aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces VLN-Safe, a benchmark that tests collision safety for vision-and-language navigation agents under two evaluation regimes. It shows that success metrics can hide frequent collisions, since many "successful" episodes involve contact when sliding is allowed. The training-free collision guard is a practical result, but its reported gains come from simulation on R2R-CE, so real-world robustness remains untested.
Successful but Unsafe: An Analytical Benchmark for Revealing Collisions in Vision-and-Language Navigation
arXiv:2610.14682v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-and-language navigation (VLN) agents are typically evaluated by whether they reach a target and how efficiently they follow an instructed route, yet these metrics provide little information about collision behavior. Moreover, continuous VLN evaluation commonly uses a sliding regime, where an agent can slide along obstacles after a collision, potentially masking the effect of unsafe actions on navigation performance. We introduce VLN-Safe, a benchmark for analyzing collision safety under two complementary evaluation regimes: sliding, reflecting common VLN evaluation practice, and blocking, where collision-inducing actions prevent forward motion and more directly expose their consequences. Across six published agents on R2R-CE, 38.5-56.8% of successful episodes contain contact under sliding, while switching to blocking decreases success rate by 11.7-36.1 percentage points. We further analyze signals for anticipating imminent collisions and find that depth geometry and recent movement history are more informative than policy-derived signals, while safe alternatives near the policy's preferred action are rarely available. Motivated by these findings, we introduce a training-free collision guard that vetoes risky forward actions, executes an escape maneuver, and returns control to the original policy. Under blocking, the guard reduces collision steps by 62-98% and improves success rate by 6.9-29.3 percentage points across five recurrent, topological, and vision-language-action agents. Under sliding, it leaves success rate unchanged while raising the share of collision-free successes by 4.1-12.4 points. These results reveal a substantial gap between task success and collision-safe navigation and show that lightweight collision-aware intervention can improve both safety and navigation performance.
Abstract:Vision-and-language navigation (VLN) agents are typically evaluated by whether they reach a target and how efficiently they follow an instructed route, yet these metrics provide little information about collision behavior. Moreover, continuous VLN evaluation commonly uses a sliding regime, where an agent can slide along obstacles after a collision, potentially masking the effect of unsafe actions on navigation performance. We introduce VLN-Safe, a benchmark for analyzing collision safety under two complementary evaluation regimes: sliding, reflecting common VLN evaluation practice, and blocking, where collision-inducing actions prevent forward motion and more directly expose their consequences. Across six published agents on R2R-CE, 38.5-56.8% of successful episodes contain contact under sliding, while switching to blocking decreases success rate by 11.7-36.1 percentage points. We further analyze signals for anticipating imminent collisions and find that depth geometry and recent movement history are more informative than policy-derived signals, while safe alternatives near the policy's preferred action are rarely available. Motivated by these findings, we introduce a training-free collision guard that vetoes risky forward actions, executes an escape maneuver, and returns control to the original policy. Under blocking, the guard reduces collision steps by 62-98% and improves success rate by 6.9-29.3 percentage points across five recurrent, topological, and vision-language-action agents. Under sliding, it leaves success rate unchanged while raising the share of collision-free successes by 4.1-12.4 points. These results reveal a substantial gap between task success and collision-safe navigation and show that lightweight collision-aware intervention can improve both safety and navigation performance.
Robotics (cs.RO)
arXiv:2610.14682 [cs.RO]
(or arXiv:2610.14682v1 [cs.RO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.14682 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 337 words
Related coverage

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026

How to Evaluate General-Purpose Robot Policies for Real-World Deployment
NVIDIA · Jul 12, 2026
SafeVLA-Bench: A Benchmark for the Success-Safety Gap in Vision-Language-Action Models
arXiv · Oct 1, 2026
Token-Wise Latent Streaming from Slow Reasoners to Fast Planners for Dynamic Vision Language Navigation
arXiv · Jul 21, 2026