Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Embodied AI trustworthiness is a system property, not a model score

desk verdict A serious, honest position piece that gives the field a useful four-layer vocabulary; the T0–T5 ladder is a scaffold awaiting thresholds, so its comparative-evaluation claim is still a promise. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26121 v1 pith:X6EBHBAP submitted 2026-07-28 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CY

Xinyu Yang , Tianxing Chen , Honghao Su , Minxuan Wang , Chenze Yu , Zhangzheng Tu , Yue Chen , Yuxiao Huo
show 33 more authors
Lingfeng Zhang Yan Huang Yan Qin Shaolong Zhu Qiwei Liang Hekun Tian Shujia Liu Guangyu Chen Junhao Gong Zixuan Li Wenwei Lin Zijian Lin Wenxuan Zhu Eric J Chen Yue Yuan Qize Yu Jiaqi Liang Haowen Yan Hengfei Zhao Weijie Wan Zikun Xiao Junyuan Tang Baijun Chen Kai-Chong Lei Kaixuan Wang Kailun Su Zanxin Chen Yao Mu Renjing Xu Chuqiao Lyu Qi Xiong Ping Luo Wenbo Ding
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CY
keywords embodiedintelligencetrustworthyAIsafetysustainedsafesuccessassurancedeploymentgovernancerobotevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that an embodied AI system—a robot or autonomous agent that acts in the physical world—should be called trustworthy only when the whole deployed system reliably completes its tasks while keeping risk within acceptable bounds over time. It defines this goal as "sustained safe success" and argues that trustworthiness is an end-to-end property of the deployed system, not of any single model, component, or benchmark score. The paper organizes the supporting mechanisms into four interdependent layers—model, system, evidence, and deployment—and proposes a six-level graded hierarchy (T0–T5) for expressing the strength of a system's bounded trustworthiness claim. A sympathetic reader would care because as embodied AI moves from digital inference to physical interaction, task completion alone can conceal unsafe behavior, and this framework supplies a common structure for comparing, evaluating, and governing deployment claims.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bounded trustworthiness claim, expressed as the tuple ⟨system version, task, embodiment, operating domain, authority, evidence⟩, together with the four-layer framework that supports it. The four layers—model, system, evidence, deployment—are functional responsibilities rather than software modules, and the paper stresses cross-layer failure propagation through the semantic–physical gap, the action–consequence gap, and cross-layer non-compositionality. The key quantitative instrument is the safe-success rate, SSR = N(task completed ∧ no unacceptable violation)/N(evaluated trials), which separates four outcome classes: safe success, safe failure, unsafe success, and u

What would settle it

A system that meets all T4 assessment dimensions but whose claim lapses after a small unmonitored change—for example, a camera recalibration—without any deployment-layer detection would falsify the claim that a bounded claim's validity is maintained by the four layers. Concretely, audit a deployed robot across such a change and check whether its monitored assumptions trigger revalidation before harm occurs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that trustworthiness is an end-to-end property of a deployed system, not an attribute of an individual model, component, or benchmark score. The paper defines trustworthy embodied intelligence as sustained safe success: reliable completion of intended tasks while physical, semantic, procedural, and operational risks remain within acceptable bounds. It identifies the model layer, which proposes actions with calibrated uncertainty and safety preferences; the system layer, which realizes authorized actions dependably through sensing, computing, control, hardware safeguards, fault containment, and fallback; the evidence layer, which substantiates bounded claims through evalu

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that 'unacceptable violation' and 'acceptable residual risk' can be specified and measured for each application; without that, the safe-success rate and T-level assessments cannot be applied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Evaluation of embodied systems should report safe success, unsafe success, safe failure, and unsafe failure, rather than a single completion rate.
  • A highly capable model can still be at T1 or T2 if system safeguards, evidence, or deployment governance are missing; capability alone does not raise a TEI level.
  • Deployment should define an explicit operational boundary and use runtime admission, boundary monitoring, intervention, and change control to preserve the validity of the trustworthiness claim.
  • The T0–T5 hierarchy offers a common structure for comparative evaluation, bounded deployment, and future standardization, while remaining non-normative and requiring domain-specific profiles.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial: If the safe-success-rate categories were widely adopted, benchmark suites would need to include scenario-conditioned risk reporting and severity weighting, so that a minor safety-filter activation and a high-energy collision are not counted equally.
  • Editorial: The T-level framework implies a staged-approval model for regulators: a low T-level would authorize only tightly constrained deployments, while T4–T5 would be needed for open-ended operation.
  • Editorial: The paper leaves open the 'assurance-preserving reconfiguration' problem — deciding which tool, payload, or controller changes are minor versus claim-invalidating. An automated impact-analysis tool for revalidation triggers would be a concrete next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This position/survey paper argues that trustworthiness for embodied intelligence cannot be established by any single model, component, or benchmark score. It defines trustworthy embodied intelligence as “sustained safe success,” organized around four interdependent layers—model, system, evidence, and deployment—and proposes a non-normative T0–T5 hierarchy for grading the strength of bounded deployment claims. The paper reviews a broad literature spanning embodied AI, robotics, control, dependable computing, fault tolerance, and autonomous driving, and it connects these fields through the four-layer framework and the proposed TEI levels.

Significance. If accepted, the framework could provide a useful common vocabulary and architectural reference for safety and assurance in embodied AI, and it appropriately stresses bounded deployment claims, assurance cases, and lifecycle governance. The paper is careful to describe the hierarchy as analytical rather than a certification scheme, and it repeatedly acknowledges that thresholds and acceptable-residual-risk criteria are domain-specific. Its strengths include a broad cross-layer synthesis, explicit treatment of failure propagation, and alignment with existing standards and assurance concepts. However, the central evaluative claim—that the T0–T5 hierarchy supports comparative evaluation and bounded deployment—is not yet operationalized. The only formal evaluative object, the safe-success rate in Eq. (1), depends on an uninterpreted primitive “unacceptable violation,” and the T-level assessment in Section 8.1 depends on undefined thresholds for “adequate support.” The paper is therefore best read as a template or agenda for future standardization rather than a complete comparative instrument.

