arXiv Computer Vision
Sep 4

SafeRI: Recognition and Intervention for Token-Level Safety Intervention in Large Vision Language Models

SafeRI proposes an on-demand safety alignment approach for large vision-language models, contrasting with existing always-on methods that globally modify model behavior. The framework uses a lightweight recognizer to evaluate token-level safety during autoregressive generation, gating a LoRA module that only activates when unsafe content is detected. By training the LoRA on unsafe prefixes and safe continuations, SafeRI redirects unsafe generations back to safe responses without perturbing the model’s original reasoning path.

By Caoyuan Ma, Tian Gu, Wenpu Liu, Weichu Xie, Shuai Dong, Yuqi Xu, Ji Zhao, Ziyue Wang, Wenzheng Chang, Taiqiang Wu, Yongfu Zhu, Wenqi Shao, Zheng Wang, Yinqiang Zheng
arXiv AI
Sep 7

When Seeing Overrides Knowing: Visual Dominance and Deferral-Based Method for Personalized Safety in VLMs

The paper introduces MPS-Bench, a benchmark of 5,181 scenarios from 584 real-world images across 12 high-risk domains, each paired with a hidden user profile, to evaluate personalized safety in vision‑language models (VLMs). Eight leading VLMs were tested and found to almost always respond directly (86‑99%) without seeking missing context, scoring no higher than 2.6/5 on personalized safety. The authors identify a phenomenon called visual dominance, where visual information enters text representations early and suppresses textual risk signals, and propose PRISM, a lightweight input monitor that predicts when a query should be deferred, achieving 0.978 AUC and outperforming all tested models on the safety‑utility Pareto frontier.

By Edward Sun, Yuchen Wu, Zixian Ma, Eric Hanchen Jiang, Yijia Xiao, Xiaoyuan Yi, Ranjay Krishna, Wei Wang, Jindong Wang, Aylin Caliskan
arXiv AI
Oct 5

Corrupted but Correct: Why Vision-Language Models Lie to Themselves Internally

The paper demonstrates that a targeted adversarial perturbation can reduce a vision‑language model’s training loss to near zero for a fixed target caption, yet the same model, when generating freely, still produces the correct description. This phenomenon, termed the train/inference gap, is traced to a single autoregressive step where the target token’s rank is fixed across all images, and further analysis shows that the language decoder, rather than the visual encoder, determines whether the corrupted signal is amplified or suppressed. The study uses a controlled two‑stage PGD attack on Qwen2.5‑VL‑7B‑Instruct and evaluates the effect on 200 held‑out COCO images, revealing that adversarial robustness in autoregressive VLMs largely depends on the language decoder’s prior. whyItMatters":"The findings suggest that defenses and faithfulness evaluations for deployed vision‑language models should focus on the language decoder rather than the visual encoder, as the former is the key determinant of robustness to adversarial perturbations."

By Arun Josephraj Arokiaraj, Zekun Wu, Adriano Koshiyama
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 19

When Safety Overrides Vision: Exploring Dynamics between Vision Influence and Safety Alignment in Vision-Language Models

Aligned vision‑language models (VLMs) are designed to combine grounded visual reasoning with safe generation. The study finds that when safety constraints are applied, these models often abstain from answering questions that they could answer under default instruction, yet visual evidence continues to influence the decoding process. The authors show that safety‑induced abstention alters late‑stage hidden‑state dynamics, and that targeted interventions can restore grounded answering without retraining or changing visual inputs.