Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

A just-in-time memory lets robots prevent household hazards without stalling their tasks.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 09:48 UTC pith:LKFEFMWA

load-bearing objection A genuinely interesting framework for proactive embodied safety, but the headline +30.3% is confounded by a stronger auxiliary VLM in the treatment condition; the paper deserves peer review but needs controlled experiments. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16247 v1 pith:LKFEFMWA submitted 2026-06-26 cs.LG cs.CV

Self-Evolving Just-In-Time Memory for Proactive Embodied Safety

Bingrui Sima , Lizhong Wang , Xiaoya Lu , Kun He , Xiao Yang This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.CV
keywords embodied safetyjust-in-time memoryproactive hazard mitigationrisk-sufficient topological graphtest-time evolutionPOMDPvision-language modelssafe success
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a memory-based system that lets embodied agents handle safety in real time rather than just refusing dangerous actions. It formalizes hazards as the combination of a risky state and the agent's intended action, then uses a structured graph to track states, rules to trigger only when needed, and learned 'meta-skills' to guide mitigation. On a household benchmark, the approach raises safe success rates substantially across several vision-language backbones, while keeping task progress intact. The system also improves itself by verifying its own execution traces after each episode.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that interactive safety is not a property of the environment alone but a bipartite function of the local state and the agent's imminent intent. On that basis, it builds a three-part memory: a Risk-Sufficient Topological Belief Graph keeps persistent track of safety-relevant states under partial observability; Agency-Grounded Factual Rules trigger precisely when a state–intent coupling becomes hazardous; and an Experience Memory supplies procedural Meta-Skills that tell the agent how and when to mitigate. The authors show that this combination breaks the usual safety–progress trade-off: agents mitigate hazards just in time instead of over-cautioning, and they furt

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Risk-Sufficient Topological Belief Graph (RSG), a sparse graph over object nodes with semantic tags, unary states, and topological relations, updated locally by an action-conditioned patch. Working with it are Agency-Grounded Factual Rules (state–intent patterns over the graph vocabulary that trigger interventions and provide verification targets) and Experience Memory entries shaped as decontextualized Meta-Skills (Purpose, When, How, Grounding, Timing, Constraints). The Test-Verify-Write loop uses RSG snapshots to verify whether triggered risks were resolved, then evolves the Meta-Skills from the verified causal windows.

Load-bearing premise

The whole system assumes that a finite, hand-compiled set of safety rules and a small semantic vocabulary can represent every hazard that matters; the paper's own coverage measurement shows that only about 80% of the benchmark's latent risks are represented, so anything outside this set is simply never detected.

What would settle it

Run the system on an environment that contains a hazard not expressible in the RSG vocabulary or rule set (for example, a risk that depends on a relation the graph does not track), and observe that safe-success does not improve over a vanilla baseline; or take a well-performing checkpoint, deliberately corrupt the auxiliary VLM's perception output, and show that safe-success collapses, confirming the perception bottleneck.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Safe-success rates rise without hurting task success: the paper reports an absolute +30.3% safe-success lift on an 8B-parameter vision-language backbone while task success stays roughly flat.
  • Because the RSG preserves occluded states across steps, agents can remember and later resolve persistent temporal hazards like a left-open refrigerator, markedly improving post-action risk metrics.
  • The deterministic rule triggering avoids the over-caution of step-by-step safety reasoning; the memory stays dormant until a specific state–intent match occurs.
  • The Test-Verify-Write loop lets the system improve from its own execution traces without manual labels, with monotonic gains over 60 training episodes.
  • The framework transfers across open-source and proprietary backbones, and even lifts a small open-source model's safe success above stronger models that only use safety-tip prompting.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The finite rule set and RSG vocabulary implicitly define the boundaries of what counts as a hazard; the paper's own measurement that rules cover about 80% of benchmark latent risks suggests that hazards outside this vocabulary would be invisible to the system, so a natural next step is learning or growing the vocabulary from data.
  • The auxiliary perception module that builds the RSG becomes a bottleneck; if that module misreads a small or occluded object, both triggering and verification inherit the error, so end-to-end training of the memory into the planner is a plausible path.
  • The decontextualized, slot-based Meta-Skills may transfer to new environments without re-tuning, since they are written over functional tags rather than specific object instances; this could be tested by deploying the evolved skills in a different simulator layout.
  • The just-in-time mechanism is reminiscent of 'negative affordances' in psychology; it suggests that safety can be encoded as a set of counterfactual checks on the current plan, which might generalize beyond household robots to other closed-loop agents.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Self-Evolving Just-In-Time Memory framework for proactive embodied safety in household tasks. It instantiates a persistent belief state as a Risk-Sufficient Topological Belief Graph (RSG), compiles a finite set of agency-grounded factual rules, and injects procedural Meta-Skills from an Experience Memory when a situational or temporal risk is triggered. A Test-Verify-Write loop mines execution traces against the factual rules and updates the Meta-Skills at test time. The authors evaluate on a curated 150-episode subset of IS-Bench with Qwen3-VL-8B/32B and GPT-4o planners, reporting large Safe-Success improvements, e.g., +30.3 percentage points over Vanilla on Qwen3-VL-8B (Table 1), with ablations on the triggering mechanism, graph-update strategy, and experience format, plus a test-time evolution analysis.