major comments (3)
  1. [§8.1–8.5 and Eq. (1)] The T-level assignment function is underdetermined. Section 8.1 says a TEI level is the least adequately supported of five dimensions, but “adequately supported” is not defined, and Section 8.5 defers quantitative thresholds and acceptable residual risk to domain-specific profiles. Concretely, the same system with the same evidence could be T2 under one permissible profile (e.g., one severe violation per 10^3 trials is acceptable) and T4 under another (one per 10^6 trials), because the least-supported dimension changes. Since the paper supplies no constraint on choosing these cutoffs, the claimed functions of comparative evaluation and bounded deployment (Section 1.2, contribution 4) are not well-defined. The authors acknowledge this deferral, but acknowledgement does not remove the tension; the paper should either provide a working example of a profile and its induced T-level, or explic
  2. [§6.2, Eq. (1)] The safe-success rate is introduced as the primary joint outcome, yet it is an unweighted trial fraction. The same equation treats a high-energy collision and a minor safety-filter activation as equivalent failures, while Section 6.2 subsequently states that these should not be weighted equally. The paper says SSR should be interpreted together with component outcomes, but then SSR is not itself the “primary joint outcome” in any decision-relevant sense. A severity- or exposure-weighted statistic, or a vector of scenario-conditioned rates with the violation predicate made explicit, would be more consistent with the stated safety goals. As written, Eq. (1) is a useful definitional starting point but not a measurable metric without a specification of the unacceptable-violation predicate.
  3. [§3.2 and §8.1] The four-layer decomposition and the five assessment dimensions are asserted as jointly necessary, but no derivation or empirical evidence is provided for their completeness. This is load-bearing for the paper’s central claim that “no single layer can establish end-to-end trustworthiness” and that a TEI level cannot exceed the least adequately supported dimension. I am not asking for a formal completeness proof in a survey, but the paper should clarify whether these are normative proposals or intended descriptive claims about existing systems. If the latter, at least one illustrative application of the framework to a concrete system would help show that the dimensions can be jointly assessed and that the hierarchy yields stable classifications.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1] “Weusetrustworthy embodied intelligenceto” is missing spaces; please correct “We use trustworthy embodied intelligence to”.
  2. [§6.2, Eq. (1)] The notation N(task completed ∧ no unacceptable violation) / N(evaluated trials) uses the same symbol N for both the numerator and denominator; consider N_safe_success / N_total for clarity.
  3. [§8.4, Table 4] The table aligns AgiBot G1–G5, SAE L0–L5, and TEI T0–T5 row by row. The text cautions that the alignment is illustrative only, but the visual presentation still invites cross-hierarchy equivalence inferences. Consider adding an explicit sentence that the rows are not intended to imply comparable levels of capability, autonomy, or trustworthiness.
  4. [Appendix D and [146]] Reference [146] is first-party company material, and Appendix D correctly notes that internal and industry materials should be labeled as first-party sources. In the main text, however, the discussion around Section 8.4 and the roadmap (Section 9.2) cites company material without that label at the point of use. Adding an explicit first-party marker at the citation site would be more transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TEI is a proposed definition; T-level grading is admittedly underdetermined, and self-citations are disclosed and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a position/survey paper, not a predictive derivation. Its central claim — 'Trustworthiness is therefore an end-to-end property of a deployed system, not an attribute of an individual model, component, or benchmark score' — is introduced as a definition of 'sustained safe success', and the four-layer framework and T0–T5 hierarchy are organizing proposals rather than results fitted to data. Eq. 1 defines the safe-success rate as N(task completed ∧ no unacceptable violation)/N(evaluated trials); 'no unacceptable violation' is a declared primitive, and the paper explicitly defers operational thresholds to 'domain-specific standards' (Section 8.5: 'Domain-specific standards must define the quantitative thresholds, acceptable residual risk, required evidence, and independent assessment needed to substantiate each level'). That deferral makes the hierarchy underdetermined as a comparative instrument (a correctness/scope limitation, acknowledged in Sections 8.5 and 10), but it is not a circular reduction: the level definitions do not presuppose the levels they are supposed to grade. The relation to AgiBot/SAE taxonomies is declared 'illustrative only' (Section 8.4), so this is not renaming. Several supporting artifacts (SafeDojo [58], RoboDojo [98], RM-Bench [118], RobotWin [94,95], UniVTac [121]) come from the same labs, and [146] is first-party company material; however, these are used as illustrative examples/benchmarks, and the paper explicitly labels [146] as 'Company material; source supplied in Chinese' and instructs in Appendix D that 'Internal and industry materials should remain explicitly identified as first-party sources and should not be treated as independent validation.' No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness/ansatz is imported via self-citation. The central definitional claim is therefore self-contained, and the self-citation pattern is disclosed and non-load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric free parameters or physical invented entities appear. The load-bearing assumptions are conceptual: the necessity/completeness of the four-layer model, the joint non-substitutability of capability and safety, and the operationalizability of acceptable risk thresholds.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Task capability and safety are jointly necessary and not substitutable.
    Stated in Section 1 and used throughout the framework; no empirical evidence is given for why they cannot substitute.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumptions and failures propagate across layers, so no single layer can establish end-to-end trustworthiness.
    This is the core structural claim behind the four-layer architecture, asserted in Sections 1 and 3.2 rather than proven.
  • ad hoc to paper The four-layer decomposition (model, system, evidence, deployment) is complete for embodying trustworthiness mechanisms.
    Sections 3.2 and 4–7 assume this categorization covers all relevant mechanisms; no completeness argument is supplied.
  • ad hoc to paper An ordinal T0–T5 hierarchy can meaningfully grade bounded trustworthiness claims across five jointly necessary dimensions.
    Introduced in Section 8; the paper acknowledges domain-specific thresholds are required but none are defined, so the ordinal comparability is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X6EBHBAP

@misc{pith2026260726121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X6EBHBAP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26121}
}
read the original abstract

Embodied intelligence integrates learned perception and decision making with real-time computation, control, and physical interaction. Because failures can cause immediate physical or operational harm, task completion alone does not establish trustworthiness. We define trustworthy embodied intelligence as the sustained capacity to execute specified tasks reliably under environmental and system variation while maintaining risk within acceptable bounds. We term this objective sustained safe success. Its supporting mechanisms are organized into four interdependent layers. The model layer generates task-competent action proposals with calibrated uncertainty and explicit safety preferences. The system layer realizes authorized actions dependably through integrated sensing, computation, control, hardware safeguards, fault containment, and fallback. The evidence layer substantiates bounded claims through evaluation, verification, validation, traceability, and structured assurance arguments. The deployment layer maintains claim validity through runtime monitoring, authority management, intervention, incident response, and controlled updates. Because assumptions and failures propagate across these layers, neither model capability, isolated safeguards, nor benchmark performance alone can establish end-to-end trustworthiness. Drawing on embodied AI, robotics, control, dependable computing, distributed systems, and autonomous driving, we further propose a non-normative hierarchy of trustworthiness levels. This hierarchy grades the strength of bounded deployment claims across task capability, safety, system assurance, operational governance, and supporting evidence, providing a basis for bounded deployment, comparative evaluation, research prioritization, and future standardization.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. XPolicyLab: A Unified Standard and Open Ecosystem for Robot Policy Evaluation and Deployment

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    XPolicyLab is a unified open ecosystem whose adapter contract and dependency-isolated serving reduce robot policy-environment integration from pairwise O(NM) work to O(N+M), cutting a representative integration from o...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 43 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [146]

    Xspark AI: A New Paradigm for Trustworthy Physical Intelligence, July 2026

    Xspark AI. Xspark AI: A New Paradigm for Trustworthy Physical Intelligence, July 2026. Company material; source supplied in Chinese

    2026

  2. [1]

    Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakr- ishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378, 2023

    Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

    Brianna Zitkovich, Tianhe Yu, Sichun Xu, Peng Xu, Ted Xiao, Fei Xia, Jialin Wu, Paul Wohlhart, Stefan Welker, Ayzaan Wahid, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 2165–2183. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  5. [4]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, et al.𝜋0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Mastering diverse domains through world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104, 2023

