Papers › EARBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation...
EARBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents
Zihao Zhu, Bingzhe Wu, Zhengyou Zhang, Lei Han, Qingshan Liu, Baoyuan Wu
Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction. The emergence of foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning has shown promising results. However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges. For instance, a housekeeping robot lacking sufficient risk awareness might place a metal container in a microwave, potentially causing a fire. To address these critical safety concerns, comprehensive pre-deployment risk assessments are imperative. This study introduces EARBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios. EAIRiskBench employs a multi-agent cooperative system that leverages various foundation models to generate safety guidelines, create risk-prone scenarios, make task planning, and evaluate safety systematically. Utilizing this framework, we construct EARDataset, comprising diverse test cases across various domains, encompassing both textual and visual scenarios. Our comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art foundation models reveals alarming results: all models exhibit high task risk rates (TRR), with an average of 95.75% across all evaluated models. To address these challenges, we further propose two prompting-based risk mitigation strategies. While these strategies demonstrate some efficacy in reducing TRR, the improvements are limited, still indicating substantial safety concerns. This study provides the first large-scale assessment of physical risk awareness in EAI agents. Our findings underscore the critical need for enhanced safety measures in EAI systems and provide valuable insights for future research directions in developing safer embodied artificial intelligence system. Data and code are available at https://github.com/zihao-ai/EARBench.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2408.04449")
Code
Syntology Ran 6 of 11 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 5 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 5 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 11 samples from 1 repository, 6 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
11 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 11 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from zihao-ai/eairiskbench. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
f41cb1a19b154297 · report
a903b8a603cdfbf1 · report
ba772f40b4fca257 · report
54c4e7d565d15e51 · report
c71bbca6b41b4f93 · report
3fa1f780e19467e2 · report
de1417761254cb61 · report
993f45a996de6344 · report
1763eac67135cc1e · report
24e1a09cc2fe1c1b · report
e3f440fea8d5e620 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections