a small number of safety-critical steps within a trajectory. Standard supervision is insufficient: imitating safe trajectories teaches behavior without explaining why it is safe, and contrasting arbitrary safe and unsafe trajectories mixes the safety signal with unrelated differences. We propose SafeBranch, a framework that aligns an embodied actor on safety through branch pairs constructed from the actor's own unsafe rollouts via environment rollback. SafeBranch rolls each unsafe rollout back to the safety-critical step that caused the violation, queries the actor for a safe alternative, and pairs the original action with the alternative so that the two branches differ only at that step. The trained actor acts safely at deployment with no critic in the loop. On IS-Bench, SafetyALFRED, and out-of-distribution variants with unseen tasks and objects, it handles safety reliably without sacrificing task success, achieving roughly ten times more safe successes than the untrained baseline on the unseen-object variant.
Foundation-model policies for robotic manipulation are advancing rapidly on task success, but rigorous evaluation of whether they succeed safely is still lacking. We introduce ManiGuard, a specification-grounded framework for evaluating and improving the safety of foundation-model manipulation, comprising the ManiGuard-Bench task suite and a paired safety-annotated trajectory-generation pipeline. ManiGuard-Bench organizes six contact-rich household task families into 200 locked base tasks along a skill $\times$ constraint taxonomy, with safety specified independently of task success. Each task is evaluated under one in-distribution and four single-axis out-of-distribution perturbations that hold the safety specification fixed, giving 1,000 locked scenarios. Every rollout is runtime-checked by LTL$_f$-grounded automaton monitors over physics-grounded predicates rather than learned classifiers or LLM judges, in simulation and on a physical Franka platform. The pipeline pairs an automated motion-planning generator with human teleoperation, annotated by the same per-step monitor, and directly supports safety-aware fine-tuning; we release 8,000 safety-annotated demonstrations, 40 per base task. Benchmarking zero-shot and fine-tuned VLAs across more than 23,000 rollouts, we find: (i) safety must be evaluated independently of task success, as 6-21% of successful rollouts violate the specification; (ii) fine-tuning on our suite raises safe task completion from near zero to 7.5-29.8% and engaged-and-safe behavior from 16-40% to 51-72%; but (iii) a gap remains that scaling demonstrations does not close, with 21-42% of engaged rollouts still violating, two of six families below 2% safe success for every policy, and these failures persisting under distribution shift and on hardware.
Using SAFERELBENCH to evaluate seven open- and closed-source VLM-driven embodied agents, this work finds a substantial gap between task success and process-level safety compliance, and shows that safe embodied intelligence requires not only stronger perception and planning, but also reliable reasoning about how object relations shape risk during interaction.
Safety for generalist robots is usually discussed in terms of motion or dialogue. We argue a third question is missing: should the robot take its first hard-to-undo social action at all, such as a greeting, an uninvited grasp, or stepping into someone's space? We call this initiation authorization. Current frameworks rarely treat it as a separate safety layer. Today's stacks often skip this step: a high engagement score or a confident VLA rollout is treated as permission to act. But seeing a person is not the same as having their consent to be addressed. We frame initiation authorization within generalist-robot safety and contrast it with post-plan VLA guardrails, implementing PAS (probe-authorize-speak) on a doorway humanoid, comparing it with direct-init on logged traces, and proposing a three-condition user study, with open questions on metrics, governance, and where initiation ends and foundation-model generation begins.
Robot policies are becoming increasingly general, with vision-language-action (VLA) models enabling a single policy to execute diverse tasks specified in natural language. Safe deployment, however, requires adapting not only to new tasks but also to varying safety requirements across users, environments, and applications. Existing safety filters remain largely constraint-specific and thus must be redesigned or relearned when safety requirements change. In this paper, we investigate language-conditioned safety filtering, in which a Hamilton-Jacobi safety actor and critic are conditioned on language-specified constraints. We evaluate this formulation across pick-and-place, table-wiping, and block-stacking tasks in the vision-based setting, examining its ability to enforce language-specified constraints and transfer to unseen constraint instances within the evaluated constraint families. Our experiments provide evidence that language-conditioned safety filters reduce constraint violations and exhibit partial transfer to unseen constraint instances.
A neuro-symbolic safety guard is introduced, a lightweight module that attaches to the final command interface of an already-trained agent and checks the command against explicit safety rules and, only when necessary, replaces it with the nearest safe alternative.
Simón Patiño Idarraga, Erick Silva, R. Yasmin et al.· 0 citations
Safety Harness Evolution (SHE) is proposed, a framework that learns evolving safe boundaries from rollout trajectories and introduces an attribution-guided evolution loop that converts trajectory failures into structured diagnoses, learns artifact-specific boundary refinements, and selects evolved harnesses through safety-utility validation.