    Danijar Hafner, Jurgis Pasukonis, Jimmy Ba, and Timothy Lillicrap. Mastering diverse domains through world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Tactile robotics: An outlook.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    Shan Luo, Nathan F Lepora, Wenzhen Yuan, Kaspar Althoefer, Gordon Cheng, and Ravinder Dahiya. Tactile robotics: An outlook.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    2025

Show all 153 references
  1. [8]

    Expressive whole-body control for humanoid robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16796, 2024

    Xuxin Cheng, Yandong Ji, Junming Chen, Ruihan Yang, Ge Yang, and Xiaolong Wang. Expressive whole-body control for humanoid robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16796, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A comprehensive survey on physical risk control in the era of foundation model-enabled robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12583, 2025

    Takeshi Kojima, Yaonan Zhu, Yusuke Iwasawa, Toshinori Kitamura, Gang Yan, Shu Morikuni, Ryosuke Takanami, Alfredo Solano, Tatsuya Matsushima, Akiko Murakami, et al. A comprehensive survey on physical risk control in the era of foundation model-enabled robotics.arXiv preprint a...

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Safety in embodied ai: A survey of risks, attacks, and defenses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.02900, 2026

    Xiao Li, Xiang Zheng, Yifeng Gao, Xinyu Xia, Yixu Wang, Xin Wang, Ye Sun, Yunhan Zhao, Ming Wen, Jiayu Li, et al. Safety in embodied ai: A survey of risks, attacks, and defenses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.02900, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  4. [11]

    What breaks embodied ai security: Llm vulnerabilities, cps flaws, or something else?High-Confidence Computing, page 100403, 2026

    Boyang Ma, Hechuan Guo, Peizhuo Lv, Minghui Xu, Xuelong Dai, YeChao Zhang, Yijun Yang, and Yue Zhang. What breaks embodied ai security: Llm vulnerabilities, cps flaws, or something else?High-Confidence Computing, page 100403, 2026

    2026

  5. [12]

    Sim-to-real transfer of robotic control with dynamics randomization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.06537, 2017

    Xue Bin Peng, Marcin Andrychowicz, Wojciech Zaremba, and Pieter Abbeel. Sim-to-real transfer of robotic control with dynamics randomization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.06537, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world

    Josh Tobin, Rachel Fong, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider, Wojciech Zaremba, and Pieter Abbeel. Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world. In2017 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pages 23–30...

    2017

  7. [14]

    Safe embodied ai for long-horizon tasks: A cross-layer analysis of robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05660, 2026

    Dabin Kim, Daemin Park, Sangyub Lee, Jinsik Kim, Yeongtak Oh, Jongho Shin, and Sungroh Yoon. Safe embodied ai for long-horizon tasks: A cross-layer analysis of robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05660, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing.IEEE transactions on dependable and secure computing, 1(1):11–33, 2004

    Algirdas Avizienis, J-C Laprie, Brian Randell, and Carl Landwehr. Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing.IEEE transactions on dependable and secure computing, 1(1):11–33, 2004

    2004

  9. [16]

    Control barrier functions: Theory and applications

    Aaron D Ames, Samuel Coogan, Magnus Egerstedt, Gennaro Notomista, Koushil Sreenath, and Paulo Tabuada. Control barrier functions: Theory and applications. In2019 18th European control conference (ECC), pages 3420–

  10. [17]

    Harnessing embodied agents: Runtime governance for policy-constrained execution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07833, 2026

    Xue Qin, Simin Luan, John See, Zeyd Boukhers, Cong Yang, and Zhijun Li. Harnessing embodied agents: Runtime governance for policy-constrained execution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07833, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Md Muzakkir Quamar and Ali Nasir. Review on fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant control scheme for robotic manipulators: Recent advances in ai, machine learning, and digital twin.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02980, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Robot collisions: A survey on detection, isolation, and identification.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 33(6):1292–1312, 2017

    Sami Haddadin, Alessandro De Luca, and Alin Albu-Schäffer. Robot collisions: A survey on detection, isolation, and identification.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 33(6):1292–1312, 2017

    2017

  13. [20]

    Physical human-robot interaction: A critical review of safety constraints.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.19462, 2026

    Riccardo Zanella, Federico Califano, and Stefano Stramigioli. Physical human-robot interaction: A critical review of safety constraints.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.19462, 2026

    2026

  14. [21]

    On calibration of modern neural networks

    Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1321–1330. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  15. [22]

    A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02136, 2016

    Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02136, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022. 30

    2022 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Concrete problems in ai safety.arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565, 2016

    Dario Amodei, Chris Olah, Jacob Steinhardt, Paul Christiano, John Schulman, and Dan Mané. Concrete problems in ai safety.arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Zhiwei Gao, Carlo Cecati, and Steven X Ding. A survey of fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant techniques—part i: Fault diagnosis with model-based and signal-based approaches.IEEE transactions on industrial electronics, 62(6): 3757–3767, 2015

    2015

  19. [26]

    A survey of algorithms for black-box safety validation of cyber-physical systems.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2021

    Anthony Corso, Robert J Moss, Mark Koren, Ritchie Lee, and Mykel J Kochenderfer. A survey of algorithms for black-box safety validation of cyber-physical systems.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2021

    2021

  20. [27]

    Survey on scenario-based safety assessment of automated vehicles.IEEE access, 8:87456–87477, 2020

    Stefan Riedmaier, Thomas Ponn, Dieter Ludwig, Bernhard Schick, and Frank Diermeyer. Survey on scenario-based safety assessment of automated vehicles.IEEE access, 8:87456–87477, 2020

    2020

  21. [28]

    Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability?Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 94:182–193, 2016

    Nidhi Kalra and Susan M Paddock. Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability?Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 94:182–193, 2016

    2016

  22. [29]

    Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 2018

    Filippo Santoni de Sio and Jeroen Van den Hoven. Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 2018

    2018

  23. [30]

    Using simplicity to control complexity.IEEE Software, 18(4):20, 2001

    Lui Sha. Using simplicity to control complexity.IEEE Software, 18(4):20, 2001

    2001

  24. [31]

    Leveson.Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety

    Nancy G. Leveson.Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety. Engineering systems. MIT press, Cambridge (Mass.), 2011. ISBN 9780262016629 9781628703399

    2011

  25. [32]

    ISO 21448:2022: Road vehicles — Safety of the intended function- ality

    International Organization for Standardization. ISO 21448:2022: Road vehicles — Safety of the intended function- ality. International Standard, 2022

    2022

  26. [33]

    Assuring safety-critical machine learning enabled systems: Challenges and promise

    Alwyn E Goodloe. Assuring safety-critical machine learning enabled systems: Challenges and promise. In2022 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), pages 326–332. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  27. [34]

    Physically grounded vision-language models for robotic manipulation

    Jensen Gao, Bidipta Sarkar, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Jiajun Wu, Brian Ichter, Anirudha Majumdar, and Dorsa Sadigh. Physically grounded vision-language models for robotic manipulation. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 12462–12469. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  28. [35]

    Verifiably following complex robot instructions with foundation models

    Benedict Quartey, Eric Rosen, Stefanie Tellex, and George Konidaris. Verifiably following complex robot instructions with foundation models. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  29. [36]

    3d-vitac: Learning fine-grained manipulation with visuo-tactile sensing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24091, 2024

    Binghao Huang, Yixuan Wang, Xinyi Yang, Yiyue Luo, and Yunzhu Li. 3d-vitac: Learning fine-grained manipulation with visuo-tactile sensing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24091, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Adversarial patch.arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.09665, 2017

    Tom B Brown, Dandelion Mané, Aurko Roy, Martín Abadi, and Justin Gilmer. Adversarial patch.arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.09665, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Robust physical-world attacks on deep learning visual classification

    Kevin Eykholt, Ivan Evtimov, Earlence Fernandes, Bo Li, Amir Rahmati, Chaowei Xiao, Atul Prakash, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Dawn Song. Robust physical-world attacks on deep learning visual classification. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogniti...