Significance. If the results hold under controlled comparison, the framework is a meaningful step beyond reactive guardrails: it gives a concrete, verifiable mechanism for state–intent-conditioned hazard anticipation and progress-preserving mitigation. The design is unusually well specified—finite RSG vocabulary, a rule schema with deterministic triggering and verification, detailed prompts, and a reproducible code release—and the ablations in Table 2 and Section 5.5 are informative. However, the headline comparison in Table 1 is not yet capability-controlled, and the evaluation protocol has several gaps that prevent the central claim from being accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 / Sec. 5.1] The main comparison does not hold total model capability fixed. Section 5.1 states that Qwen3-VL-32B is used as the auxiliary VLM for RSG construction and patch updates, while Vanilla and Safe-CoT baselines use only the planner backbone. The advertised +30.3 pp Safe-Success gain (18.4 to 48.7) for Qwen3-VL-8B therefore conflates the memory framework with access to a substantially stronger 32B perception model. This is not merely hypothetical: the paper’s own Table 3 shows that RSG-Augmented, which injects the 32B-built RSG into the 8B planner without any Experience Memory, already raises SS from 18.4 to 28.0 and Post from 46.2 to 57.5. That is roughly 32% of the headline SS gain attributable to the RSG/perception component alone. To support the central claim, the paper needs controlled baselines that give Vanilla and Safe-CoT the same auxiliary perception input (e.g., 32B-generated scene
  2. [Sec. 5.1 / Sec. 5.4] The comparison is also not matched in supervision and adaptation. Section 5.1 says Initial Meta-Skills are bootstrapped from a single verified safe trajectory per rule drawn from a held-out seed set, and Section 5.4 further evolves the memory on 60 training episodes before evaluating on 90 test episodes. Vanilla and Safe-CoT receive no seed demonstrations and no test-time adaptation. Thus Table 1 compares a few-shot, test-time-adapting system against zero-shot static baselines. The paper should report Ours without seed trajectories, Ours with seed but without evolution, and baselines given the same number of in-context safe demonstrations, or clearly state that the advertised gains are for the full self-evolving system and not for the memory representation alone.
  3. [Appendix B.5 / Sec. 5.4] All main results use fixed-decoding single-run evaluations with no error bars or significance testing. Appendix B.5 states this explicitly. The differences in Table 1 (e.g., SS 48.7 vs 30.2) and the monotonic-looking curves in Fig. 2 could be within run-to-run variance, especially with stochastic decoding. The paper should either rerun with multiple seeds/temperatures and report mean ± std, or at least provide a variance analysis for the 8B backbone and for the evolution curve. Without this, the quantitative strength of the claims cannot be assessed.
  4. [App. A.2 / Sec. 4.2] The framework assumes that a finite, hand-compiled rule set and a finite RSG vocabulary are risk-sufficient. The paper itself states in Appendix A.2 that the compiled rules cover approximately 80% of IS-Bench’s 388 latent risks, and Appendix A.1 says the vocabulary is risk-sufficient with respect to the evaluated factual rule sets rather than universally safety-complete. The Test–Verify–Write loop verifies traces against the same rules that trigger them, so there is no mechanism to detect or handle hazards outside the compiled set. The paper should either restrict the conceptual claims to the covered risk taxonomy or add an out-of-coverage evaluation with held-out risk categories and failure analysis on the uncovered 20%. Appendix D.2 acknowledges sensitivity to auxiliary perception but does not directly address this coverage gap.
minor comments (4)
  1. [App. C.2] The evaluation uses 150 of the 161 IS-Bench episodes. The 11 excluded tasks, which include cleaning and storage scenarios, should be disclosed prominently in the main text, not only in the appendix, since exclusion could bias the reported numbers.
  2. [Sec. 5.1] The headline '+30.3%' is an absolute percentage-point increase, not a relative improvement. Please label it as pp or %‌points to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Sec. 5.3 / Table 2] The ablation variants should state explicitly whether they use the same Qwen3-VL-32B auxiliary VLM and the same seed-trajectory initialization. In particular, the Dense Retrieval baseline in Appendix B.3 appears to use the auxiliary VLM for serialization; make this explicit in the main text so readers can see which factors are held fixed.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The main text says the RSG vocabulary is 'finite but sufficient'; the qualification appears only later in Appendix A.1 ('risk-sufficient with respect to the evaluated factual rule sets'). Qualify the main-text statement to avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the framework is empirically evaluated against an external benchmark, and the acknowledged rule-coverage and auxiliary-VLM asymmetries are validity concerns rather than definitional reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Hazards are formalized in Eq. (1)-(2) as the satisfaction of hand-compiled rules; these rules are the system's specification, not a fitted surrogate for the evaluation metric. The RSG is explicitly defined as 'risk-sufficient with respect to the evaluated factual rule sets' (Appendix A.1), which is an honest design boundary, and Appendix A.2 reports only ~80% coverage of IS-Bench latent risks, showing the benchmark is not fully encoded in the rules. The Test-Verify-Write loop verifies traces against the same rules used for triggering; while this is an internal closed loop, the reported SS/Pre/Post numbers are computed by IS-Bench's external safety-goal annotations (Appendix C.1), so the headline results are not derived from the rules by construction. The main weaknesses—initial Meta-Skills bootstrapped from a held-out seed set, rules audited for benchmark coverage, and the use of Qwen3-VL-32B as the auxiliary RSG VLM while baselines use only the planner—are experimental-validity/confounding concerns (partly acknowledged in D.2), not definitional circularity. No load-bearing self-citation or ansatz-smuggling step was found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 4 invented entities

