Risk-Aware Semantic Grounding for Trustworthy LLM-Based Robot Planning

The integration of Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning principles into classical robot path planning represents a rapidly emerging research direction. In this paper, we propose a Semantic Risk-Aware Heuristic (SRAH) planner that encodes LLM-inspired cost functions penalising geometrically cluttered or high-risk zones into an A$^*$ search framework, augmented with closed-loop replanning upon dynamic obstacle detection. We evaluate SRAH against two established baselines Breadth-First Search (BFS) with replanning and a Greedy heuristic without replanning across 200 randomised trials in a $15{\times}15$ grid-world with 20% static obstacle density and stochastic dynamic obstacles. SRAH achieves a task success rate of 62.0%, outperforming BFS (56.5%) by 9.7% relative improvement and Greedy (4.0%) by a large margin. We further analyse the trade-off between planning overhead, path efficiency, and failure-recovery count, and demonstrate via an obstacle-density ablation that semantic cost shaping consistently improves navigation across environments of varying difficulty. Our results suggest that even lightweight, LLM-inspired heuristics provide measurable safety and robustness gains for autonomous robot navigation.

Large language models are increasingly used as planners for robotic systems, yet how safely they plan remains an open question. To evaluate safe planning systematically, we introduce DESPITE, a benchmark of 12,279 tasks spanning physical and normative dangers with fully deterministic validation. Across 23 models, even near-perfect planning ability does not ensure safety: the best-planning model fails to produce a valid plan on only 0.4% of tasks but produces dangerous plans on 28.3%. Among 18 open-source models from 3B to 671B parameters, planning ability improves substantially with scale (0.4-99.3%) while safety awareness remains relatively flat (38-57%). We identify a multiplicative relationship between these two capacities, showing that larger models complete more tasks safely primarily through improved planning, not through better danger avoidance. Three proprietary reasoning models reach notably higher safety awareness (71-81%), while non-reasoning proprietary models and open-source reasoning models remain below 57%. As planning ability approaches saturation for frontier models, improving safety awareness becomes a central challenge for deploying language-model planners in robotic systems.

Advances in advanced artificial intelligence tools have sparked research in robot autonomy, but the development of such systems has largely focused on execution rather than verifying the feasibility actions planning models propose. Like general-purpose LLMs, robotics planning models carry risks: biased toward user-specified goals, they may suggest actions misaligned with scientific ethics, they may be unsafe due to an inability to "remember" prior safety risks, or they may be vulnerable to adversarial attacks on the autonomy ecosystem. We propose a LLM-driven verification layer between planning and execution to evaluate action permissibility. Our LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble combines chain-of-thought reasoning across models and synthesizes those expert judge outputs, mirroring a combination of a mixture of experts and self-consistency approach. This layer serves as middleware, gating plans from the server's planning module before they reach the MCP server and therefore the robot's low-level controls: plans are approved, rejected for reformulation, or escalated for human review. With this system, we achieve near 85% precision across accept/escalate/reject categories 97% containment of adversarial attacks, with negligible errors between accepting and rejecting tasks, and errors mostly manifesting at the escalate boundary.