    2018

  32. [39]

    Spatiotemporal attacks for embodied agents

    Aishan Liu, Tairan Huang, Xianglong Liu, Yitao Xu, Yuqing Ma, Xinyun Chen, Stephen J Maybank, and Dacheng Tao. Spatiotemporal attacks for embodied agents. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 122–138. Springer, 2020

    2020

  33. [40]

    Badnets: Identifying vulnerabilities in the machine learning model supply chain.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06733, 2017

    Tianyu Gu, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt, and Siddharth Garg. Badnets: Identifying vulnerabilities in the machine learning model supply chain.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06733, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Deep evidential regression.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:14927–14937, 2020

    Alexander Amini, Wilko Schwarting, Ava Soleimany, and Daniela Rus. Deep evidential regression.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:14927–14937, 2020

    2020

  35. [42]

    Grounding language with visual affordances over unstructured data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01911, 2022

    Oier Mees, Jessica Borja-Diaz, and Wolfram Burgard. Grounding language with visual affordances over unstructured data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01911, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. In2023 IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 9493–9500. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  37. [44]

    Not what you’ve signed up for: Compromising real-world llm-integrated applications with indirect prompt injection

    Kai Greshake, Sahar Abdelnabi, Shailesh Mishra, Christoph Endres, Thorsten Holz, and Mario Fritz. Not what you’ve signed up for: Compromising real-world llm-integrated applications with indirect prompt injection. InProceedings of the 16th ACM workshop on artificial intelligenc...

    2023

  38. [45]

    Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15043, 2023

    Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, J Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15043, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Badrobot: Jailbreaking embodied llms in the physical world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20242, 2024

    Hangtao Zhang, Chenyu Zhu, Xianlong Wang, Ziqi Zhou, Changgan Yin, Minghui Li, Lulu Xue, Yichen Wang, Shengshan Hu, Aishan Liu, et al. Badrobot: Jailbreaking embodied llms in the physical world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20242, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Goal-oriented backdoor attack against vision-language-action models via physical objects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09269, 2025

    Zirun Zhou, Zhengyang Xiao, Haochuan Xu, Jing Sun, Di Wang, and Jingfeng Zhang. Goal-oriented backdoor attack against vision-language-action models via physical objects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09269, 2025

    2025

  41. [48]

    Integrated task and motion planning.Annual review of control, robotics, and autonomous systems, 4 (1):265–293, 2021

    Caelan Reed Garrett, Rohan Chitnis, Rachel Holladay, Beomjoon Kim, Tom Silver, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and Tomás Lozano-Pérez. Integrated task and motion planning.Annual review of control, robotics, and autonomous systems, 4 (1):265–293, 2021. 31

    2021

  42. [49]

    Task and motion planning with large language models for object rearrangement

    Yan Ding, Xiaohan Zhang, Chris Paxton, and Shiqi Zhang. Task and motion planning with large language models for object rearrangement. In2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2086–2092. IEEE, 2023

  43. [50]

    Constrained policy optimization

    Joshua Achiam, David Held, Aviv Tamar, and Pieter Abbeel. Constrained policy optimization. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 22–31. Pmlr, 2017

    2017

  44. [51]

    Reward constrained policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.11074, 2018

    Chen Tessler, Daniel J Mankowitz, and Shie Mannor. Reward constrained policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.11074, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  45. [52]

    A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(1):1437–1480, 2015

    Javier Garcıa and Fernando Fernández. A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(1):1437–1480, 2015

    2015

  46. [53]

    Safety-oriented human-robot collaboration in construction through human preference alignment.Journal of Intelligent Construction, 3(3):1–15, 2025

    Mao Tian and Zhengbo Zou. Safety-oriented human-robot collaboration in construction through human preference alignment.Journal of Intelligent Construction, 3(3):1–15, 2025

    2025

  47. [54]

    Constrained diffusers for safe planning and control.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:34965–34998, 2026

    Jichen Zhang, Liqun Zhao, Antonis Papachristodoulou, and Jack Umenberger. Constrained diffusers for safe planning and control.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:34965–34998, 2026

    2026

  48. [55]

    Safe model-based reinforcement learning with an uncertainty-aware reachability certificate.IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 21(3):4129–4142, 2023

    Dongjie Yu, Wenjun Zou, Yujie Yang, Haitong Ma, Shengbo Eben Li, Yuming Yin, Jianyu Chen, and Jingliang Duan. Safe model-based reinforcement learning with an uncertainty-aware reachability certificate.IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 21(3):4129–4142, 2023

    2023

  49. [56]

    A predictive safety filter for learning-based control of constrained nonlinear dynamical systems.Automatica, 129:109597, 2021

    Kim Peter Wabersich and Melanie N Zeilinger. A predictive safety filter for learning-based control of constrained nonlinear dynamical systems.Automatica, 129:109597, 2021

    2021

  50. [57]

    Unisim: A neural closed-loop sensor simulator

    Ze Yang, Yun Chen, Jingkang Wang, Sivabalan Manivasagam, Wei-Chiu Ma, Anqi Joyce Yang, and Raquel Urtasun. Unisim: A neural closed-loop sensor simulator. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1389–1399, 2023

    2023

  51. [58]

    Safedojo: Safe reinforcement learning for vla via interactive world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.20698, 2026

    Kai Tang, Peidong Jia, Zhong Chu, Jixian Wu, Rui Ma, Jiajun Cao, Fangyuan Zhao, Sixiang Chen, Yichen Guo, Xiaowei Chi, et al. Safedojo: Safe reinforcement learning for vla via interactive world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.20698, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Poisoning attacks against support vector machines.arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.6389, 2012

    Battista Biggio, Blaine Nelson, and Pavel Laskov. Poisoning attacks against support vector machines.arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.6389, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Robots that ask for help: Uncertainty alignment for large language model planners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01928, 2023

    Allen Z Ren, Anushri Dixit, Alexandra Bodrova, Sumeet Singh, Stephen Tu, Noah Brown, Peng Xu, Leila Takayama, Fei Xia, Jake Varley, et al. Robots that ask for help: Uncertainty alignment for large language model planners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01928, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Sensor-enabled safety systems for human–robot collaboration: A review.IEEE Sensors Journal, 25(1):65–88, 2024

    Constantin Scholz, Hoang-Long Cao, Emil Imrith, Nima Roshandel, Hamed Firouzipouyaei, Aleksander Burkiewicz, Milan Amighi, Sebastien Menet, Dylan Warawout Sisavath, Antonio Paolillo, et al. Sensor-enabled safety systems for human–robot collaboration: A review.IEEE Sensors Jour...

