Multi-Turn Adaptive Prompting Attack on Large Vision-Language Models
Organizations: The University of Melbourne · The University of Adelaide
Abstract
Multi-turn jailbreak attacks have proven effective against text-only large language models (LLMs), where malicious content is gradually introduced to bypass safety alignment. However, effectively extending such attacks to large vision-language models (LVLMs) remains underexplored. In this paper, we find that naively incorporating visual inputs can make multi-turn jailbreaks easier to defend against; for example, overly malicious visual content will easily trigger the defense mechanism in safety-aligned LVLMs, resulting in more conservative responses. Based on this finding, we propose multi-turn adaptive prompting attack (MAPA) that 1) at each turn, alternates text-vision attack actions to elicit the most malicious response; and 2) across turns, adjusts the attack trajectory through iterative back-and-forth refinement to gradually amplify response maliciousness. This two-level design enables MAPA to consistently outperform state-of-the-art methods, improving attack success rates by 15-30% on recent benchmarks against LLaVA-v1.6-Mistral-7B, Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct, Llama-3.2-Vision-11B-Instruct and GPT-4o-mini. Our code is available at: https://github.com/thomaschoi143/MAPA.
Figures & tables
| Category | Method | LLaVA | Qwen | Llama | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single-turn | VRP | 66.67 | 5.00 | 65.00 | 45.56 |
| MML | 20.00 | 65.00 | 00.00 | 28.33 | |
| Multi-turn | CoA | 75.00 | 73.33 | 63.33 | 70.55 |
| CoA+visual(SD) | 68.33 | 71.67 | 31.67 | 57.22 | |
| CoA+visual(UltraBreak) | 76.67 | 66.67 | 58.33 | 67.11 | |
| ActorAttack | 25.00 | 25.00 | 31.67 | 27.22 |
| Benchmark | Method | LLaVA | Qwen | Llama | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JailbreakBench | VRP | 00.00 | 00.00 | 00.00 | 00.00 |
| MML | 00.00 | 00.00 | 00.00 | 00.00 | |
| CoA | 78.33 | 70.00 | 55.00 | 67.78 | |
| ActorAttack | 27.59 | 35.00 | 24.56 | 29.05 | |
| FootInTheDoor | 66.66 | 41.67 | 56.66 | 55.00 | |
| MAPA (ours) | 93.33 | 93.33 | 86.67 | 91.11 |
| Victim: GPT-4o-mini | CoA | ActorAttack | FootInTheDoor | MAPA (ours) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Default Judge LLM | 53.33 | 45.76 | 41.66 | 88.33 |
| Advanced Judge LLM | 73.33 | 64.40 | 60.00 | 93.33 |
| ( improvement ) | ( +20.00 ) | ( +18.24 ) | ( +18.34 ) | ( +5.00 ) |
| Cross-Turn | *Within-Turn | LLaVA | Qwen | Llama | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAPA (default setting) | 93.33 | 86.66 | 86.67 | 88.89 | |
| MAPA w/o Reflection | 83.33 | 86.66 | 70.00 | 80.00 | |
| (- 10.00) | (- 00.00) | (- 16.67) | (- 8.89) | ||
| MAPA repeat w/o Reflection | 90.00 | 86.66 | 76.66 | 84.44 | |
| (- 3.33) | (- 00.00) | (- 10.00) | (- 4.45) | ||
| MAPA w/o Policy Adjustment | 86.66 | 83.33 | 60.00 | 76.66 |
| Method | LLaVA | Qwen | Llama |
|---|---|---|---|
| CoA | 83.33% (#20.17) | 86.66% (#20.00) | 85.00% (#34.33) |
| ActorAttack | 65.00%(#22.47) | 48.33%(#18.48) | 71.67%(#35.43) |
| FootInTheDoor | 75.00%(#24.47) | 50.00%(#26.87) | 85.00%(#34.50) |
| MAPA (ours) | 98.33% (#17.88) | 100.00% (#16.47) | 91.66% (#34.30) |
| Defense | LLaVA | Qwen | Llama | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AdaShield-Static | 78.33 | 58.33 | 71.66 | 69.44 |
| Llama-Guard-3-Vision-11B | 78.33 | 78.33 | 68.33 | 75.00 |
| Hyperparameter( default ) | Perturbation | LLaVA | Qwen | Llama | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| temperature redteam ( 0.3 ) | + 0.00 | + 6.67 | + 6.67 | + 4.45 | |
| + 0.00 | + 6.67 | + 3.33 | + 3.33 | ||
| temperature victim ( 0.0 ) | 0.3 | + 0.00 | + 6.67 | + 6.66 | + 4.44 |
| max_token redteam ( 2000 ) | - 6.67 | + 3.33 | + 3.33 | +0.00 | |
| - 3.34 | + 3.33 | - 3.34 | -1.12 | ||
| max_token victim ( 300 ) | - 3.34 | + 6.67 | + 0.00 | + 1.11 |
| Model | Avg. SEM (Successful) | Avg. SEM (Failed) |
|---|---|---|
| Llama | 0.6738 | 0.5773 |
| LLaVA | 0.6740 | 0.6572 |
| Qwen | 0.6735 | 0.6490 |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Adversarial Attacks on VLMs
Adversarial attacks on vision-language models exploit images, text, and multimodal interactions to manipulate outputs, bypass safety, or degrade reliability.
See all 179 papers