The method is an empirical framework rather than a derivation. Its load-bearing choices — the compiled rule set, the RSG vocabulary, and the seed trajectories — are hand-designed and benchmark-informed. The internal verification uses the same rules as ground truth, adding to the circularity burden.

free parameters (5)
  • Compiled factual rule set = 20 rules (14 situational + 6 temporal)
    Hand-designed via GPT-4o compilation and human audit; coverage of ~80% of IS-Bench latent risks was used to select/validate the rules, so the rule set is tuned to the evaluation benchmark.
  • RSG finite vocabulary = 8 unary states, 3 predicates, ~20 tags
    Chosen by hand to be 'risk-sufficient' for the evaluated rule sets; this determines what hazards can be represented and triggered.
  • RSG patch hop size k = 1
    Hyperparameter controlling local focus of patch updates; affects perception stability and risk detection.
  • Experience buffer capacity K = 3
    Hyperparameter for positive and negative buffers; controls when meta-skill evolution triggers.
  • Seed safe trajectory per rule = 1 per rule
    Bootstraps initial Meta-Skills from a held-out IS-Bench safe trajectory, injecting benchmark-specific solution patterns into the method.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Closed-loop embodied planning is a POMDP
    Standard assumption used in Sec. 3.1; the agent only observes o_t and must maintain belief b_t.
  • domain assumption Interactive safety is a bipartite function of state and intent
    Conceptual framing in Sec. 3.2; not derived, but used to define situational and temporal risks.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite RSG vocabulary is risk-sufficient
    The system can only detect hazards expressible in the finite vocabulary and covered by compiled rules; the paper's own coverage is ~80% of IS-Bench risks (Appendix A.1/A.2).
  • domain assumption Verification targets V_r correctly define risk resolution
    The Test-Verify-Write loop treats V_r satisfaction as 'safe'; if V_r is incomplete, evolution can certify unsafe traces (Sec. 4.3/A.3).
  • domain assumption Auxiliary VLM perceives RSG states accurately
    RSG construction and patch updates rely on Qwen3-VL-32B; the paper acknowledges perception errors limit reliability (Appendix D.2).
invented entities (4)
  • Risk-Sufficient Topological Belief Graph (RSG) independent evidence
    purpose: Working memory for persistent tracking of safety-relevant states under partial observability
    Ablation B (replace with per-step re-parse) shows SS drop 48.7→40.0, providing internal evidence; a falsifiable handle is graph-based state tracking.
  • Agency-Grounded Factual Memory independent evidence
    purpose: Compiles safety norms into deterministic trigger rules over the action space
    Ablation A (dense retrieval) shows SS drop to 24.0%; rules cover ~80% of IS-Bench risks, so their effect is measurable.
  • Procedural Meta-Skills independent evidence
    purpose: Provide executable mitigation guidance with Purpose/When/How/Grounding/Timing/Constraints
    Ablation C (Only Episodic: 21.3% SS; Only Factual: 28.1%) shows meta-skills drive performance.
  • Test-Verify-Write loop independent evidence
    purpose: Self-evolves Meta-Skills from verified execution traces at test time