    2024

  55. [62]

    Robot operating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild.Science robotics, 7(66):eabm6074, 2022

    Steven Macenski, Tully Foote, Brian Gerkey, Chris Lalancette, and William Woodall. Robot operating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild.Science robotics, 7(66):eabm6074, 2022

    2022

  56. [63]

    A survey of real-time support, analysis, and advancements in ros 2.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10722, 2025

    Daniel Casini, Jian-Jia Chen, Jing Li, Federico Reghenzani, and Harun Teper. A survey of real-time support, analysis, and advancements in ros 2.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10722, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Priority inheritance protocols: An approach to real-time synchronization.IEEE Transactions on computers, 39(9):1175–1185, 1990

    Lui Sha, Ragunathan Rajkumar, and John P Lehoczky. Priority inheritance protocols: An approach to real-time synchronization.IEEE Transactions on computers, 39(9):1175–1185, 1990

    1990

  58. [65]

    End-to-end timing analysis and optimization of multi-executor ros 2 systems

    Harun Teper, Tobias Betz, Mario Günzel, Dominic Ebner, Georg Von Der Brüggen, Johannes Betz, and Jian-Jia Chen. End-to-end timing analysis and optimization of multi-executor ros 2 systems. In2024 IEEE 30th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS), pa...

    2024

  59. [66]

    Timing analysis and priority-driven enhancements of ros 2 multi-threaded executors

    Hoora Sobhani, Hyunjong Choi, and Hyoseung Kim. Timing analysis and priority-driven enhancements of ros 2 multi-threaded executors. In2023 IEEE 29th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS), pages 106–118. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  60. [67]

    Series elastic actuators

    Gill A Pratt and Matthew M Williamson. Series elastic actuators. InProceedings 1995 IEEE/RSJ international conferenceonintelligentrobotsandsystems.Humanrobotinteractionandcooperativerobots, volume1, pages399–406. IEEE, 1995

    1995

  61. [68]

    Impedance control: An approach to manipulation

    Neville Hogan. Impedance control: An approach to manipulation. In1984 American control conference, pages 304–313. IEEE, 1984

    1984

  62. [69]

    Coboskin: Soft robot skin with variable stiffness for safer human–robot collaboration.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 68(4):3303–3314, 2020

    Gaoyang Pang, Geng Yang, Wenzheng Heng, Zhiqiu Ye, Xiaoyan Huang, Hua-Yong Yang, and Zhibo Pang. Coboskin: Soft robot skin with variable stiffness for safer human–robot collaboration.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 68(4):3303–3314, 2020

    2020

  63. [70]

    A review on fault detection and diagnosis of industrial robots and multi-axis machines.Results in Engineering, 23:102397, 2024

    Ameer H Sabry and Ungku Anisa Bte Ungku Amirulddin. A review on fault detection and diagnosis of industrial robots and multi-axis machines.Results in Engineering, 23:102397, 2024

    2024

  64. [71]

    Review of fault-tolerant control systems used in robotic manipulators.Applied Sciences, 13(4):2675, 2023

    Andrzej Milecki and Patryk Nowak. Review of fault-tolerant control systems used in robotic manipulators.Applied Sciences, 13(4):2675, 2023

    2023

  65. [72]

    Fault-tolerant control of robot manipulators with sensory faults using unbiased active inference

    Mohamed Baioumy, Corrado Pezzato, Riccardo Ferrari, Carlos Hernandez Corbato, and Nick Hawes. Fault-tolerant control of robot manipulators with sensory faults using unbiased active inference. In2021 European Control Conference (ECC), pages 1119–1125. IEEE, 2021. 32

    2021

  66. [73]

    Safe, passive control for mechanical systems with application to physical human-robot interactions

    Wenceslao Shaw Cortez, Christos K Verginis, and Dimos V Dimarogonas. Safe, passive control for mechanical systems with application to physical human-robot interactions. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 3836–3842. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  67. [74]

    Cyber security of robots: A comprehensive survey

    Alessio Botta, Sayna Rotbei, Stefania Zinno, and Giorgio Ventre. Cyber security of robots: A comprehensive survey. Intelligent Systems with Applications, 18:200237, 2023

    2023

  68. [75]

    Zero trust architecture.NIST special publication, 800 (207):1–52, 2020

    Scott Rose, Oliver Borchert, Stu Mitchell, and Sean Connelly. Zero trust architecture.NIST special publication, 800 (207):1–52, 2020

    2020

  69. [76]

    Sros2: Usable cyber security tools for ros 2

    Victor Mayoral-Vilches, Ruffin White, Gianluca Caiazza, and Mikael Arguedas. Sros2: Usable cyber security tools for ros 2. In2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 11253–11259. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  70. [77]

    On the (in) security of secure ros2

    Gelei Deng, Guowen Xu, Yuan Zhou, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. On the (in) security of secure ros2. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 739–753, 2022

    2022

  71. [78]

    The byzantine generals problem.ACM Trans

    Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease. The byzantine generals problem.ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 4(3):382–401, July 1982. ISSN 0164-0925. doi: 10.1145/357172.357176. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1145/357172.357176

    1982

  72. [79]

    An investigation of byzantine threats in multi-robot systems

    Gelei Deng, Yuan Zhou, Yuan Xu, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. An investigation of byzantine threats in multi-robot systems. InProceedings of the 24th international symposium on research in attacks, intrusions and defenses, pages 17–32, 2021

    2021

  73. [80]

    An overview on multi-agent consensus under adversarial attacks.Annual Reviews in Control, 53:252–272, 2022

    Hideaki Ishii, Yuan Wang, and Shuai Feng. An overview on multi-agent consensus under adversarial attacks.Annual Reviews in Control, 53:252–272, 2022

    2022

  74. [81]

    Assuring the machine learning lifecycle: Desiderata, methods, and challenges, arxiv.arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.04223, 2019

    Rob Ashmore, Radu Calinescu, and Colin Paterson. Assuring the machine learning lifecycle: Desiderata, methods, and challenges, arxiv.arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.04223, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Toward verified artificial intelligence.Communications of the ACM, 65(7):46–55, 2022

    Sanjit A Seshia, Dorsa Sadigh, and S Shankar Sastry. Toward verified artificial intelligence.Communications of the ACM, 65(7):46–55, 2022

    2022

  76. [83]

    Guidance on the assurance of machine learning in autonomous systems (amlas).arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01564, 2021

    Richard Hawkins, Colin Paterson, Chiara Picardi, Yan Jia, Radu Calinescu, and Ibrahim Habli. Guidance on the assurance of machine learning in autonomous systems (amlas).arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01564, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Safety assurance of machine learning for perception functions

    Simon Burton, Christian Hellert, Fabian Hüger, Michael Mock, and Andreas Rohatschek. Safety assurance of machine learning for perception functions. InDeep Neural Networks and Data for Automated Driving: Robustness, Uncertainty Quantification, and Insights Towards Safety, pages...

    2022

  78. [85]

    Benchmarking safe exploration in deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01708, 7(1):2, 2019

    Alex Ray, Joshua Achiam, and Dario Amodei. Benchmarking safe exploration in deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01708, 7(1):2, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Safety gymnasium: A unified safe reinforcement learning benchmark.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:18964–18993, 2023

    Jiaming Ji, Borong Zhang, Jiayi Zhou, Xuehai Pan, Weidong Huang, Ruiyang Sun, Yiran Geng, Yifan Zhong, Josef Dai, and Yaodong Yang. Safety gymnasium: A unified safe reinforcement learning benchmark.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:18964–18993, 2023

    2023

  80. [87]

    Hamilton-jacobi reachability: A brief overview and recent advances

    Somil Bansal, Mo Chen, Sylvia Herbert, and Claire J Tomlin. Hamilton-jacobi reachability: A brief overview and recent advances. In2017 IEEE 56th annual conference on decision and control (CDC), pages 2242–2253. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  81. [88]

    Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  82. [89]

    Can you trust your model’s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift

    Jasper Snoek, Yaniv Ovadia, Emily Fertig, Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Sebastian Nowozin, D Sculley, Joshua V Dillon, Jie Ren, and Zachary Nado. Can you trust your model’s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift. 2019

    2019

  83. [90]

    Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates

    Anastasios N. Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates. A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2107.07511, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts

    Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie, Marvin Zhang, Akshay Balsubramani, Weihua Hu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Richard Lanas Phillips, Irena Gao, et al. Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts. InInternational conference on machine learning, pa...

    2021

  85. [92]

    Robot learning from randomized simulations: A review.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9:799893, 2022

    Fabio Muratore, Fabio Ramos, Greg Turk, Wenhao Yu, Michael Gienger, and Jan Peters. Robot learning from randomized simulations: A review.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9:799893, 2022

    2022

  86. [93]

    Formal scenario-based testing of autonomous vehicles: From simulation to the real world

    Daniel J Fremont, Edward Kim, Yash Vardhan Pant, Sanjit A Seshia, Atul Acharya, Xantha Bruso, Paul Wells, Steve Lemke, Qiang Lu, and Shalin Mehta. Formal scenario-based testing of autonomous vehicles: From simulation to the real world. In2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference...

    2020

  87. [94]

    Robotwin 2.0: A scalable data generator and benchmark with strong domain randomization for robust bimanual robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18088, 2025

    Tianxing Chen, Zanxin Chen, Baijun Chen, Zijian Cai, Yibin Liu, Zixuan Li, Qiwei Liang, Xianliang Lin, Yiheng Ge, Zhenyu Gu, et al. Robotwin 2.0: A scalable data generator and benchmark with strong domain randomization for robust bimanual robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint ar...

    2025 arXiv

  88. [95]

    Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins

    Yao Mu, Tianxing Chen, Zanxin Chen, Shijia Peng, Zhiqian Lan, Zeyu Gao, Zhixuan Liang, Qiaojun Yu, Yude Zou, Mingkun Xu, Lunkai Lin, Zhiqiang Xie, Mingyu Ding, and Ping Luo. Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins. InProceedings of the Computer Vision ...

    2025

  89. [96]

    Dexgarmentlab: Dexterous garment manipulation environment with generalizable policy, 2025

    Yuran Wang, Ruihai Wu, Yue Chen, Jiarui Wang, Jiaqi Liang, Ziyu Zhu, Haoran Geng, Jitendra Malik, Pieter Abbeel, and Hao Dong. Dexgarmentlab: Dexterous garment manipulation environment with generalizable policy, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11032

    2025

  90. [97]

    Autobio: A simulation and benchmark for robotic automation in digital biology laboratory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14030, 2025

    Zhiqian Lan, Yuxuan Jiang, Ruiqi Wang, Xuanbing Xie, Rongkui Zhang, Yicheng Zhu, Peihang Li, Tianshuo Yang, Tianxing Chen, Haoyu Gao, et al. Autobio: A simulation and benchmark for robotic automation in digital biology laboratory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14030, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  91. [98]

    Robodojo: A unified sim-and-real benchmark for comprehensive evaluation of generalist robot manipulation policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.04434, 2026

    Tianxing Chen, Yue Chen, Zixuan Li, Junyuan Tang, Kailun Su, Weijie Wan, Baijun Chen, Haoran Lu, Haowen Yan, Honghao Su, et al. Robodojo: A unified sim-and-real benchmark for comprehensive evaluation of generalist robot manipulation policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.04434, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  92. [99]

    Robothor: An open simulation-to-real embodied ai platform

    Matt Deitke, Winson Han, Alvaro Herrasti, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Eric Kolve, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Jordi Salvador, Dustin Schwenk, Eli VanderBilt, Matthew Wallingford, et al. Robothor: An open simulation-to-real embodied ai platform. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on comput...

    2020

  93. [100]

    Evaluating real-world robot manipulation policies in simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05941, 2024

    Xuanlin Li, Kyle Hsu, Jiayuan Gu, Karl Pertsch, Oier Mees, Homer Rich Walke, Chuyuan Fu, Ishikaa Lunawat, Isabel Sieh, Sean Kirmani, et al. Evaluating real-world robot manipulation policies in simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05941, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  94. [101]

    Furniturebench: Reproducible real-world benchmark for long-horizon complex manipulation.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 44(10-11):1863–1891, 2025

    Minho Heo, Youngwoon Lee, Doohyun Lee, and Joseph J Lim. Furniturebench: Reproducible real-world benchmark for long-horizon complex manipulation.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 44(10-11):1863–1891, 2025

    2025

  95. [102]

    Roboarena: Distributed real-world evaluation of generalist robot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18123, 2025

    Pranav Atreya, Karl Pertsch, Tony Lee, Moo Jin Kim, Arhan Jain, Artur Kuramshin, Clemens Eppner, Cyrus Neary, Edward Hu, Fabio Ramos, et al. Roboarena: Distributed real-world evaluation of generalist robot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18123, 2025

    2025

  96. [103]

    Robochallenge: Large-scale real-robot evaluation of embodied policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17950, 2025

    Adina Yakefu, Bin Xie, Chongyang Xu, Enwen Zhang, Erjin Zhou, Fan Jia, Haitao Yang, Haoqiang Fan, Haowei Zhang, Hongyang Peng, et al. Robochallenge: Large-scale real-robot evaluation of embodied policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17950, 2025

    2025

  97. [104]

    Fault injection techniques and tools.Computer, 30(4): 75–82, 1997

    Mei-Chen Hsueh, Timothy K Tsai, and Ravishankar K Iyer. Fault injection techniques and tools.Computer, 30(4): 75–82, 1997

    1997

  98. [105]

    Verifai: A toolkit for the formal design and analysis of artificial intelligence-based systems

    Tommaso Dreossi, Daniel J Fremont, Shromona Ghosh, Edward Kim, Hadi Ravanbakhsh, Marcell Vazquez-Chanlatte, and Sanjit A Seshia. Verifai: A toolkit for the formal design and analysis of artificial intelligence-based systems. In International Conference on Computer Aided Verifi...

