Benchmark Almanac

ASIMOV

Models spot physical hazards in text and generated videos from real injury reports, time safety interventions in video, and follow robot payload and handling constraints.

In the authors’ words

When AI interacts with the physical world – as a robot or an assistive agent – new safety challenges emerge beyond those of purely “digital AI". In such interactions, the potential for physical harm is direct and immediate. How well do state-of-the-art foundation models understand common-sense facts about physical safety, e.g. that a box may be too heavy to lift, or that a hot cup of coffee should not be handed to a child? In this paper, our contributions are three-fold: first, we develop a highly scalable approach to continuous physical safety benchmarking of Embodied AI systems, grounded in real-world injury narratives and operational safety constraints. To probe multi-modal safety understanding, we turn these narratives and constraints into photorealistic images and videos capturing transitions from safe to unsafe states, using advanced generative models. Secondly, we comprehensively analyze the ability of major foundation models to perceive risks, reason about safety, and trigger interventions; this yields multi-faceted insights into their deployment readiness for safety-critical agentic applications. Finally, we develop a post-training paradigm to teach models to explicitly reason about embodiment-specific safety constraints provided through system instructions. The resulting models generate thinking traces that make safety reasoning interpretable and transparent, achieving state of the art performance in constraint satisfaction evaluations. The benchmark is released at https://asimov-benchmark.github.io/v2

Abstract of Can AI Perceive Physical Danger and Intervene? (arXiv:2509.21651, CC0)
Made by Google DeepMind Released Sep 2025 Embodied reasoning All tasks public Last in a launch post Jul 2026 , dropped after it saturated Last model added Oct 2026
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Multiple choice
2
Models scored in lab cards
2
Launch posts list it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Gemini Robotics ER 2 leads with 97.9%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 Gemini Robotics ER 2 97.9%
  2. 2 Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 91.1%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini Robotics ER 2 97.9% Jul 2026 Model card
2 Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 91.1% Apr 2026 Model card

The best score passed 85% in Apr 2026

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini Robotics ER 2 Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini Robotics ER 2 Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6

Labs headline it less often now, last in Jul 2026

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

Google DeepMind
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
30 Jul 2026 Gemini Robotics ER 2 97.9 Safety instruction following accuracy (the ER 1.6 post labels this chart ASIMOV - Safety Instruction Following)
14 Apr 2026 Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 91.1 ASIMOV - Safety Instruction Following, Text Accuracy (Point 71.8, BBox 73.9)

One system card reports it

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
13 Oct 2026 Gemini 4 Argon system card ASIMOV-2.0 and ASIMOV-Agentic sub-scores with no overall: ASIMOV-2.0 severity text 77.4%, severity video 71.1%, constraints 65.2%, intervention error 0.76 s; ASIMOV-Agentic instruction uncertainty 82.8%, scene clarification 95.4%, scene helpfulness 71.0%, human proximity recall 99.7%, accuracy 77.7% (Figures 5.20, 5.21) Safety

Versions

More in Robotics

All 86 in Robotics
  • ERQA In use 400 multiple-choice visual questions from robot and egocentric footage on spatial, trajectory, action and state reasoning. Accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 78.5%
  • RoboLab In use Zero-shot DROID Franka policies in Isaac Lab on 120 tabletop tasks at three instruction levels, 10 episodes each. Success rate. GR00T N1.7 8.58%
  • Human proximity (Google DeepMind robotics) In use Models judge from robot camera views whether a human is within 1 meter, a spatial awareness check for safe robot behavior. Scored by accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 93%
  • Moment finding (Google DeepMind) In use Models find the moment in a robot video when an event happens. Scored by accuracy and mean absolute time distance in seconds. Gemini Robotics ER 2 91.3%
  • Progress classification (Google DeepMind) In use Models assign each frame of a robot video to one of five task-progress bands from 0 to 100 percent. Scored by accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 57.4%
  • LIBERO Fading Simulated Franka tabletop tasks in four 10-task suites. Policies fine-tuned on 50 demos per task. Success rate over ~50 trials. MolmoAct 2 97.2%