Robotics paper index

EpiSEM-Bench: Evaluating Safety and Evidence Recovery in LLM Agents under Missing Evidence

2026-10-22 · arXiv: 2610.31650

One-line summary

A robotics research paper on EpiSEM-Bench: Evaluating Safety and Evidence Recovery in LLM Agents under Missing Evidence.

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充:本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Tool-using language model agents rely on environmental facts to decide whether an action is permitted. When a tool response omits a safety-relevant fact, an agent may carry out a prohibited action even though the user request is benign and every returned statement is true. We introduce \bench{}, an executable benchmark for evaluating unsafe execution, safety boundaries, and evidence recovery in LLM agents under missing evidence. It contains 300 matched unsafe/safe task pairs across six domains. By systematically suppressing critical facts, the benchmark measures unsafe execution under critical evidence omission and determines the minimum observed failure cardinality, including failures with full evidence and cases with no observed failure after exhaustive testing. An independent audit tool tests whether agents seek missing facts and then withhold prohibited actions while completing permissible tasks. The benchmark reveals substantial variation across the ten models in omission robustness, evidence acquisition, and appropriate action. Resistance to missing evidence does not necessarily translate into useful recovery. Recovery access reduces unsafe execution for all ten models, but agents differ in whether they actively obtain the missing facts and use them to act appropriately in both worlds.

5.0Engineering value
7.0Research novelty
4.0Business relevance

Links and sources

Need this topic turned into a technical roadmap?

Robot Papers can prepare a custom robotics literature review, code map, dataset map, and B2B technology assessment.

Request B2B research

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts on this paper.
Login or register to leave a comment