    2019

  99. [106]

    Scenic: a language for scenario specification and scene generation

    Daniel J Fremont, Tommaso Dreossi, Shromona Ghosh, Xiangyu Yue, Alberto L Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, and Sanjit A Seshia. Scenic: a language for scenario specification and scene generation. InProceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN conference on programming language design and imple...

    2019

  100. [107]

    Adaptive stress testing for autonomous vehicles

    Mark Koren, Saud Alsaif, Ritchie Lee, and Mykel J Kochenderfer. Adaptive stress testing for autonomous vehicles. In2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  101. [108]

    Advsim: Generating safety-critical scenarios for self-driving vehicles

    Jingkang Wang, Ava Pun, James Tu, Sivabalan Manivasagam, Abbas Sadat, Sergio Casas, Mengye Ren, and Raquel Urtasun. Advsim: Generating safety-critical scenarios for self-driving vehicles. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, page...

    2021

  102. [109]

    Deeptest: Automated testing of deep-neural-network-driven autonomous cars

    Yuchi Tian, Kexin Pei, Suman Jana, and Baishakhi Ray. Deeptest: Automated testing of deep-neural-network-driven autonomous cars. InProceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering, pages 303–314, 2018

    2018

  103. [110]

    Rlbench: The robot learning benchmark & learning environment.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2):3019–3026, 2020

    Stephen James, Zicong Ma, David Rovick Arrojo, and Andrew J Davison. Rlbench: The robot learning benchmark & learning environment.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2):3019–3026, 2020

    2020

  104. [111]

    Meta- world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning

    Tianhe Yu, Deirdre Quillen, Zhanpeng He, Ryan Julian, Karol Hausman, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Meta- world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning. InConference on robot learning, pages 1094–1100. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  105. [112]

    robosuite: A modular simulation framework and benchmark for robot learning

    Yuke Zhu, Josiah Wong, Ajay Mandlekar, Roberto Martín-Martín, Abhishek Joshi, Kevin Lin, Abhiram Maddukuri, Soroush Nasiriany, and Yifeng Zhu. robosuite: A modular simulation framework and benchmark for robot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.12293, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  106. [113]

    Calvin: Abenchmarkforlanguage-conditioned policy learning for long-horizon robot manipulation tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3):7327–7334, 2022

    OierMees, LukasHermann, ErickRosete-Beas, andWolframBurgard. Calvin: Abenchmarkforlanguage-conditioned policy learning for long-horizon robot manipulation tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3):7327–7334, 2022

    2022

  107. [114]

    Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023

    Bo Liu, Yifeng Zhu, Chongkai Gao, Yihao Feng, Qiang Liu, Yuke Zhu, and Peter Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023

    2023

  108. [115]

    Maniskill2: A unified benchmark for generalizable manipulation skills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04659, 2023

    Jiayuan Gu, Fanbo Xiang, Xuanlin Li, Zhan Ling, Xiqiang Liu, Tongzhou Mu, Yihe Tang, Stone Tao, Xinyue Wei, Yunchao Yao, et al. Maniskill2: A unified benchmark for generalizable manipulation skills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04659, 2023. 34

    2023 arXiv

  109. [116]

    Behavior-1k: A human-centered, embodied ai benchmark with 1,000 everyday activities and realistic simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09227, 2024

    Chengshu Li, Ruohan Zhang, Josiah Wong, Cem Gokmen, Sanjana Srivastava, Roberto Martín-Martín, Chen Wang, Gabrael Levine, Wensi Ai, Benjamin Martinez, et al. Behavior-1k: A human-centered, embodied ai benchmark with 1,000 everyday activities and realistic simulation.arXiv prep...

    2024 arXiv

  110. [117]

    Imdl-benco: A comprehensive benchmark and codebase for image manipulation detection & localization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:134591–134613, 2024

    Xiaochen Ma, Xuekang Zhu, Lei Su, Bo Du, Zhuohang Jiang, Bingkui Tong, Zeyu Lei, Xinyu Yang, Chi-Man Pun, Jiancheng Lv, et al. Imdl-benco: A comprehensive benchmark and codebase for image manipulation detection & localization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ...

    2024

  111. [118]

    Rmbench: Memory-dependent robotic manipulation benchmark with insights into policy design.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01229, 2026

    Tianxing Chen, Yuran Wang, Mingleyang Li, Yan Qin, Hao Shi, Zixuan Li, Yifan Hu, Yingsheng Zhang, Kaixuan Wang, Yue Chen, et al. Rmbench: Memory-dependent robotic manipulation benchmark with insights into policy design.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01229, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  112. [119]

    Eventvla: Event-driven visual evidence memory for long-horizon vision-language-action policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.20092, 2026

    Ganlin Yang, Zhangzheng Tu, Yuqiang Yang, Sitong Mao, Junyi Dong, Tianxing Chen, Jiaqi Peng, Jing Xiong, Jiafei Cao, Jifeng Dai, et al. Eventvla: Event-driven visual evidence memory for long-horizon vision-language-action policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.20092, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  113. [120]

    Yiting Chen, Kenneth Kimble, Edward H. Adelson, Tamim Asfour, Podshara Chanrungmaneekul, Sachin Chitta, Yash Chitambar, Ziyang Chen, Ken Goldberg, Danica Kragic, Hui Li, Xiang Li, Yunzhu Li, Aaron Prather, Nancy Pollard, Maximo A. Roa-Garzon, Robert Seney, Shuo Sha, Shihefeng ...

    2026

  114. [121]

    Univtac: A unified simulation platform for visuo-tactile manipulation data generation, learning, and benchmarking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10093, 2026

    Baijun Chen, Weijie Wan, Tianxing Chen, Xianda Guo, Congsheng Xu, Yuanyang Qi, Haojie Zhang, Longyan Wu, Tianling Xu, Zixuan Li, et al. Univtac: A unified simulation platform for visuo-tactile manipulation data generation, learning, and benchmarking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.1...

