Contextual Safety Reasoning and Grounding for Open-World Robots
Organizations: University of Pennsylvania · Carnegie Mellon University
Abstract
Robots are increasingly operating in open-world environments where safe behavior depends on context: the same hallway may require different navigation strategies when crowded versus empty, or during an emergency versus normal operations. Traditional safety approaches enforce fixed constraints in user-specified contexts, limiting their ability to handle the open-ended contextual variability of real-world deployment. We address this gap via CORE, a safety framework that enables online contextual reasoning, grounding, and enforcement without prior knowledge of the environment (e.g., maps or safety specifications). CORE uses a vision-language model (VLM) to continuously reason about context-dependent safety rules directly from visual observations, grounds these rules in the physical environment, and enforces the resulting spatially-defined safe sets via control barrier functions. We provide probabilistic safety guarantees for CORE that account for perceptual uncertainty, and we demonstrate through simulation and real-world experiments that CORE enforces contextually appropriate behavior in unseen environments, significantly outperforming prior semantic safety methods that lack online contextual reasoning. Ablation studies validate our theoretical guarantees and underscore the importance of both VLM-based reasoning and spatial grounding for enforcing contextual safety in novel settings. We provide additional resources at https://zacravichandran.github.io/CORE.
Figures & tables
| Method | Task Success | Failure Attribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Safe | Unsafe | Ctx. | Grnd. | Enf. | |
| Oracle | 98.3% | 100% | 96.6% | 0.0% | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| CORE | 95.0% | 96.6% | 93.3% | 3.3% | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| No Context | 55.0% | 93.3% | 16.6% | 43.3% | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Geometric | 50.0% | 100% | 0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Size | VLM | Safety Prediction Success | Latency | ||
| Total | Safe | Unsafe | |||
| Small | Gemma 3 12B | 75.0% | 83.0 % | 67.0% | 2.2s |
| Llava 13B | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.7s | |
| Gemma 3 27B | 88.0% | 91.0% | 85.0% | 4.1s | |
| Large | Qwen3-VL 30B | 75.0% | 77.0% | 73.0% | 26.6s |
| Llava 34B | 52.5% | 49.0% | 56.0% | 6.0s | |
| Prompt | Safe | Unsafe | Latency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full (ours) | 91.0% | 85.0% | 4.1s |
| No Safety Logic | 90.0% | 80.0% | 4.1s |
| No CoT Reasoning | 61.0% | 77.0% | 2.8s |
| Method | Task Type | Failure Attribution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Safe | Unsafe | Ctx. | Grnd. | Enf. | |
| CORE | 86.6% | 86.6% | 86.6% | 3.9% | 9.0% | 0.0% |
| Geometric | 50.0% | 100% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Module | Latency (s) |
|---|---|
| Safety Reasoning | 4.37 0.45 |
| Semantic Grounding | 0.75 1.14 |
| Safety Enforcement | 0.04 0.15 |
| Module | Memory (GB) |
|---|---|
| Gemma 3 12B | 10.4 |
| Llava 13B | 11.3 |
| Gemma 3 27B | 20.4 |
| Qwen3-VL 30B | 24.3 |
| Llava 34B | 21.4 |
Robot Safety
Robot safety studies how to prevent harmful physical actions while enabling robots to complete tasks around people and in uncertain environments.
See all 229 papers