Paper
What Breaks Embodied AI Security:LLM Vulnerabilities, CPS Flaws,or Something Else?
Authors
Boyang Ma, Hechuan Guo, Peizhuo Lv, Minghui Xu, Xuelong Dai, YeChao Zhang, Yijun Yang, Yue Zhang
Abstract
Embodied AI systems (e.g., autonomous vehicles, service robots, and LLM-driven interactive agents) are rapidly transitioning from controlled environments to safety critical real-world deployments. Unlike disembodied AI, failures in embodied intelligence lead to irreversible physical consequences, raising fundamental questions about security, safety, and reliability. While existing research predominantly analyzes embodied AI through the lenses of Large Language Model (LLM) vulnerabilities or classical Cyber-Physical System (CPS) failures, this survey argues that these perspectives are individually insufficient to explain many observed breakdowns in modern embodied systems. We posit that a significant class of failures arises from embodiment-induced system-level mismatches, rather than from isolated model flaws or traditional CPS attacks. Specifically, we identify four core insights that explain why embodied AI is fundamentally harder to secure: (i) semantic correctness does not imply physical safety, as language-level reasoning abstracts away geometry, dynamics, and contact constraints; (ii) identical actions can lead to drastically different outcomes across physical states due to nonlinear dynamics and state uncertainty; (iii) small errors propagate and amplify across tightly coupled perception-decision-action loops; and (iv) safety is not compositional across time or system layers, enabling locally safe decisions to accumulate into globally unsafe behavior. These insights suggest that securing embodied AI requires moving beyond component-level defenses toward system-level reasoning about physical risk, uncertainty, and failure propagation.
Metadata
Related papers
Vibe Coding XR: Accelerating AI + XR Prototyping with XR Blocks and Gemini
Ruofei Du, Benjamin Hersh, David Li, Nels Numan, Xun Qian, Yanhe Chen, Zhongy... • 2026-03-25
Comparing Developer and LLM Biases in Code Evaluation
Aditya Mittal, Ryan Shar, Zichu Wu, Shyam Agarwal, Tongshuang Wu, Chris Donah... • 2026-03-25
The Stochastic Gap: A Markovian Framework for Pre-Deployment Reliability and Oversight-Cost Auditing in Agentic Artificial Intelligence
Biplab Pal, Santanu Bhattacharya • 2026-03-25
Retrieval Improvements Do Not Guarantee Better Answers: A Study of RAG for AI Policy QA
Saahil Mathur, Ryan David Rittner, Vedant Ajit Thakur, Daniel Stuart Schiff, ... • 2026-03-25
MARCH: Multi-Agent Reinforced Self-Check for LLM Hallucination
Zhuo Li, Yupeng Zhang, Pengyu Cheng, Jiajun Song, Mengyu Zhou, Hao Li, Shujie... • 2026-03-25
Raw Data (Debug)
{
"raw_xml": "<entry>\n <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17345v1</id>\n <title>What Breaks Embodied AI Security:LLM Vulnerabilities, CPS Flaws,or Something Else?</title>\n <updated>2026-02-19T13:29:00Z</updated>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17345v1' rel='alternate' type='text/html'/>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.17345v1' rel='related' title='pdf' type='application/pdf'/>\n <summary>Embodied AI systems (e.g., autonomous vehicles, service robots, and LLM-driven interactive agents) are rapidly transitioning from controlled environments to safety critical real-world deployments. Unlike disembodied AI, failures in embodied intelligence lead to irreversible physical consequences, raising fundamental questions about security, safety, and reliability. While existing research predominantly analyzes embodied AI through the lenses of Large Language Model (LLM) vulnerabilities or classical Cyber-Physical System (CPS) failures, this survey argues that these perspectives are individually insufficient to explain many observed breakdowns in modern embodied systems. We posit that a significant class of failures arises from embodiment-induced system-level mismatches, rather than from isolated model flaws or traditional CPS attacks. Specifically, we identify four core insights that explain why embodied AI is fundamentally harder to secure: (i) semantic correctness does not imply physical safety, as language-level reasoning abstracts away geometry, dynamics, and contact constraints; (ii) identical actions can lead to drastically different outcomes across physical states due to nonlinear dynamics and state uncertainty; (iii) small errors propagate and amplify across tightly coupled perception-decision-action loops; and (iv) safety is not compositional across time or system layers, enabling locally safe decisions to accumulate into globally unsafe behavior. These insights suggest that securing embodied AI requires moving beyond component-level defenses toward system-level reasoning about physical risk, uncertainty, and failure propagation.</summary>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.CR'/>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.AI'/>\n <published>2026-02-19T13:29:00Z</published>\n <arxiv:primary_category term='cs.CR'/>\n <author>\n <name>Boyang Ma</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Hechuan Guo</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Peizhuo Lv</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Minghui Xu</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Xuelong Dai</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>YeChao Zhang</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Yijun Yang</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Yue Zhang</name>\n </author>\n </entry>"
}