    2026

  115. [122]

    The goal structuring notation–a safety argument notation

    Tim Kelly and Rob Weaver. The goal structuring notation–a safety argument notation. InProceedings of the dependable systems and networks 2004 workshop on assurance cases, volume 6. Citeseer Princeton, NJ, 2004

    2004

  116. [123]

    Safe reinforcement learning via shielding

    Mohammed Alshiekh, Roderick Bloem, Rüdiger Ehlers, Bettina Könighofer, Scott Niekum, and Ufuk Topcu. Safe reinforcement learning via shielding. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  117. [124]

    SAE international, 2021

    On-Road Automated Driving (ORAD) Committee.Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE international, 2021

    2021

  118. [125]

    How many operational design domains, objects, and events?Safeai@ aaai, 4 (4), 2019

    Philip Koopman, Frank Fratrik, et al. How many operational design domains, objects, and events?Safeai@ aaai, 4 (4), 2019

    2019

  119. [126]

    Run-time monitoring of machine learning for robotic perception: A survey of emerging trends.IEEE Access, 9:20067–20075, 2021

    Quazi Marufur Rahman, Peter Corke, and Feras Dayoub. Run-time monitoring of machine learning for robotic perception: A survey of emerging trends.IEEE Access, 9:20067–20075, 2021

    2021

  120. [127]

    A system-level view on out-of-distribution data in robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14020, 2022

    Rohan Sinha, Apoorva Sharma, Somrita Banerjee, Thomas Lew, Rachel Luo, Spencer M Richards, Yixiao Sun, Edward Schmerling, and Marco Pavone. A system-level view on out-of-distribution data in robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14020, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  121. [128]

    A brief account of runtime verification.The journal of logic and algebraic programming, 78(5):293–303, 2009

    Martin Leucker and Christian Schallhart. A brief account of runtime verification.The journal of logic and algebraic programming, 78(5):293–303, 2009

    2009

  122. [129]

    Formal specification and verification of autonomous robotic systems: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 52(5):1–41, 2019

    Matt Luckcuck, Marie Farrell, Louise A Dennis, Clare Dixon, and Michael Fisher. Formal specification and verification of autonomous robotic systems: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 52(5):1–41, 2019

    2019

  123. [130]

    Anomaly detection: A survey.ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 41(3):1–58, 2009

    Varun Chandola, Arindam Banerjee, and Vipin Kumar. Anomaly detection: A survey.ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 41(3):1–58, 2009

    2009

  124. [131]

    MIT press, 1992

    Thomas B Sheridan.Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. MIT press, 1992

    1992

  125. [132]

    A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation.IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30 (3):286–297, 2000

    Raja Parasuraman, Thomas B Sheridan, and Christopher D Wickens. A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation.IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30 (3):286–297, 2000

    2000

  126. [133]

    The protection of information in computer systems.Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(9):1278–1308, 1975

    Jerome H Saltzer and Michael D Schroeder. The protection of information in computer systems.Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(9):1278–1308, 1975

    1975

  127. [134]

    Ironies of automation

    Lisanne Bainbridge. Ironies of automation. InAnalysis, design and evaluation of man–machine systems, pages 129–135. Elsevier, 1983

    1983

  128. [135]

    Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems

    Mica R Endsley. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. InSituational awareness, pages 9–42. Routledge, 2017

    2017

  129. [136]

    Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: noncritical transitions to and from manual control.Human factors, 59(4):689–705, 2017

    Alexander Eriksson and Neville A Stanton. Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: noncritical transitions to and from manual control.Human factors, 59(4):689–705, 2017

    2017

  130. [137]

    ISO/TS 15066:2016: Robots and robotic devices — Collaborative robots

    International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 15066:2016: Robots and robotic devices — Collaborative robots. Technical Specification, 2016

    2016

  131. [138]

    Examining accident reports involving autonomous vehicles in california.PLoS one, 2017

    Francesca Favaro, Nazanin Nader, Sky Eurich, Michelle Tripp, and Naresh Varadaraju. Examining accident reports involving autonomous vehicles in california.PLoS one, 2017

    2017

  132. [139]

    Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems.Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015

    David Sculley, Gary Holt, Daniel Golovin, Eugene Davydov, Todd Phillips, Dietmar Ebner, Vinay Chaudhary, Michael Young, Jean-Francois Crespo, and Dan Dennison. Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems.Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015. 35

    2015

  133. [140]

    Continual learning for robotics: Definition, framework, learning strategies, opportunities and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.00182, 1(2):8, 2019

    Timothée Lesort, Vincenzo Lomonaco, Andrei Stoian, Davide Maltoni, David Filliat, Natalia Díaz-Rodríguez, et al. Continual learning for robotics: Definition, framework, learning strategies, opportunities and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.00182, 1(2):8, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  134. [141]

    The vision of autonomic computing.Computer, 36(1):41–50, 2003

    Jeffrey O Kephart and David M Chess. The vision of autonomic computing.Computer, 36(1):41–50, 2003

    2003

  135. [142]

    Toward trustworthy ai development: mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims.arxiv, 2020:2004–07213, 2020

    Miles Brundage, Shahar Avin, Jasmine Wang, Haydn Belfield, Gretchen Krueger, Gillian Hadfield, Heidy Khlaaf, Jingying Yang, Helen Toner, Ruth Fong, et al. Toward trustworthy ai development: mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims.arxiv, 2020:2004–07213, 2020

    2020

  136. [143]

    Trustworthy ai: From principles to practices.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1–46, 2023

    Bo Li, Peng Qi, Bo Liu, Shuai Di, Jingen Liu, Jiquan Pei, Jinfeng Yi, and Bowen Zhou. Trustworthy ai: From principles to practices.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1–46, 2023

    2023

  137. [144]

    A survey on artificial intelligence assurance.Journal of Big Data, 8(1), 2021

    Feras A Batarseh, Laura Freeman, and Chih-Hao Huang. A survey on artificial intelligence assurance.Journal of Big Data, 8(1), 2021

    2021

  138. [145]

    Embodied ai in action: Insights from sae world congress 2026 on safety, trust, robotics, and real-world deployment

    Jan-Mou Li, Paul Schmitt, Wei Tong, Majed Mohammed, Akshay Chalana, Arpan Kusari, and Edward Griffor. Embodied ai in action: Insights from sae world congress 2026 on safety, trust, robotics, and real-world deployment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.10653, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  139. [147]

    Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models

    Abby O’Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, Ajay Mandlekar, Ajinkya Jain, et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Aut...

    2024

  140. [148]

    Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future

    Roya Firoozi, Johnathan Tucker, Stephen Tian, Anirudha Majumdar, Jiankai Sun, Weiyu Liu, Yuke Zhu, Shuran Song, Ashish Kapoor, Karol Hausman, et al. Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 44(5):7...

    2025

  141. [149]

    Embodied agent interface: Benchmarking llms for embodied decision making

    Manling Li, Shiyu Zhao, Qineng Wang, Kangrui Wang, Yu Zhou, Sanjana Srivastava, Cem Gokmen, Tony Lee, Li Erran Li, Ruohan Zhang, et al. Embodied agent interface: Benchmarking llms for embodied decision making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07166, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  142. [150]

    Safety assurance of machine learning for autonomous systems.Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2025

    Colin Paterson, Richard David Hawkins, Chiara Picardi, Yan Jia, Radu Calinescu, and Ibrahim Habli. Safety assurance of machine learning for autonomous systems.Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2025

    2025

  143. [151]

    ISO 10218-1:2025: Robotics — Safety requirements — Part 1: Industrial robots

    International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10218-1:2025: Robotics — Safety requirements — Part 1: Industrial robots. International Standard, 3rd edition, 2025

    2025

  144. [152]

    IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems

    International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems. Technical Report IEC 61508, International Electrotechnical Commission, 2010. Edition 2.0

    2010

  145. [153]

    Artificial intelligence risk management framework (ai rmf 1.0), 2023

    Elham Tabassi. Artificial intelligence risk management framework (ai rmf 1.0), 2023. URLhttps://tsapps. nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936225. 36 Appendix A Suggested Literature Search Protocol Future updates of this review may use a structured search across IEEE Xplo...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.