Hazard or Anomaly? Evaluating VLMs for Understanding Dangers and Discrepancies
英文标题:Hazard or Anomaly? Evaluating VLMs for Understanding Dangers and Discrepancies
arXiv:2607.18325v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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 scene
640 B
612 B
380 B
9.1 KB
32.7 KB
22.8 KB
24.2 KB
34.7 KB
中文
arXiv:2607.18325v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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 scene
中文全文翻译正在补齐,可先查看下方英文原文。
English / 原文
[Submitted on 18 Jul 2026]
Title:Hazard or Anomaly? Evaluating VLMs for Understanding Dangers and Discrepancies
View a PDF of the paper titled Hazard or Anomaly? Evaluating VLMs for Understanding Dangers and Discrepancies, by Murali Indukuri and 4 other authors
Abstract: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 this https URL.
Submission history
From: Mohammad Eskandari [
]
[v1]
Sat, 18 Jul 2026 02:24:06 UTC (4,273 KB)