What Breaks Embodied AI Security:LLM Vulnerabilities, CPS Flaws,or Something Else?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17345v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:29:00 GMT
• Title: What Breaks Embodied AI Security:LLM Vulnerabilities, CPS Flaws,or Something Else?
• Authors: Boyang Ma, Hechuan Guo, Peizhuo Lv, Minghui Xu, Xuelong Dai, YeChao Zhang, Yijun Yang, Yue Zhang,
• Abstract summary: Embodied AI systems are rapidly transitioning from controlled environments to safety critical real-world deployments.<n>Unlike disembodied AI, failures in embodied intelligence lead to irreversible physical consequences.<n>We argue that a significant class of failures arises from embodiment-induced system-level mismatches.
• Score: 28.12412876058788
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Embodied AI systems (e.g., autonomous vehicles, service robots, and LLM-driven interactive agents) are rapidly transitioning from controlled environments to safety critical real-world deployments. Unlike disembodied AI, failures in embodied intelligence lead to irreversible physical consequences, raising fundamental questions about security, safety, and reliability. While existing research predominantly analyzes embodied AI through the lenses of Large Language Model (LLM) vulnerabilities or classical Cyber-Physical System (CPS) failures, this survey argues that these perspectives are individually insufficient to explain many observed breakdowns in modern embodied systems. We posit that a significant class of failures arises from embodiment-induced system-level mismatches, rather than from isolated model flaws or traditional CPS attacks. Specifically, we identify four core insights that explain why embodied AI is fundamentally harder to secure: (i) semantic correctness does not imply physical safety, as language-level reasoning abstracts away geometry, dynamics, and contact constraints; (ii) identical actions can lead to drastically different outcomes across physical states due to nonlinear dynamics and state uncertainty; (iii) small errors propagate and amplify across tightly coupled perception-decision-action loops; and (iv) safety is not compositional across time or system layers, enabling locally safe decisions to accumulate into globally unsafe behavior. These insights suggest that securing embodied AI requires moving beyond component-level defenses toward system-level reasoning about physical risk, uncertainty, and failure propagation.

Related papers

• The Devil Behind Moltbook: Anthropic Safety is Always Vanishing in Self-Evolving AI Societies [57.387081435669835]
  Multi-agent systems built from large language models offer a promising paradigm for scalable collective intelligence and self-evolution.<n>We show that an agent society satisfying continuous self-evolution, complete isolation, and safety invariance is impossible.<n>We propose several solution directions to alleviate the identified safety concern.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T15:18:19Z)
• Constructing Safety Cases for AI Systems: A Reusable Template Framework [10.44708664414503]
  Safety cases, structured arguments that a system is acceptably safe, are becoming central to the governance of AI systems.<n>Traditional safety-case practices from aviation or nuclear engineering rely on well-specified system boundaries, stable architectures, and known failure modes.<n>This study examines how safety cases are currently constructed for AI systems and why classical approaches fail to capture these dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T09:53:22Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• NeuroBreak: Unveil Internal Jailbreak Mechanisms in Large Language Models [68.09675063543402]
  NeuroBreak is a top-down jailbreak analysis system designed to analyze neuron-level safety mechanisms and mitigate vulnerabilities.<n>By incorporating layer-wise representation probing analysis, NeuroBreak offers a novel perspective on the model's decision-making process.<n>We conduct quantitative evaluations and case studies to verify the effectiveness of our system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T08:12:06Z)
• ANNIE: Be Careful of Your Robots [48.89876809734855]
  We present the first systematic study of adversarial safety attacks on embodied AI systems.<n>We show attack success rates exceeding 50% across all safety categories.<n>Results expose a previously underexplored but highly consequential attack surface in embodied AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T15:00:28Z)
• Towards provable probabilistic safety for scalable embodied AI systems [79.31011047593492]
  Embodied AI systems are increasingly prevalent across various applications.<n> Ensuring their safety in complex operating environments remains a major challenge.<n>This Perspective offers a pathway toward safer, large-scale adoption of embodied AI systems in safety-critical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T15:46:25Z)
• Towards Robust and Secure Embodied AI: A Survey on Vulnerabilities and Attacks [22.154001025679896]
  Embodied AI systems, including robots and autonomous vehicles, are increasingly integrated into real-world applications.<n>These vulnerabilities manifest through sensor spoofing, adversarial attacks, and failures in task and motion planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T03:38:07Z)
• From Silos to Systems: Process-Oriented Hazard Analysis for AI Systems [2.226040060318401]
  We translate System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) for analyzing AI operation and development processes. We focus on systems that rely on machine learning algorithms and conductedA on three case studies. We find that key concepts and steps of conducting anA readily apply, albeit with a few adaptations tailored for AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T20:43:18Z)
• AI Safety: A Climb To Armageddon? [0.0]
  The paper examines three response strategies: Optimism, Mitigation, and Holism. The surprising robustness of the argument forces a re-examination of core assumptions around AI safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T08:41:54Z)
• Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
  We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.