EmbodiedGovBench: A Benchmark for Governance, Recovery, and Upgrade Safety in Embodied Agent Systems
Organizations: School of Software, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China · School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Malaysia Campus, Putrajaya, Malaysia · School of Future Science and Engineering, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
Abstract
Recent progress in embodied AI has produced a growing ecosystem of robot policies, foundation models, and modular runtimes. However, current evaluation remains dominated by task success metrics such as completion rate or manipulation accuracy. These metrics leave a critical gap: they do not measure whether embodied systems are governable -- whether they respect capability boundaries, enforce policies, recover safely, maintain audit trails, and respond to human oversight. We present EmbodiedGovBench, a benchmark for governance-oriented evaluation of embodied agent systems. Rather than asking only whether a robot can complete a task, EmbodiedGovBench evaluates whether the system remains controllable, policy-bounded, recoverable, auditable, and evolution-safe under realistic perturbations. The benchmark covers seven governance dimensions: unauthorized capability invocation, runtime drift robustness, recovery success, policy portability, version upgrade safety, human override responsiveness, and audit completeness. We define a benchmark structure spanning single-robot and fleet settings, with scenario templates, perturbation operators, governance metrics, and baseline evaluation protocols. We describe how the benchmark can be instantiated over embodied capability runtimes with modular interfaces and contract-aware upgrade workflows. Our analysis suggests that embodied governance should become a first-class evaluation target. EmbodiedGovBench provides the initial measurement framework for that shift.
Figures & tables
| Dimension | What It Measures | Example Failure | Key Metric |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized Invocation | Legality of capability use | Robot opens restricted door | UIR |
| Runtime Drift | Governance under degraded runtime | Execution continues under invalid state | DDR |
| Recovery Success | Safe and scoped recovery | Repeated retries without escalation | LRCR |
| Policy Portability | Policy validity across contexts | Sim-valid policy fails in public zone | PS |
| Upgrade Safety | Survival under capability evolution | Upgraded capability breaks chain | UDR |
| Human Override | Responsiveness to intervention | Override arrives too late | OL |
| Template | Single | Fleet | Main Dimensions Stressed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized Capability Use | ✓ | ✓ | Invocation, policy, audit |
| Runtime Degradation | ✓ | ✓ | Drift, recovery |
| Recovery Cascade | ✓ | ✓ | Recovery, human override |
| Policy Transfer | ✓ | ✓ | Portability, invocation |
| Upgrade-Then-Execute | ✓ | ✓ | Upgrade safety, audit |
| Review-Required Override | ✓ | ✓ | Override latency, audit |
| Family | Core Question | Primary Dimensions | Key Metrics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can do may do? | Unauthorized Invocation | UIR, BBC, TSVR | |
| Governed recovery? | Recovery, Drift | LRCR, EAS, RIPV, GCR | |
| Governable evolution? | Upgrade, Portability | UDR, UAS, PVR, PS | |
| Accountable? | Override, Audit | OL, RTC, ACS, PAA |
| Family | Governance Question | Example Perturbation | Key Metrics | Fleet |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Authorized invocation? | Tighter policy scope | UIR, TSVR, ACS | ✓ |
| B | Governed under drift? | Degraded sensor/latency | DDR, GCR, DSPV | ✓ |
| C | Scoped recovery? | Grasp miss, path block | LRCR, EAS, OL | ✓ |
| D | Policy portability? | Sim public deploy | PS, SPFC, TTRC | ✓ |
| E | Upgrade safety? | Capability version bump | UDR, PVR, VSRC, UAS | ✓ |
| F | Human override? | Mandatory review gate | OL, RTC, PAA | ✓ |
| System Class | Minimal | Standard | Fleet | Full |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task-success-only policy | ✓ | partial | optional | rare |
| Schema-checked modular runtime | ✓ | ✓ | partial | optional |
| Contract-aware runtime | ✓ | ✓ | partial | optional |
| Governance-aware fleet runtime | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Metric | System 0 | System 1 | System 2 | System 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GovScore | 0.7227 | 0.5770 | 0.9437 | 0.6357 |
| 0.8669 | 0.5930 | 0.9718 | 0.6414 | |
| 1.0000 | 0.9980 | 0.9970 | 1.0000 | |
| 0.5200 | 0.3250 | 0.8300 | 0.3333 | |
| 0.5040 | 0.3920 | 0.9760 | 0.5680 | |
| Task Success | 0.8960 | 0.8960 | 0.6960 | 0.8800 |
| Metric | System 0 | System 1 | System 2 | System 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UIR ( ) | 0.047 | 0.341 | 0.000 | 0.341 |
| BBC ( ) | 0.000 | 0.920 | 0.000 | 0.920 |
| TSVR ( ) | 0.160 | 0.960 | 0.000 | 0.960 |
| ACS ( ) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 |
| Task Succ. | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.840 | 1.000 |
| Metric | System 0 | System 1 | System 2 | System 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DDR ( ) | 0.840 | 0.560 | 0.880 | 0.880 |
| DAR ( ) | 0.840 | 0.560 | 0.880 | 0.560 |
| DPI ( ) | 0.000 | 0.240 | 0.000 | 0.400 |
| Task Succ. | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.880 | 1.000 |
| Metric | System 0 | System 1 | System 2 | System 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LRCR ( ) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| EAS ( ) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| RIPV ( ) | 0.000 | 0.040 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| OL ( ) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.120 | 0.000 |
| Task Succ. | 0.480 | 0.480 | 0.440 | 0.480 |
| Metric | System 0 | System 1 | System 2 | System 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UDR ( ) | 0.680 | 0.400 | 1.000 | 0.400 |
| PVR ( ) | 0.280 | 0.500 | 0.000 | 0.467 |
| VCR ( ) | 0.680 | 0.400 | 1.000 | 0.400 |
| UAS ( ) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.320 | 0.000 |
| Task Succ. | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.800 | 1.000 |
| Metric | System 0 | System 1 | System 2 | System 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ODR ( ) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.560 |
| OCR ( ) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.400 |
| ORL ( ) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.500 | 0.840 |
| OIR ( ) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Task Succ. | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.520 | 0.920 |
| Profile | Sys. 0 | Sys. 1 | Sys. 2 | Sys. 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal | 0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25 | 0.7227 | 0.5770 | 0.9437 | 0.6357 |
| Cap.-heavy | 0.50, 0.20, 0.15, 0.15 | 0.7870 | 0.6036 | 0.9562 | 0.6559 |
| Rec.-heavy | 0.15, 0.50, 0.15, 0.20 | 0.8088 | 0.7151 | 0.9640 | 0.7598 |
| Aspect | Papers 1–6 [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] | This paper |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | How to build and manage | How to evaluate |
| Output | Runtime architecture, governance framework, lifecycle, fleet coordination | Benchmark dimensions, metrics, scoring, protocols, pilot results |
| Artifacts | ECM runtime, contract schema, federated coordinator | Scenario templates, perturbation operators, scoring scripts, trace schema |
| Validation | Design rationale, architecture analysis | Pilot experiment with quantitative metrics |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Prototype | Supported Dimensions | Track |
|---|---|---|
| Contract-aware single-robot runtime | Invocation, drift, recovery, portability, upgrade, audit | Single-robot |
| Governance-aware federated fleet runtime | All seven dimensions | Single + Fleet |
AI Agent Governance
AI agent governance studies how to authorize, constrain, monitor, and hold autonomous and multi-agent systems accountable.
See all 442 papers