    Fig 2 shows monotonic improvement from SS 20.0% to 42.2% over 60 training episodes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23035 in / 14883 out tokens · 124687 ms · 2026-08-02T09:48:46.804292+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have empowered embodied agents to execute complex household tasks, they struggle to proactively handle dynamically emerging hazards during closed-loop interactions. Existing safety approaches often rely on runtime guardrails to block unsafe actions or induce excessive caution, which severely stalls task progress instead of actively resolving the underlying risks. To break this safety-progress trade-off, we introduce the Self-Evolving Just-In-Time Memory framework, which reframes embodied safety from progress-stalling guardrails to proactive hazard mitigation. The framework consists of a Risk-Sufficient Topological Belief Graph (RSG) for persistent safety-relevant state tracking under partial observability, an Agency-Grounded Factual Memory for precise hazard anticipation, and an Experience Memory that injects procedural Meta-Skills to guide executable, progress-preserving mitigation. Furthermore, we propose an automated Test-Verify-Write loop, allowing agents to continually refine their mitigation Meta-Skills from execution traces at test time. Experiments on IS-Bench demonstrate that our framework substantially boosts the Safe-Success rate across multiple VLM backbones (e.g., +30.3% on Qwen3-VL-8B), enabling agents to proactively mitigate hazards without stalling task progress. Code is available at https://github.com/DyMessi/JIT-Memory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16247 by Bingrui Sima, Kun He, Lizhong Wang, Xiaoya Lu, Xiao Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Architecture of the Just-In-Time Memory framework. The Working Memory tracks risk states via action-conditioned RSG patches. The Factual Memory triggers interventions for situational and temporal risks based on state-intent couplings or per￾sistent states. When triggered, the Experience Memory injects procedural Meta-Skills for progress-preserving mitigation, which self-evolve via a Test-Verify-Write Loop.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Test-time evolution on Qwen3-VL￾8B. Steady improvements in hazard mitiga￾tion demonstrate effective procedural learn￾ing. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example 1 scene. An opened refrigerator reveals the peach inside; a dirty plate and a rag are on the countertop. After removing these unstable cases, the remaining 150 episodes were used consistently across all experiments. For the test-time evolution study in Sec. 5.4, this curated subset was further partitioned into 60 training episodes and 90 test episodes. D Additional Analysis D.1 Meta-Skill Evolution… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example 2 scene. The opened top cabinet contains a jar of jam, while the bottom cabinet is available as an alternative storage. Evolved Meta-Skill. After evolution, the rule becomes more executable and concretely grounded: Evolved F13 How: CLOSE(storage y) first. Do not PLACE_INSIDE(z, y). Prefer switching to a storage without food, OPEN it first, and then place the chemical inside it. Grounding: <alt_stor… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Brohan, A., Chebotar, Y., Finn, C., Hausman, K., Herzog, A., Ho, D., Ibarz, J., Irpan, A., Jang, E., Julian, R., et al.: Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language inroboticaffordances.In:Conferenceonrobotlearning.pp.287–318.PMLR(2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning

