aiqbench analysis
This survey maps embodied AI safety across a four-layer architecture, tracing how software faults and attacks can propagate through hardware and middleware into physical harm. It also covers composite attack chains, multi-layer defenses, and existing safety benchmarks. For readers, the useful takeaway is the framing: safety for robots and other physical AI systems depends on the whole stack, including hardware constraints, not just model alignment.
From bits to atoms: A survey of cross-layer safety in Embodied AI
arXiv:2610.14038v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Embodied Artificial Intelligence (AI) introduces cyber-physical risks because digital failures and attacks can cause physical harm. This survey organizes embodied AI safety through a four-layer reference architecture -- comprising the physical interaction, system and middleware, algorithm and decision, and cloud-edge and data layers -- and uses it to connect vulnerabilities, propagation paths, and safeguards across the system stack. It traces the evolution of safety paradigms and examines how faults and attacks cross architectural boundaries to produce physical consequences. Furthermore, the survey systematizes composite attack chains, outlines multi-layered defense strategies, and reviews representative embodied safety benchmarks. Ultimately, we advocate for unifying software alignment with rigorous hardware constraints to build trustworthy systems capable of operating safely within human-centric environments.
Abstract:Embodied Artificial Intelligence (AI) introduces cyber-physical risks because digital failures and attacks can cause physical harm. This survey organizes embodied AI safety through a four-layer reference architecture -- comprising the physical interaction, system and middleware, algorithm and decision, and cloud-edge and data layers -- and uses it to connect vulnerabilities, propagation paths, and safeguards across the system stack. It traces the evolution of safety paradigms and examines how faults and attacks cross architectural boundaries to produce physical consequences. Furthermore, the survey systematizes composite attack chains, outlines multi-layered defense strategies, and reviews representative embodied safety benchmarks. Ultimately, we advocate for unifying software alignment with rigorous hardware constraints to build trustworthy systems capable of operating safely within human-centric environments.
Review article published in AI Plus. 25 pages, 6 figures. URL: this https URL
Robotics (cs.RO)
arXiv:2610.14038 [cs.RO]
(or arXiv:2610.14038v1 [cs.RO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.14038 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
https://doi.org/10.59717/ipj.aiplus.2026.100013 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 234 words
Related coverage
Safe Embodied AI for Long-horizon Tasks: A Cross-layer Analysis of Robotic Manipulation
arXiv · Jun 6, 2026
The current bottleneck is political will, not research
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 11, 2026

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · Sep 24, 2026
Coverage-driven alignment - What ‘Teaching Claude Why’ can borrow from AV verification
LessWrong · Jun 8, 2026