When Robots Rate Their Own Interactions: Engagement Validity and the Strangeness Failure

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 are increasingly being explored as interfaces between humans and robotic systems, yet there remains limited evidence on how such technologies can be used not only for interaction, but also as a structured means of introducing robotics to non-specialist users in real organizational settings. This paper introduces and evaluates a challenge-based method for robotics awareness, implemented through an LLM-enabled humanoid robot activity conducted with employees of AD Ports Group in the United Arab Emirates. In the event, participants engaged with a humanoid robot in a logistics-inspired task environment using voice commands interpreted through an LLM-based control framework. The activity was designed as a team-based, role-driven experience intended to expose participants to embodied AI and human-robot collaboration without requiring prior robotics expertise. To evaluate the approach, a post-event survey remained open for 16 days and collected 102 responses. Results indicate strong overall reception, with high satisfaction (8.46/10), increased interest in robotics and AI (4.47/5), and improved understanding of emerging forms of human-robot collaboration (4.45/5). Participants who interacted directly with the robot also reported natural interaction (4.37/5) and a strong sense that interaction became easier as the activity progressed (4.74/5). At the same time, lower ratings for reliability and predictability point to important technical and design challenges for future iterations. The findings suggest that challenge-based, LLM-enabled humanoid interaction can serve as a promising and replicable method for robotics awareness in industrial and operational environments.

Benchmark suites assess model capability on controlled tasks; large-scale conversation corpora capture naturalistic use without user feedback; and in-interface feedback mechanisms record satisfaction without task purpose. Together, they leave a critical gap in LLM evaluation: no existing infrastructure routinely links interaction trajectories to user-defined outcomes. We introduce MonitrLLM, open-source infrastructure for community-centered LLM evaluations that links full conversation transcripts to user-reported task intent and outcome assessments, treating all three as primary evaluative signals rather than optional metadata. To demonstrate the value of this approach, we conducted a two-week feasibility pilot with 26 college students using ChatGPT, collecting 206 evaluation reports with full conversation transcripts. The findings from our pilot demonstrate the value of connecting conversation trajectories with user-reported outcomes. For instance, despite reporting high average satisfaction (4.19/5) with their LLM interactions, participants also experience a substantial 23.1% failure rate on their goal tasks. We also find that multi-turn conversations are reported as failing at 2.5 times the rate of single-turn exchanges, a pattern that reframes extended interaction as a signal of difficulty rather than engagement. We conclude by discussing the value of incorporating direct user feedback with observational data for robust LLM evaluations, and the possibilities for infrastructure that enables this goal.