Can Vision-Language Models Assess Proxemic Risk from Egocentric Robot Images?

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.

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.

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.