Modern safety-critical systems increasingly rely on human-robot interaction to reduce disaster risk and support decision-making during emergencies. Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are promising for these settings because they can interpret complex scenes and communicate safety-relevant information, but they still require careful evaluation to ensure reliable safety reasoning. In particular, current evaluations often frame danger recognition as a binary decision (Safe/Unsafe), making it unclear whether a model is identifying true physical hazards or merely reacting to unusual scene elements. We address this limitation by introducing an explicit distinction between hazard and anomaly, and by separately recognizing hazardous and anomalous states. We evaluate several state-of-the-art VLMs across two datasets and multiple prompting strategies to test whether this distinction changes model behavior. Our results show that VLMs frequently misinterpret anomalousness as hazardousness, revealing an over-reliance on contextual irregularity as a proxy for danger. We further show that explicitly separating anomaly from hazard provides a more informative evaluation of VLM safety reasoning and exposes failure modes that binary safety judgments can obscure. Our public dataset is available on Roboflow https://app.roboflow.com/vlm-in-context-anomaly-and-hazard-detection/camera-ready-roman-ds.
In high-risk environments such as disaster response, situational awareness depends not only on detecting hazards but also on communicating them clearly to human operators. Vision Language Models (VLMs) have shown strong potential for scene understanding in safety-critical settings, yet their value as part of human-facing robotic systems remains underexplored. We present a VR-based Human Robot Interaction framework for studying how VLM-assisted robots can support situational awareness in simulated hazardous environments. In our system, a robot explores a virtual scene and queries a VLM to identify potential hazards and annotate user-facing points of interest. These annotations are presented to a human operator through an immersive VR interface. This framework enables controlled evaluation of both robotic hazard identification and the communication of safety-critical information to users. Results from our study indicate that the annotated VR interface was preferred over the unannotated baseline and that participants reported high clarity, usefulness, and comfort when interacting with the system. These findings suggest that combining VLM-based robotic perception with immersive visualization is a promising approach for supporting situational awareness in hazardous settings.
Mohammad Eskandari, Murali Krishna Varma Indukuri, Stephanie M. Lukin +1
Assessing proxemic danger from a robot's egocentric perspective is critical for safe embodied navigation in human environments and requires both visual and contextual reasoning. We evaluate three opensource vision-language models (VLMs) (\textit{InternVL}, \textit{Qwen-VL}, and \textit{SmolVLM}) on the classification of egocentric robot images into four danger levels, comparing three prompting strategies and two rounds of QLoRA fine-tuning against a stratified random baseline. Without fine-tuning, all models perform near the baseline, while fine-tuning yields only modest overall improvements. However, \textit{Qwen-VL} with an advanced prompt achieves substantially higher recall for high-danger cases than the other models. An analysis of person localization further shows that correct danger classification does not correspond to better spatial grounding, indicating that a model may produce a useful safety label without attending to the relevant region of the scene. These results show that current VLMs remain limited in fine-grained proxemic reasoning and spatial grounding, although targeted prompting and fine-tuning can improve high-danger detection in selected models.
Vision-language models (VLMs) are now proposed as runtime safety guards for embodied agents in homes and factories. A deployable guard must catch genuinely unsafe situations while avoiding unnecessary intervention on routine but superficially alarming activity, a distinction that binary safety benchmarks obscure. We introduce EgoSafetyBench, an egocentric video benchmark of 1,200 robot-view scenarios annotated at half-second granularity, to evaluate VLMs as streaming guards across two tracks. The situational track (800 scenarios) spans four families, from routine and safe-but-suspicious scenes to obvious and contextual hazards. The visual-channel track (400 scenarios) targets in-scene text-a sign, sticker, or label visible in the scene-that can misrepresent the physical situation, pairing each misleading sign with a truthful version to test both whether a guard flags the text as misleading and whether the text corrupts its physical-safety judgment. Both tracks use contrastive ladders: near-identical scenarios differing only in a single visible deciding cue, so a correct call must hinge on that cue rather than the overall scene type. We evaluate ten open- and closed-source VLMs. We find that while guards reliably recognize videos containing hazards, they often miss specific hazardous moments, particularly contextual hazards. Furthermore, misleading in-scene signs degrade all tested guards: vulnerable models miss up to a third of hazards, while robust models over-intervene on safe content. Matched controls reveal that apparent safety robustness often reflects indiscriminate alarming rather than true physical reasoning.