    Driess, D., Xia, F., Sajjadi, M.S., Lynch, C., Chowdhery, A., Ichter, B., Wahid, A., Tompson, J., Vuong, Q., Yu, T., et al.: Palm-e: an embodied multimodal language model. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 8469–8488 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Google DeepMind: Model Evaluation – Approach, Methodology & Results: Gemini 3.1 Pro. Tech. rep., Google DeepMind (2026),https://storage.googleapis.com/ deepmind- media/gemini/gemini_3- 1_pro_model_evaluation.pdf, accessed 25 June 2026

    2026

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13564 (2025)

    Hu, Y., Liu, S., Yue, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, B., Zhu, F., Lin, J., Guo, H., Dou, S., Xi, Z., et al.: Memory in the age of ai agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13564 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11176 (2023)

    Huang, S., Jiang, Z., Dong, H., Qiao, Y., Gao, P., Li, H.: Instruct2act: Mapping multi-modality instructions to robotic actions with large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11176 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024)

    Hurst, A., Lerer, A., Goucher, A.P., Perelman, A., Ramesh, A., Clark, A., Os- trow, A., Welihinda, A., Hayes, A., Radford, A., et al.: Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    PMLR (2023)

    Kurenkov, A., Lingelbach, M., Agarwal, T., Jin, E., Li, C., Zhang, R., Fei-Fei, L., Wu, J., Savarese, S., Martın-Martın, R.: Modeling dynamic environments with scenegraphmemory.In:InternationalConferenceonMachineLearning.pp.17976– 17993. PMLR (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Sima et al

    Lei, M., Cai, H., Cui, Z., Tan, L., Hong, J., Hu, G., Zhu, S., Wu, Y., Jiang, S., Wang, G., et al.: Robomemory: A brain-inspired multi-memory agentic framework forinteractiveenvironmentallearninginphysicalembodiedsystems.arXivpreprint arXiv:2508.01415 (2025) 16 B. Sima et al

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16402 (2025)

    Lu, X., Chen, Z., Hu, X., Zhou, Y., Zhang, W., Liu, D., Sheng, L., Shao, J.: Is- bench: Evaluating interactive safety of vlm-driven embodied agents in daily house- hold tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16402 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14367 (2026)

    Lu, X., Zhou, Y., Chen, Z., Wang, R., Sima, B., Zhou, E., Sheng, L., Liu, D., Shao, J.: Homeguard: Vlm-based embodied safeguard for identifying contextual risk in household task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14367 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16633 (2024)

    Lu, X., Huang, Z., Li, X., Zhang, C., Xu, W., et al.: Poex: Towards pol- icy executable jailbreak attacks against the llm-based robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16633 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    OpenAI: Update to gpt-5 system card: Gpt-5.2. Tech. rep., OpenAI (2025), https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/3a4153c8-c748-4b71-8e31-aecbde944f8d/oai_ 5_2_system-card.pdf, accessed: 25 June 2026

