This work proposes a LLM-driven verification layer between planning and execution to evaluate action permissibility, and achieves near 85% precision across accept/escalate/reject categories, with negligible errors between accepting and rejecting tasks, and errors mostly manifesting at the escalate boundary.
Abstract
Advances in advanced artificial intelligence tools have sparked research in robot autonomy, but the development of such systems has largely focused on execution rather than verifying the feasibility actions planning models propose. Like general-purpose LLMs, robotics planning models carry risks: biased toward user-specified goals, they may suggest actions misaligned with scientific ethics, they may be unsafe due to an inability to"remember"prior safety risks, or they may be vulnerable to adversarial attacks on the autonomy ecosystem. We propose a LLM-driven verification layer between planning and execution to evaluate action permissibility. Our LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble combines chain-of-thought reasoning across models and synthesizes those expert judge outputs, mirroring a combination of a mixture of experts and self-consistency approach. This layer serves as middleware, gating plans from the server's planning module before they reach the MCP server and therefore the robot's low-level controls: plans are approved, rejected for reformulation, or escalated for human review. With this system, we achieve near 85% precision across accept/escalate/reject categories 97% containment of adversarial attacks, with negligible errors between accepting and rejecting tasks, and errors mostly manifesting at the escalate boundary.
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.
Capek 0.5 is presented, an embodied vision-language model built around an execution-centric capability taxonomy that improves the large majority of matched benchmark rows over its initialization, retains all four specialized capabilities in one checkpoint with quantified losses, and transfers to closed-loop embodied task execution.
Deployable autonomy remains a key challenge for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) operating in open-ended missions. Large language models (LLMs) and their multimodal variants, which can process visual and other sensory inputs, have introduced new capabilities for semantic perception, task reasoning, and language-conditioned control. However, these capabilities do not by themselves produce flight-ready autonomy. We structure our analysis around a Perception–Cognition–Action (P–C–A) framework. At each layer, we identify the capabilities contributed by LLM-based components and examine how they connect to existing flight modules through input specifications, output representations, architectural coupling patterns, and safety mechanisms. Across the surveyed systems, LLMs extend UAV autonomy beyond fixed perception categories, scripted task plans, and pre-programmed controllers. However, field deployment depends on whether model outputs can be transformed into representations that downstream modules can parse, verify, and safely execute. Without adequate validation, captions, task plans, code, waypoints, and control commands may become failure points that propagate across the P–C–A loop. Our analysis highlights structured output contracts, independent safety barriers, and deterministic fallback mechanisms as key design elements for the reliable integration of LLM capabilities into UAV platforms.
Ting-Quan Xiong, Jianning Zhan, Qiu-Wei Deng et al.· Drones· 0 citations
A language-guided robot operating in a real kitchen must do more than produce a plan that appears correct. It must also execute that plan safely in cluttered environments under imperfect perception. Large language models (LLM) can decompose instructions into action sequences, yet a language-action gap remains: a plan may appear valid linguistically while being physically infeasible under kinematic and collision constraints. We bridge this gap by formalizing the reasoning-execution boundary as a typed contract. From RGB-D observations, the system grounds perceived objects in an explicit, collision-aware scene model and constrains language-level decisions through schema-validated tool calls defined by the Model Context Protocol (MCP), rejecting malformed commands before they reach the robot. Each validated call is deterministically grounded in a MoveIt Task Constructor pipeline, where candidate motions are evaluated against the reconstructed planning scene in a verify-then-act step. Only trajectories that pass both kinematic and collision checks are sent to the robot. On a physical UFactory 850, the method achieves up to 80% success across ten trials per task on pouring tasks involving liquids, granular media, and discrete solids. It achieves 90% success on a grasp-and-place task using the same planning, protocol, and verification stack. Although a scripted policy slightly outperforms our method on the easiest task, its success rate falls to 10% on the hardest, compared with 60% for our method.
RoboBRIDGE is presented, a modular framework that provides an orchestration layer over five coordinated modules, namely Monitor, Perceptor, Planner, Controller, and Robot Interface, to compose robust robotic agents from off-the-shelf components, including pretrained VLAs.
