PanelShield: Verifiable Closed-Loop Safe Planning for Robotic Industrial Panel Operation

Robotic industrial panel operation requires not only accurate control localization but also compliance with operating procedures, safety rules, and device-state constraints distributed across heterogeneous manuals. This study presents MaCoPlanner, a task-planning framework built on knowledge compiled from equipment manuals that converts equipment manuals into a typed intermediate representation, retrieves task- and state-relevant evidence, and uses it to support plan generation. Before actuation, candidate plans are symbolically rolled out and checked against procedural and state-transition constraints; detected violations are localized and returned for targeted repair, while unresolved plans are rejected. A separate execution interface grounds verified symbolic actions to physical controls and updates the device state. Under an independent evaluation oracle, MaCoPlanner achieves a final violation rate of 2.7%, and 26.3% of the runs in the repair analysis are rejected after exhausting the refinement budget. Compared with Raw-Manual, task success increases from 62.8% to 84.4% on Level-2 tasks and from 25.9% to 43.2% on Level-3 tasks. Experiments on a controller-panel simulator without an attached industrial load further demonstrate integrated execution feasibility under representative interaction conditions, without claiming industrial deployment readiness.

Safety-critical task planning in robotic systems remains challenging: classical planners suffer from poor scalability, Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based methods generalize poorly, and base Large Language Models (LLMs) cannot guarantee safety. To address this gap, we propose safety-generalizable large language models, named SafeGen-LLM. SafeGen-LLM can not only enhance the safety satisfaction of task plans but also generalize well to novel safety properties in various domains. We first construct a multi-domain Planning Domain Definition Language 3 (PDDL3) benchmark with explicit safety constraints. Then, we introduce a two-stage post-training framework: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on a constraint-compliant planning dataset to learn planning syntax and semantics, and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) guided by fine-grained reward machines derived from formal verification to enforce safety alignment and by curriculum learning to better handle complex tasks. Extensive experiments show that SafeGen-LLM achieves strong safety generalization and outperforms frontier proprietary baselines across multi-domain planning tasks and multiple input formats (e.g., PDDLs and natural language).

Foundation-model policies for robotic manipulation are advancing rapidly on task success, but rigorous evaluation of whether they succeed safely is still lacking. We introduce ManiGuard, a specification-grounded framework for evaluating and improving the safety of foundation-model manipulation, comprising the ManiGuard-Bench task suite and a paired safety-annotated trajectory-generation pipeline. ManiGuard-Bench organizes six contact-rich household task families into 200 locked base tasks along a skill $\times$ constraint taxonomy, with safety specified independently of task success. Each task is evaluated under one in-distribution and four single-axis out-of-distribution perturbations that hold the safety specification fixed, giving 1,000 locked scenarios. Every rollout is runtime-checked by LTL$_f$-grounded automaton monitors over physics-grounded predicates rather than learned classifiers or LLM judges, in simulation and on a physical Franka platform. The pipeline pairs an automated motion-planning generator with human teleoperation, annotated by the same per-step monitor, and directly supports safety-aware fine-tuning; we release 8,000 safety-annotated demonstrations, 40 per base task. Benchmarking zero-shot and fine-tuned VLAs across more than 23,000 rollouts, we find: (i) safety must be evaluated independently of task success, as 6-21% of successful rollouts violate the specification; (ii) fine-tuning on our suite raises safe task completion from near zero to 7.5-29.8% and engaged-and-safe behavior from 16-40% to 51-72%; but (iii) a gap remains that scaling demonstrations does not close, with 21-42% of engaged rollouts still violating, two of six families below 2% safe success for every policy, and these failures persisting under distribution shift and on hardware.