The Yes-Man Syndrome: Benchmarking Abstention in Embodied Robotic Agents

TL;DR

This paper introduces RoboAbstention, a framework for benchmarking abstention in embodied robotic agents using visual grounding and instruction generation, revealing significant weaknesses in current vision-language models.

Contribution

It presents a novel taxonomy and dataset for evaluating abstention in embodied robotics, along with methods to improve abstention performance.

Findings

All evaluated models show weaknesses in abstention, with the best at 39%.

Interventions like prompting and in-context learning significantly improve abstention rates.

No current approach fully addresses the abstention challenge in embodied robotic agents.

Abstract

Vision-language models (VLMs) are used as high-level planners for embodied agents, translating natural language instructions and visual observations into action plans. While prior work has studied abstention in LLMs, existing benchmarks are largely text-only and do not capture the perceptual grounding and physical constraints inherent to embodied robotics environments. In such settings, abstention requires recognizing when instructions are ambiguous, physically infeasible, based on false premises, or otherwise unresolvable given the available sensory modalities and context. To address this gap, we introduce a taxonomy to categorize abstention in the context of embodied robotics and present RoboAbstention, a scalable and auditable framework for generating abstention instructions grounded in images gathered from five robotics datasets. RoboAbstention instantiates the taxonomy through a three-phase pipeline: (1) structured visual grounding, (2) deterministic constraint derivation, and (3) controlled instruction generation via category-specific templates. This enables the construction of a diverse dataset with verifiable abstention conditions. We evaluate several frontier VLMs and find that all models exhibit significant weaknesses in abstention, including those with advanced reasoning capabilities. The best-performing model, Gemini 2.5 Flash, abstains on only 39.0% of our 6,069 benchmark instructions, while the embodied planner Gemini Robotics ER 1.6 Preview abstains on just 16.5%. We further explore methods for improving abstention in VLM planners, such as defensive prompting and in-context learning, and find that these interventions substantially improve performance, reaching 93.6% abstention rate for Gemini Robotics ER 1.6 Preview and 88.6% for GPT 5.4 Mini, yet no approach fully solves the problem. We open-source RoboAbstention at https://purseclab.github.io/RoboAbstention/.