SafeManip: A Property-Driven Benchmark for Temporal Safety Evaluation in Robotic Manipulation

Vision-language-action (VLA) benchmarks measure whether a policy completes a requested manipulation task, but binary success can hide safety-relevant trajectory behavior: reaching the goal while applying excessive contact, disturbing bystander objects, destabilizing the held object, or entering robot self-contact. We present SafeVLA-Bench, a post-hoc safety-evaluation framework for existing simulator-based VLA benchmarks. It formalizes task-aware safety requirements as Signal Temporal Logic (STL) specifications and reports native success with two unsafe-success metrics: Succ-But-Unsafe (SBU), the fraction of rollouts that both succeed and violate safety, and Violation Severity Index (VSI), a bounded worst-violation depth score. We instantiate SafeVLA-Bench on LIBERO and RoboCasa-365, evaluating nine policy-benchmark entries across tabletop and kitchen manipulation tasks. High task success does not imply safe execution: high-SR tabletop baselines still leave 13 to 15 percent unsafe-episode rates,and 36 to 56 percent of successful RoboCasa-365 rollouts violate at least one active safety clause. Project page: https://safevla.org.

Embodied AI systems are increasingly expected to reason and act over extended horizons in physical environments. This growing capability brings safety to the foreground, because failures in the physical world can harm people, damage objects, and disrupt workplaces. Although safe embodied AI has attracted substantial attention, the literature remains fragmented across planning, policy design, and runtime execution. Long-horizon robotic manipulation is a particularly revealing anchor domain for this problem because semantic misgrounding, subtask-level error propagation, execution drift, and contact-rich physical risk can accumulate within the same closed-loop system. This survey therefore provides a structured review of safety in long-horizon robotic manipulation from an embodied AI perspective. We organize the literature by intervention locus, covering planning-time, policy-time, and execution-time safety, and we analyze the strength of the evidence that each line of work provides, distinguishing formal guarantees, statistical support, and empirical safety heuristics. This framework clarifies the distinct roles of backbone capability papers, direct safety mechanisms, and benchmark or evaluation studies, while exposing where current safety claims are well supported and where they remain indirect. We identify persistent gaps, including limited evidence for policy-time safety, weak formal support for contact-rich long-horizon manipulation, immature uncertainty-triggered intervention, and a shortage of manipulation-specific safety benchmarks. We conclude by outlining research directions for cross-layer assurance, evaluation design, and safer deployment of long-horizon robotic agents in real-world settings.

Ensuring safety of learning-enabled robotic manipulation across diverse embodiments and tasks still requires significant manual engineering. Existing approaches typically rely on heuristically designed fallback controllers or complex forward invariance assessments. These methods are often too conservative for task success, too computationally expensive for real-time execution, too heuristic to provide useful safety guarantees, or too engineering-heavy to transfer between setups. In this paper, we propose a universal safeguarding approach, X-Safe, which reasons directly in the robot's configuration space to provide formal probabilistic guarantees for collision avoidance. By operating in the configuration space, our method transfers across embodiments while relying solely on an object-based, quasi-static scene representation and a forward kinematics model of the robotic manipulator. Thus, X-Safe provides useful formal safety guarantees without requiring additional data, or engineering effort for different embodiments or scenes. We demonstrate X-Safe for diverse embodiments and policies, both in simulation and on hardware. We observe less degradation in task performance compared to state-of-the-art safeguarding, no collisions on hardware experiments, and empirically corroborate our formal guarantees.