arXiv:2607. 20476v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present an empirical benchmark evaluating how five large language models assess multisensor physical hazard data.
arXiv:2607. 15218v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as high-level planners for embodied agents, where linguistically benign instructions can become unsafe once grounded in the physical world.
arXiv:2603. 29759v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in vision-language models (VLMs) have accelerated their application to indoor safety hazards assessment.
arXiv:2608.24621v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Can language models be trusted in safety- critical operations? In such settings, strong per- formance on semantic metrics does not guaran- tee oper...
arXiv:2604. 07223v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) evolve from static chatbots into autonomous agents, the primary vulnerability surface shifts from final outputs to intermediate execution traces.
arXiv:2606. 02443v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Between the first visible sign of danger and the moment an accident occurs, there is often a window where intervention remains possible.
DisasterInsight is a building‑centric benchmark designed to evaluate vision‑language models (VLMs) for disaster response. Built on the xBD satellite dataset, it adds OpenStreetMap‑derived functional labels to 134,108 building instances and offers 15 task types, including instance assessment, scene counting, multi‑instance reasoning, and structured report generation. Experiments show that VLMs excel at visible damage detection but struggle with building function, multi‑instance reasoning, counting, and grounded reporting, and instruction tuning only partially mitigates these gaps.
arXiv:2607. 29064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Police crash narratives contain information that may supplement structured crash databases, but manual review is labor-intensive and it remains unclear how well large language models (LLMs) reproduce official crash coding.
arXiv:2601.18493v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Vision--language models (VLMs) show promise for disaster-response remote sensing, but existing benchmarks mainly emphasize scene-level or damage-ce...
arXiv:2606. 05177v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing multimodal safety benchmarks focus solely on visual inputs and cannot assess Omni Large Language Models (LLMs) that process vision, audio, and text.
SAFARI is the first industrial benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in automotive hazard analysis and risk assessment (HARA) under ISO 26262. It comprises 3,000 de‑identified HARA cases and tests two tasks: open‑ended hazard generation and standards‑grounded risk classification, using a novel reference‑anchored LLM‑as‑a‑judge protocol. Experiments with nine state‑of‑the‑art LLMs show that while hazard narratives are often plausible, risk classification remains weak (best ASIL macro‑F1 = 0.261), with errors mainly due to missing scenario context and misjudged controllability. "whyItMatters":"The benchmark highlights the current limitations of LLMs in safety‑critical engineering workflows, guiding future research and expert oversight in automotive safety analysis."
arXiv:2608.16081v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Open-weight and frontier vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on general image understanding, but their ability to interpret fine-grained han...
Safety-Flag is a unified benchmark that consolidates seven popular safety datasets into a single balanced flag/do‑not‑flag protocol, providing item‑level decisions and confidence scores for multiple large language models and dedicated guards. The benchmark evaluates moderator reliability across three dimensions—error direction, probability calibration, and confidence‑based error ranking—revealing that aggregate accuracy masks significant differences, such as one model flagging 85% of benign content while another misses 54% of harmful content. The study shows that general‑purpose models are overconfident, but temperature tuning can substantially improve calibration, and confidence‑based abstention can reduce selective risk, though performance varies with how well confidence ranks errors.