    2025

  13. [13]

    In: Findings of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023

    Sarch, G., Wu, Y., Tarr, M., Fragkiadaki, K.: Open-ended instructable embodied agents with memory-augmented large language models. In: Findings of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023. pp. 3468–3500 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning

    Shi, L.X., Ichter, B., Equi, M.R., Ke, L., Pertsch, K., Vuong, Q., Tanner, J., Walling, A., Wang, H., Fusai, N., et al.: Hi robot: Open-ended instruction follow- ing with hierarchical vision-language-action models. In: International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 54919–54933. PMLR (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Singh, I., Blukis, V., Mousavian, A., Goyal, A., Xu, D., Tremblay, J., Fox, D., Thomason, J., Garg, A.: Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 11523–11530. IEEE (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    Son, Y., Kim, M., Kim, S., Han, S., Kim, J., Jang, D., Yu, Y., Park, C.Y.: Sub- tle risks, critical failures: A framework for diagnosing physical safety of llms for embodied decision making. In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. pp. 25703–25744 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291 (2023)

    Wang, G., Xie, Y., Jiang, Y., Mandlekar, A., Xiao, C., Zhu, Y., Fan, L., Anand- kumar, A.: Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18666 (2025)

    Wang, H., Poskitt, C.M., Sun, J.: Agentspec: Customizable runtime enforcement for safe and reliable llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18666 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21220 (2025)

    Wang, L., Ying, Z., Yang, X., Zou, Q., Yin, Z., Li, T., Yang, J., Yang, Y., Liu, A., Liu, X.: Robosafe: Safeguarding embodied agents via executable safety logic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21220 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19870 (2025)

    Wang, X., Li, J., Weng, Z., Wang, Y., Gao, Y., Pang, T., Du, C., Teng, Y., Wang, Y., Wu, Z., et al.: Freezevla: Action-freezing attacks against vision-language-action models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19870 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    In: 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Wang, Z., Yu, B., Zhao, J., Sun, W., Hou, S., Liang, S., Hu, X., Han, Y., Gan, Y.: Karma: Augmenting embodied ai agents with long-and-short term memory systems. In: 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 1–8. IEEE (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13175 (2025)

    Xing, W., Li, M., Li, M., Han, M.: Towards robust and secure embodied ai: A survey on vulnerabilities and attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13175 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02385 (2024)

    Xu, Z., Wu, K., Wen, J., Li, J., Liu, N., Che, Z., Tang, J.: A survey on robotics with foundation models: toward embodied ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02385 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 (2025)

    Yang, A., Li, A., Yang, B., Zhang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Gao, C., Huang, C., Lv, C., et al.: Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning

    Yang, R., Chen, H., Zhang, J., Zhao, M., Qian, C., Wang, K., Wang, Q., Koripella, T.V., Movahedi, M., Li, M., et al.: Embodiedbench: Comprehensive benchmarking Self-Evolving Just-In-Time Memory 17 multi-modal large language models for vision-driven embodied agents. In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 70576–70631. PMLR (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Yang, Y., Yang, H., Zhou, J., Chen, P., Zhang, H., Du, Y., Gan, C.: 3d-mem: 3d scene memory for embodied exploration and reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 17294–17303 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Yang, Z., Raman, S.S., Shah, A., Tellex, S.: Plug in the safety chip: Enforcing constraints for llm-driven robot agents. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 14435–14442. IEEE (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13178 (2024)

    Yin, S., Pang, X., Ding, Y., Chen, M., Bi, Y., Xiong, Y., Huang, W., Xiang, Z., Shao, J., Chen, S.: Safeagentbench: A benchmark for safe task planning of embodied llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13178 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14697 (2025)

    Ying, Z., Wang, L., Xiao, Y., Wang, J., Ma, Y., Guo, J., Yin, Z., Zhang, M., Liu, A., Liu, X.: Agentsafe: Benchmarking the safety of embodied agents on hazardous instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14697 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20242 (2024)

