MonitorVLM-v2: A Deployed Vision-Language Framework for Real-Time Safety Violation Detection

Existing video benchmarks evaluate action recognition on consumer videos, egocentric recordings, or simulated industrial environments. They do not test vision-language models under the visual and procedural conditions of real industrial CCTV, where workers appear as distant figures amid dust, steam, low light, glare, occlusion, and overlapping activities. We introduce STEELBENCH, a diagnostic benchmark for industrial surveillance that jointly evaluates per-worker activity recognition, safety-rule reasoning, and annotation provenance. SteelBench contains 1,345 densely annotated clips, curated from 149 hours of operational plant footage and 10,024 candidate clips using temporal deduplication, class balancing, and visibility-aware stratified sampling. Each clip includes dense per-worker action labels, PPE attributes, spatial context, and safety-rule annotations. Because model-assisted annotation can shape the labels later used for model evaluation, SteelBench includes a provenance-aware audit protocol. The protocol measures label influence, evaluates sensitivity to ground-truth provenance, and reports a human reference from expert-reviewed labels. Applying this audit, we find that unaudited VLM-sourced ground truth can inflate same-family model accuracy by up to 17 percentage points. Across nine VLMs from four architectural families, the best model reaches only 42.6% action accuracy, compared with an 84.6% human benchmark. Performance also fragments across recognition, robustness, calibration, and safety reasoning. Even when models predict the correct action, 37-58% of cases still yield incorrect safety judgments, and no model passes more than 2 of 5 diagnostic checks. The dataset is publicly available on Hugging Face.

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.

Theory of Space framework (ToS) assesses the spatial understanding of curiosity-driven Vision-Language Models (VLMs) under partial observability. As AI techniques are increasingly applied to safety-critical scenarios, it is crucial to understand whether VLMs possess robust spatial memory and make reliable decisions. In this paper, we assess whether VLMs' decisions are based on physical evidence or are corrupted by visual-language biases, if their memory processes align with human cognitive patterns, and how they respond to environmental hazards. We extend the ToS framework into a safety-critical, goal-driven pipeline, named Explore, Map, Remember, and Decide (EMRD). We then quantify Exploration Competence (Explore) through metrics of environmental coverage and temporal efficiency, assess Spatial Fidelity (Map), evaluate, with a suite of psychological metrics, Memory Persistence (Remember), and measure, using focal-point metrics, Cognitive Decision-Making (Decide). Our results show that in terms of decision-making capabilities, VLMs frequently select evacuation points based on pre-trained textual priors while lacking the spatial grounding to justify their choices. We also show that spatial reasoning degrades in low-light conditions, but it is not affected by texture and colour tampering. Our findings suggest that VLM memory fundamentally diverges from human cognition, creating unpredictable risks of misalignment.