Evaluating Uncertainty and Quality of Visual Language Action-enabled Robots

Visual Language Action (VLA) models are a multi-modal class of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems that integrate visual perception, natural language understanding, and action planning to enable agents to interpret their environment, comprehend instructions, and perform embodied tasks autonomously. Recently, significant progress has been made to advance this field. These kinds of models are typically evaluated through task success rates, which fail to capture the quality of task execution and the mode's confidence in its decisions. In this paper, we propose eight uncertainty metrics and five quality metrics specifically designed for VLA models for robotic manipulation tasks. We assess their effectiveness through a large-scale empirical study involving 908 successful task executions from three state-of-the-art VLA models across four representative robotic manipulation tasks. Human domain experts manually labeled task quality, allowing us to analyze the correlation between our proposed metrics and expert judgments. The results reveal that several metrics show moderate to strong correlation with human assessments, highlighting their utility for evaluating task quality and model confidence. Furthermore, we found that some of the metrics can discriminate between high-, medium-, and low-quality executions from unsuccessful tasks, which can be interesting when test oracles are not available. Our findings challenge the adequacy of current evaluation practices that rely solely on binary success rates and pave the way for improved real-time monitoring and adaptive enhancement of VLA-enabled robotic systems.

Red Teaming Contemporary AI Models: Insights from Spanish and Basque Perspectives

The battle for AI leadership is on, with OpenAI in the United States and DeepSeek in China as key contenders. In response to these global trends, the Spanish government has proposed ALIA, a public and transparent AI infrastructure incorporating small language models designed to support Spanish and co-official languages such as Basque. This paper presents the results of Red Teaming sessions, where ten participants applied their expertise and creativity to manually test three of the latest models from these initiatives$\unicode{x2013}$OpenAI o3-mini, DeepSeek R1, and ALIA Salamandra$\unicode{x2013}$focusing on biases and safety concerns. The results, based on 670 conversations, revealed vulnerabilities in all the models under test, with biased or unsafe responses ranging from 29.5% in o3-mini to 50.6% in Salamandra. These findings underscore the persistent challenges in developing reliable and trustworthy AI systems, particularly those intended to support Spanish and Basque languages.

o3-mini vs DeepSeek-R1: Which One is Safer?

The irruption of DeepSeek-R1 constitutes a turning point for the AI industry in general and the LLMs in particular. Its capabilities have demonstrated outstanding performance in several tasks, including creative thinking, code generation, maths and automated program repair, at apparently lower execution cost. However, LLMs must adhere to an important qualitative property, i.e., their alignment with safety and human values. A clear competitor of DeepSeek-R1 is its American counterpart, OpenAI's o3-mini model, which is expected to set high standards in terms of performance, safety and cost. In this technical report, we systematically assess the safety level of both DeepSeek-R1 (70b version) and OpenAI's o3-mini (beta version). To this end, we make use of our recently released automated safety testing tool, named ASTRAL. By leveraging this tool, we automatically and systematically generated and executed 1,260 test inputs on both models. After conducting a semi-automated assessment of the outcomes provided by both LLMs, the results indicate that DeepSeek-R1 produces significantly more unsafe responses (12%) than OpenAI's o3-mini (1.2%).

Early External Safety Testing of OpenAI's o3-mini: Insights from the Pre-Deployment Evaluation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become an integral part of our daily lives. However, they impose certain risks, including those that can harm individuals' privacy, perpetuate biases and spread misinformation. These risks highlight the need for robust safety mechanisms, ethical guidelines, and thorough testing to ensure their responsible deployment. Safety of LLMs is a key property that needs to be thoroughly tested prior the model to be deployed and accessible to the general users. This paper reports the external safety testing experience conducted by researchers from Mondragon University and University of Seville on OpenAI's new o3-mini LLM as part of OpenAI's early access for safety testing program. In particular, we apply our tool, ASTRAL, to automatically and systematically generate up to date unsafe test inputs (i.e., prompts) that helps us test and assess different safety categories of LLMs. We automatically generate and execute a total of 10,080 unsafe test input on a early o3-mini beta version. After manually verifying the test cases classified as unsafe by ASTRAL, we identify a total of 87 actual instances of unsafe LLM behavior. We highlight key insights and findings uncovered during the pre-deployment external testing phase of OpenAI's latest LLM.

ASTRAL: Automated Safety Testing of Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently gained attention due to their ability to understand and generate sophisticated human-like content. However, ensuring their safety is paramount as they might provide harmful and unsafe responses. Existing LLM testing frameworks address various safety-related concerns (e.g., drugs, terrorism, animal abuse) but often face challenges due to unbalanced and obsolete datasets. In this paper, we present ASTRAL, a tool that automates the generation and execution of test cases (i.e., prompts) for testing the safety of LLMs. First, we introduce a novel black-box coverage criterion to generate balanced and diverse unsafe test inputs across a diverse set of safety categories as well as linguistic writing characteristics (i.e., different style and persuasive writing techniques). Second, we propose an LLM-based approach that leverages Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), few-shot prompting strategies and web browsing to generate up-to-date test inputs. Lastly, similar to current LLM test automation techniques, we leverage LLMs as test oracles to distinguish between safe and unsafe test outputs, allowing a fully automated testing approach. We conduct an extensive evaluation on well-known LLMs, revealing the following key findings: i) GPT3.5 outperforms other LLMs when acting as the test oracle, accurately detecting unsafe responses, and even surpassing more recent LLMs (e.g., GPT-4), as well as LLMs that are specifically tailored to detect unsafe LLM outputs (e.g., LlamaGuard); ii) the results confirm that our approach can uncover nearly twice as many unsafe LLM behaviors with the same number of test inputs compared to currently used static datasets; and iii) our black-box coverage criterion combined with web browsing can effectively guide the LLM on generating up-to-date unsafe test inputs, significantly increasing the number of unsafe LLM behaviors.