RobotValues: Evaluating Household Robots When Human Values Conflict

Evaluating robot manipulation policies is becoming increasingly important as generalist models, particularly vision-language-action (VLA) models, are deployed on physical robots. However, conventional real-world evaluation remains labor-intensive, unstable, and insufficiently informative. It requires repeated hardware trials, manual scene resets, and continuous operator monitoring, may produce different policy rankings across repeated evaluations, and primarily relies on success-rate metrics that provide limited information about execution quality. In contrast, humans assess robot performance by observing and comparing complete behaviors rather than relying solely on binary success outcomes. To this end, we propose R2S-Eval, an evaluation pipeline that combines real-to-sim calibration with vision-language model (VLM) preference evaluation. The real-to-sim component efficiently generates rollout videos in a simulator calibrated to the real-world evaluation setting, thereby reducing the need for repeated hardware trials. The VLM evaluator assesses the execution quality of rollout videos and produces pairwise preferences, which are subsequently aggregated into policy rankings. We further introduce a protocol to assess whether the proposed evaluation pipeline yields validated policy conclusions while mitigating the key challenges of conventional real-world evaluation. Experiments in both simulation and real-world settings demonstrate that R2S-Eval produces reliable and stable policy conclusions, achieves agreement with human preferences, substantially reduces repeated hardware-operation effort, and reveals behavior-quality differences that are not captured by binary success labels. In general, R2S-Eval advances robot evaluation from manual success counting toward automated, statistically stable, and quality-aware evaluation of robot behavior. Project page: https://r2s-eval.github.io.

Companion robots face everyday situations in which several feasible behaviors may be appropriate, yet different people prefer different responses. We introduce InterSocialBench, a benchmark of 210 domestic scenarios and 18 high-level behaviors, pairing judgments from 100 human participants with 23,520 responses from seven large language models under 16 personality conditions. Each human annotation preserves a preferred action alongside explicitly appropriate and inappropriate candidates. A structured construction pipeline covers behavioral alternatives, competing situational cues, and relevant history and future tasks. Evaluation distinguishes preferred-choice agreement from explicit rejection, using scenario-grouped splits for trainable predictors. Simple frequency and persona-voting baselines illustrate these objectives. Across the tested prompts, model and human behavior distributions differ, and the diversity gap remains after matching response counts: humans exhibit 4.68 distinct choices per scenario, compared with 2.06--3.46 for the models. Human scenario-level plurality agreement is 51.5%, describing disagreement rather than a universal prediction ceiling. InterSocialBench supports evaluating social behavior selection without replacing individual judgments with a single consensus label.

Advances in advanced artificial intelligence tools have sparked research in robot autonomy, but the development of such systems has largely focused on execution rather than verifying the feasibility actions planning models propose. Like general-purpose LLMs, robotics planning models carry risks: biased toward user-specified goals, they may suggest actions misaligned with scientific ethics, they may be unsafe due to an inability to "remember" prior safety risks, or they may be vulnerable to adversarial attacks on the autonomy ecosystem. We propose a LLM-driven verification layer between planning and execution to evaluate action permissibility. Our LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble combines chain-of-thought reasoning across models and synthesizes those expert judge outputs, mirroring a combination of a mixture of experts and self-consistency approach. This layer serves as middleware, gating plans from the server's planning module before they reach the MCP server and therefore the robot's low-level controls: plans are approved, rejected for reformulation, or escalated for human review. With this system, we achieve near 85% precision across accept/escalate/reject categories 97% containment of adversarial attacks, with negligible errors between accepting and rejecting tasks, and errors mostly manifesting at the escalate boundary.