🤖 AI Summary
Visual-language models (VLMs) deployed in embodied agents pose significant safety risks when executing hazardous instructions, yet no standardized benchmark exists for evaluating such risks in embodied settings.
Method: We propose the first safety evaluation benchmark for embodied agents executing dangerous instructions. Inspired by Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, we construct a risk-aware instruction dataset covering both primitive hazardous commands and jailbreak variants. We design an entity-action alignment adapter to bridge high-level semantic planning with low-level executable actions. Evaluation is conducted systematically across perception–planning–execution stages within an embodied simulation sandbox.
Contribution: We introduce a standardized benchmark comprising 45 adversarial scenarios, 1,350 tasks, and 8,100 hazardous instructions. This is the first framework enabling end-to-end, quantitative safety assessment of VLM-driven embodied agents under dangerous instruction conditions.
📝 Abstract
The rapid advancement of vision-language models (VLMs) and their integration into embodied agents have unlocked powerful capabilities for decision-making. However, as these systems are increasingly deployed in real-world environments, they face mounting safety concerns, particularly when responding to hazardous instructions. In this work, we propose AGENTSAFE, the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating the safety of embodied VLM agents under hazardous instructions. AGENTSAFE simulates realistic agent-environment interactions within a simulation sandbox and incorporates a novel adapter module that bridges the gap between high-level VLM outputs and low-level embodied controls. Specifically, it maps recognized visual entities to manipulable objects and translates abstract planning into executable atomic actions in the environment. Building on this, we construct a risk-aware instruction dataset inspired by Asimovs Three Laws of Robotics, including base risky instructions and mutated jailbroken instructions. The benchmark includes 45 adversarial scenarios, 1,350 hazardous tasks, and 8,100 hazardous instructions, enabling systematic testing under adversarial conditions ranging from perception, planning, and action execution stages.