Pre-Execution Safety Gate & Task Safety Contracts for LLM-Controlled Robot Systems

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed to orchestrate robot behavior through natural-language interfaces, yet no benchmark exists to evaluate their reliability as safety-aware decision makers in human-humanoid collaboration. Unlike deterministic safety systems that enforce binary allow/deny decisions, LLM-based orchestrators exhibit a compliance spectrum ranging from overcompliance (refusing safe actions) to full safety violations. This paper introduces the first safety benchmarking environment for LLM orchestrators in human-humanoid collaboration, built on a Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based architecture with safety invariants grounded in ISO 10218-2:2025 protective measures. The benchmark defines five testable safety invariants, a four-level compliance taxonomy (correct compliance, overcompliance, undercompliance, full violation), and a three-layer evaluation pipeline (text prompting, simulated sensor-actuator loops, and physical validation on a Unitree G1 EDU humanoid). We report Layer-1 results: three cloud backends (Claude Haiku 4.5, GPT-4o-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash) and a local open-weights baseline (qwen3:8b) across 40 100-turn sessions under full-context and sliding-window budget conditions, while the simulation and physical layers remain ongoing. We find that (1) model family determines the safety floor, as Claude and Gemini remain at or near zero violations while GPT-4o-mini commits up to 13 per session, (2) context management dissociates two failure axes, reducing mean behavioral issues by 42-57% for every cloud backend while nearly doubling GPT-4o-mini's violations (3.8 to 7.2 per session), and (3) proportional compliance, clamping movement speed to the rule-specified maximum rather than refusing, emerges consistently only in Gemini; the preliminary simulation layer reproduces the model ranking and the GPT-4o-mini failure-mode inversion.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in embodied AI for robotic manipulation and planning, but their deployment in physical systems exposes vulnerabilities such as jailbreak attacks that induce unsafe behavior. Existing inference-time defenses are mainly evaluated on short instructions containing a single hazard, whereas realistic tasks may interleave safe and unsafe sub-tasks, conceal hazardous steps, or combine individually safe actions into unsafe outcomes. Such compound instructions make it harder for a single safety decision to distinguish hazardous sub-tasks from legitimate ones, risking either overlooking the hazard or rejecting the whole instruction. We introduce safe task completion, a task that requires an LLM-enabled robot to refuse the harmful part of an instruction while completing its legitimate part. To address this problem, we propose RuleGraph, a multi-agent Graph-of-Rules planning framework that distributes safety enforcement across multiple reasoning and verification stages. Five cooperating agents are used to ground general safety principles into world-specific rules, assess the instruction's sub-tasks in context, and derive a safe goal from the legitimate ones. Planning toward this goal is then organized as a graph of rule-specific nodes, where higher-level nodes inherit the union of their parents' rules, and candidate plans are progressively verified and aggregated until a single plan satisfies every relevant rule. In this way, RuleGraph reduces reliance on a single centralized safety decision. We evaluate RuleGraph on pure-attack and compound instructions across two benchmarks in two environments using Attack Success Rate (ASR) and Task Success Rate (TSR). RuleGraph reduces ASR to 0% on both benchmarks while achieving the highest TSR among all methods, reaching 98.57% on the RoboGuard benchmark and 84.54% on our long-horizon compound instructions.

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).