SafetyALFRED: Evaluating Safety-Conscious Planning of Multimodal Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19638v1
• Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 16:27:20 GMT
• Title: SafetyALFRED: Evaluating Safety-Conscious Planning of Multimodal Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We introduce SafetyALFRED, built upon the embodied agent benchmark ALFRED, augmented with six categories of real-world kitchen hazards.<n>We evaluate eleven state-of-the-art models on not only hazard recognition, but also active risk mitigation through embodied planning.
• Score: 46.968844120076916
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models are increasingly adopted as autonomous agents in interactive environments, yet their ability to proactively address safety hazards remains insufficient. We introduce SafetyALFRED, built upon the embodied agent benchmark ALFRED, augmented with six categories of real-world kitchen hazards. While existing safety evaluations focus on hazard recognition through disembodied question answering (QA) settings, we evaluate eleven state-of-the-art models from the Qwen, Gemma, and Gemini families on not only hazard recognition, but also active risk mitigation through embodied planning. Our experimental results reveal a significant alignment gap: while models can accurately recognize hazards in QA settings, average mitigation success rates for these hazards are low in comparison. Our findings demonstrate that static evaluations through QA are insufficient for physical safety, thus we advocate for a paradigm shift toward benchmarks that prioritize corrective actions in embodied contexts. We open-source our code and dataset under https://github.com/sled-group/SafetyALFRED.git

Related papers

• Uncovering Linguistic Fragility in Vision-Language-Action Models via Diversity-Aware Red Teaming [64.48633529149579]
  We propose a novel framework to expose the vulnerabilities of Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models against linguistic variations.<n>Our method reduces the average task success rate from 93.33% to 5.85%, demonstrating a scalable approach to stress-testing VLA agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T08:43:36Z)
• BeSafe-Bench: Unveiling Behavioral Safety Risks of Situated Agents in Functional Environments [22.32760987248309]
  We present BeSafe-Bench (BSB), a benchmark for exposing behavioral safety risks of situated agents in functional environments.<n>BSB covers four representative domains: Web, Mobile, Embodied VLM, and Embodied VLA.<n>Using functional environments, we construct a diverse instruction space by augmenting tasks with nine categories of safety-critical risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T03:41:57Z)
• PropensityBench: Evaluating Latent Safety Risks in Large Language Models via an Agentic Approach [49.14349403242654]
  We present $textbfPropensityBench$, a novel benchmark framework that assesses the proclivity of models to engage in risky behaviors.<n>Our framework includes 5,874 scenarios with 6,648 tools spanning four high-risk domains: cybersecurity, self-proliferation, biosecurity, and chemical security.<n>Across open-source and proprietary frontier models, we uncover 9 alarming signs of propensity: models frequently choose high-risk tools when under pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-24T18:46:44Z)
• DeepKnown-Guard: A Proprietary Model-Based Safety Response Framework for AI Agents [12.054307827384415]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly prominent, severely constraining their trustworthy deployment in critical domains.<n>This paper proposes a novel safety response framework designed to safeguard LLMs at both the input and output levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T03:04:35Z)
• SafeMind: Benchmarking and Mitigating Safety Risks in Embodied LLM Agents [7.975014390527644]
  Embodied agents powered by large language models (LLMs) inherit advanced planning capabilities; however, their direct interaction with the physical world exposes them to safety vulnerabilities.<n>We present SafeMindBench, a multimodal benchmark with 5,558 samples spanning four task categories (Instr-Risk, Env-Risk, Order-Fix, Req-Align) across high-risk scenarios such as sabotage, harm, privacy, and illegal behavior.<n>We introduce SafeMindAgent, a modular Planner-Executor architecture integrated with three cascaded safety modules, which incorporate safety constraints into the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T07:24:04Z)
• IS-Bench: Evaluating Interactive Safety of VLM-Driven Embodied Agents in Daily Household Tasks [30.535665641990114]
  We present IS-Bench, the first multi-modal benchmark designed for interactive safety.<n>It features 161 challenging scenarios with 388 unique safety risks instantiated in a high-fidelity simulator.<n>It facilitates a novel process-oriented evaluation that verifies whether risk mitigation actions are performed before/after specific risk-prone steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-19T15:34:46Z)
• AGENTSAFE: Benchmarking the Safety of Embodied Agents on Hazardous Instructions [64.85086226439954]
  We present SAFE, a benchmark for assessing the safety of embodied VLM agents on hazardous instructions.<n> SAFE comprises three components: SAFE-THOR, SAFE-VERSE, and SAFE-DIAGNOSE.<n>We uncover systematic failures in translating hazard recognition into safe planning and execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T16:37:35Z)
• Beyond Safe Answers: A Benchmark for Evaluating True Risk Awareness in Large Reasoning Models [29.569220030102986]
  We introduce textbfBeyond Safe Answers (BSA) bench, a novel benchmark comprising 2,000 challenging instances organized into three distinct SSA scenario types.<n> Evaluations of 19 state-of-the-art LRMs demonstrate the difficulty of this benchmark, with top-performing models achieving only 38.0% accuracy in correctly identifying risk rationales.<n>Our work provides a comprehensive assessment tool for evaluating and improving safety reasoning fidelity in LRMs, advancing the development of genuinely risk-aware and reliably safe AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T08:49:19Z)
• SafeKey: Amplifying Aha-Moment Insights for Safety Reasoning [76.56522719330911]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) introduce a new generation paradigm of explicitly reasoning before answering.<n>LRMs pose great safety risks against harmful queries and adversarial attacks.<n>We propose SafeKey to better activate the safety aha moment in the key sentence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T03:46:03Z)
• Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output: Benchmarking Cross-modality Safety Alignment of Large Vision-Language Model [73.8765529028288]
  We introduce a novel safety alignment challenge called Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output (SIUO) to evaluate cross-modality safety alignment.<n>To empirically investigate this problem, we developed the SIUO, a cross-modality benchmark encompassing 9 critical safety domains, such as self-harm, illegal activities, and privacy violations.<n>Our findings reveal substantial safety vulnerabilities in both closed- and open-source LVLMs, underscoring the inadequacy of current models to reliably interpret and respond to complex, real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T16:14:15Z)
• ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models [65.79770974145983]
  ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consists of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. We find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T17:10:28Z)

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.