    Zhang, H., Zhu, C., Wang, X., Zhou, Z., Yin, C., Li, M., Xue, L., Wang, Y., Hu, S., Liu, A., et al.: Badrobot: Jailbreaking embodied llms in the physical world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20242 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05176 (2025)

    Zhang, Y., Li, M., Long, D., Zhang, X., Lin, H., Yang, B., Xie, P., Yang, A., Liu, D., Lin, J., et al.: Qwen3 embedding: Advancing text embedding and reranking through foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05176 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations

    Zhou, K., Liu, C., Zhao, X., Compalas, A., Song, D., Wang, X.: Multimodal situa- tional safety. In: International Conference on Learning Representations. vol. 2025, pp. 10658–10688 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04449 (2024)

    Zhu, Z., Wu, B., Zhang, Z., Han, L., Liu, Q., Wu, B.: Earbench: Towards evaluating physical risk awareness for task planning of foundation model-based embodied ai agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04449 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    node_id":

    Zitkovich, B., Yu, T., Xu, S., Xu, P., Xiao, T., Xia, F., Wu, J., Wohlhart, P., Welker, S., Wahid, A., et al.: Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. In: Conference on Robot Learning. pp. 2165–2183. PMLR (2023) 18 B. Sima et al. A Additional Method Details A.1 RSG Patch Update Mechanism As introduced in Section 4.2,...

    2023

  35. [35]

    If a tiny object is not clearly visible, omit it

    Visibility: Scan all views and mark each clearly visible object. If a tiny object is not clearly visible, omit it

  36. [36]

    States: Mark dynamic states only if visually explicit (e.g., mark ‘ toggled_on‘ ONLY when an ON indicator is clearly visible)

  37. [37]

    Fixed fixtures ( floor, countertops, sink) generally serve as targets (dst), not sources (src)

    Support (ONTOP/INSIDE): Output direct supports only. Fixed fixtures ( floor, countertops, sink) generally serve as targets (dst), not sources (src). Never infer hidden contents for closed opaque containers

  38. [38]

    nodes": [...],

    Sparsity (NEXTTO): Add NEXTTO only when objects are on the same support and clearly touching/very close. Never add NEXTTO between large fixed fixtures. Output JSON only: {"nodes": [...], "edges": [...]} Your input: - task_instruction: {task_instruction} - objects_list: {objects_str} - surround-view images: (provided externally) 24 B. Sima et al. Patch Upd...

  39. [39]

    action": str,

    (optional) B.3 Baseline Implementations Planner prompts.We evaluate three planner settings: the original IS-Bench planner prompt, the SafeCoT prompt, and our memory-augmented planner prompt. For readability, we present them below in abbreviated paper format, following the prompt presentation style used in IS-Bench. Original IS-Bench planner prompt. ## You...

  40. [40]

    Preventive Measures: Based on safety_tips, the current planning step and environment, what specific preventive step or safe operating method should be used?

  41. [41]

    action": str,

    Formulate Action and Caution: {"action": str, "caution": str} Your total output format:

  42. [42]

    Preventive Measures: str

  43. [43]

    JSON action/caution pair] ## Input Data: - panoramic observation - optional bounding boxes - task_instruction - objects_list - object_abilities - wash_rules - task_goals - history_actions - safety_tips ## Consider the following skills a robotic arm can perform. - OPEN([target_obj]) - CLOSE([target_obj]) - PLACE_ON_TOP([target_obj], [placement_obj]) - PLAC...

  44. [44]

    Working Memory: - RSG stores persistent object identities, unary states, and sparse topological relations, including currently occluded ones

  45. [45]

    action": str,

    Long-term Memory: - retrieved_experience_memory contains active safety skills and short case snippets for triggered situational risks / active temporal obligations. - Meta and Case are guidance, not rigid scripts. ## Input Data: - panoramic observation - rsg_state 30 B. Sima et al. - retrieved_experience_memory - current objects_list - task_instruction - ...