SPOC: Safety-Aware Planning Under Partial Observability And Physical Constraints
Authors: Hyungmin Kim, Hobeom Jeon, Dohyung Kim, Minsu Jang, Jeahong Kim
Organizations: ETRI School, University of Science and Technology, South Korean · Social Robotics Laboratory, Electronics and Telecommunication Research Institute, South Korea
Embodied Task Planning with large language models faces safety challenges in real-world environments, where partial observability and physical constraints must be respected. Existing benchmarks often overlook these critical factors, limiting their ability to evaluate both feasibility and safety. We introduce SPOC, a benchmark for safety-aware embodied task planning, which integrates strict partial observability, physical constraints, step-by-step planning, and goal-condition-based evaluation. Covering diverse household hazards such as fire, fluid, injury, object damage, and pollution, SPOC enables rigorous assessment through both state and constraint-based online metrics. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs reveal that current models struggle to ensure safety-aware planning, particularly under implicit constraints. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/khm159/SPOC
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Violations of PO (shown in (a) of the Figure) and PC (PC, shown in (b) of the Figure) can greatly reduce the feasibility. The existing accessible safety-aware ETP benchmarks [ 13 , 15 , 3 ] provide only limited support for PO and PC. In contrast, SPOC enables comprehensive handling of both PO and PC through low-level navigation and interaction actions.
Benchmark
PO
PC
GC
SSP
Env.
EARBench [ 15 ]
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
SafeAgentBench [ 13 ]
✗
✗
Δ 2 2 2 SafeAgentBench includes GCs, but they are limited to very simple tasks. It does not provide GCs for long-horizon or abstract tasks. In addition, its evaluation focuses only on final states rather than online manner. This means it cannot detect safety constraint violations in real time through state tracking with strict GCs.
✗
Δ 3 3 3 Although SafeAgentBench supports a physical environment, it includes several unrealistic actions (e.g., cleaning, dirtying, or filling objects with water directly without using tools). Moreover, some instructions are not even executable within the environment at all, as they are generated by the LLM.
SafePlanBench [ 3 ]
✗
N/A 1 1 1 The embodiments of SafePlanBench based on a dual-arm design, which makes it unnecessary to deal with the level of PC considered in our work.
✓
✗
✓
SPOC (Ours)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: Comparison of the evaluation capabilities and characteristics of previous benchmarks. Δ indicates partial support. Abbreviations: Partial Observability (PO), Physical Constraints (PC), Goal Condition (GC), Step-by-Step Planning (SSP), Environment (Env).
Setting
CSR (%)
GSR (%)
PO
24.00 ± 3.27
38.56 ± 3.01
FO
36.00 ± 3.27
51.44 ± 1.50
IPC(PO)
32.00 ± 3.27
40.56 ± 1.50
IPC(FO)
45.33 ± 1.89
55.44 ± 0.57
Table 2: Ablation study on observability and physical constraints. IPC denotes Ignore Physical Constraints. Results are reported using the gpt5-mini model, averaged over three runs (mean ± standard deviation) under the explicit setting.
Agent
SC
CSR (%)
GSR (%)
PreAct Agent [ 2 ]
E
29.33 ± 1.89
37.22 ± 2.20
I
1.33 ± 1.89
24.33 ± 5.04
StateAct Agent [ 8 ]
E
26.67 ± 3.77
36.89 ± 6.15
I
2.67 ± 1.89
22.66 ± 4.32
ReAct Agent [ 12 ]
E
24.00 ± 3.27
38.56 ± 3.01
I
0.00 ± 0.00
21.00 ± 4.23
Table 3: Agent Structure Ablation on SPOC under explicit (E) and implicit (I) safety constraint representations. All results are obtained using the gpt5-mini model.
Model
SC
CSR (%)
GSR (%)
gpt5-nano [ 6 ]
E
4.00 ± 3.27
9.33 ± 4.11
I
0.00 ± 0.00
6.00 ± 1.63
gpt5-mini [ 6 ]
E
24.00 ± 3.27
38.56 ± 3.01
I
0.00 ± 0.00
21.00 ± 4.23
o4-mini [ 7 ]
E
28.00 ± 6.53
43.67 ± 3.60
I
1.33 ± 1.89
27.89 ± 1.23
Table 4: Performance of the ReAct agent on SAPO under explicit (E) and implicit (I) safety constraint representations.
Large language models are increasingly used as planners for robotic systems, yet how safely they plan remains an open question. To evaluate safe planning systematically, we introduce DESPITE, a benchmark of 12,279 tasks spanning physical and normative dangers with fully deterministic validation. Across 23 models, even near-perfect planning ability does not ensure safety: the best-planning model fails to produce a valid plan on only 0.4% of tasks but produces dangerous plans on 28.3%. Among 18 open-source models from 3B to 671B parameters, planning ability improves substantially with scale (0.4-99.3%) while safety awareness remains relatively flat (38-57%). We identify a multiplicative relationship between these two capacities, showing that larger models complete more tasks safely primarily through improved planning, not through better danger avoidance. Three proprietary reasoning models reach notably higher safety awareness (71-81%), while non-reasoning proprietary models and open-source reasoning models remain below 57%. As planning ability approaches saturation for frontier models, improving safety awareness becomes a central challenge for deploying language-model planners in robotic systems.
Tao Zhang, Kaixian Qu, Zhibin Li +4
ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. · University College London, London, United Kingdom. · Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States. +2
Safety-critical task planning in robotic systems remains challenging: classical planners suffer from poor scalability, Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based methods generalize poorly, and base Large Language Models (LLMs) cannot guarantee safety. To address this gap, we propose safety-generalizable large language models, named SafeGen-LLM. SafeGen-LLM can not only enhance the safety satisfaction of task plans but also generalize well to novel safety properties in various domains. We first construct a multi-domain Planning Domain Definition Language 3 (PDDL3) benchmark with explicit safety constraints. Then, we introduce a two-stage post-training framework: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on a constraint-compliant planning dataset to learn planning syntax and semantics, and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) guided by fine-grained reward machines derived from formal verification to enforce safety alignment and by curriculum learning to better handle complex tasks. Extensive experiments show that SafeGen-LLM achieves strong safety generalization and outperforms frontier proprietary baselines across multi-domain planning tasks and multiple input formats (e.g., PDDLs and natural language).
Jialiang Fan, Weizhe Xu, Mengyu Liu +3
University of Notre Dame · Washington State University · University of Pennsylvania
Large Language Models enable flexible natural-language planning but remain unreliable in determinism-critical domains due to their probabilistic nature. This limitation is especially problematic in running planning, where violating safety rules can lead to safety risks. We propose SafeRun, a framework for deterministic LLM-based planning via a decoupled architecture. SafeRun separates soft interpretation by an LLM from hard constraint enforcement by a deterministic solver, ensuring strict safety constraints while preserving natural-language flexibility. To validate SafeRun, we build a comprehensive benchmark for running planning under realistic physiological and safety constraints. Experiments across five LLMs show that SafeRun achieves 100% safety score (vs.\ 79.1% PE average and 97.6% CodeAct average) while maintaining competitive instruction-following scores. The SafeRun benchmark is publicly available at huggingface.
Meilin Chen, Zepeng Zhai, Jiaxuan Zhao +1
Xiaohongshu Inc. · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences