Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) can be vulnerable to adversarial images that subtly bias their outputs toward plausible yet incorrect responses. We introduce a general, efficient, and training-free defense that combines image transformations with agentic data consolidation to recover correct model behavior. A key component of our approach is a two-stage detection mechanism that quickly filters out the majority of clean inputs. We first assess image consistency under content-preserving transformations at negligible computational cost. For more challenging cases, we examine discrepancies in a text-embedding space. Only when necessary do we invoke a powerful LLM to resolve attack-induced divergences. A key idea is to consolidate multiple responses, leveraging both their similarities and their differences. We show that our method achieves state-of-the-art accuracy while maintaining notable efficiency: most clean images skip costly processing, and even in the presence of numerous adversarial examples, the overhead remains minimal.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: LVLM defense. The output of the unprotected LVLM is incorrect (shown in red ). In VALD, we generate multiple captions for transformed images ( r1 – rk ), each containing both correct content (black) and incorrect content ( orange ). VALD aggregates information across these captions to produce a final refined caption ( green ).
Figure 2: Architecture. VALD consists of four stages. First, a set of content-preserving transformations is applied to the input for early detection; clean images bypass the process and return the original LVLM response ( r0 ). If a potential attack is detected, responses are generated for the transformed images. Next, a late detection stage analyzes these responses to identify additional clean cases. Finally, when an attack is deemed highly likely, an LLM consolidates the responses to produce the final output. Green arrows denote inputs detected as clean, while red arrows indicate those still suspected to be adversarial.
Model
Attack
Off
SVLM
SVLM
VALD
Ours
(ours)
LLaVA
Clean
0.722
0.713
0.722
0.723
MF-ii
0.268
0.679
0.703
0.716
MixAttk
0.440
0.653
0.685
0.701
M-Attack
0.360
0.667
0.654
0.673
MiniGPT
Clean
0.703
0.680
0.690
0.705
Table 1: Captioning results on MS-COCO. VALD outperforms the baselines under all three attacks on three models according to the SentenceBERT score.
Model
Attack
Acc
Precision
Recall
LLaVA
Clean
0.960
0
N/A
MF-ii
0.998
1
0.998
MixAttack
0.991
1
0.991
M-Attack
0.995
1
0.995
MiniGPT
Clean
0.954
0
N/A
MF-ii
0.999
1
0.999
Table 2: Detection results. The vast majority of clean images are correctly identified, with few adversarial images misclassified as clean images.
Figure 3: Qualitative results. Although the attacked images (b) appear nearly identical to the originals (a), the LVLM incorrectly captions them (c). In contrast, our model successfully defends against the attack and generates accurate captions (c). The images were attacked via Zhao et al. (2023) . See Appendix C for additional results.
Attack
Off
FARE
VALD
Clean
0.722
0.672
0.723
MF-ii
0.268
0.570
0.716
MixAttack
0.440
0.586
0.701
M-Attack
0.360
0.517
0.673
Table 3: Comparison with training-based defense. VALD significantly outperforms FARE while maintaining clean performance.
Method
Case
Runtime (s)
VALD
Best
1.9
VALD
Worst
22.9
SmoothVLM
Always
52.7
Table 4: Runtime (sec/image). When clean images are detected by the early detection, VALD is 27× faster than SmoothVLM; when the entire defense is applied, it remains 2× faster. Notably, ∼95% of clean images are filtered at the early stage.
Figure 4: Consolidation process explanation. The following elements are mentioned by most captions and form the basis of the final consolidated description: a snow-covered park or forest, a wooden bench, trees, and the bench being covered in snow. Conversely, the following details either conflict with the majority or appear only sporadically; therefore, they are treated as inconsistent and omitted from the final caption: a coconut beauty product, a bird on the bench, a green object on the tree, and a black-and-white filter.
Figure 5: Qualitative results. Although the attacked images (b) appear nearly identical to the originals (a), the LVLM incorrectly captions them (c). In contrast, our model successfully defends against the attack and generates accurate captions (c). The images were attacked via Zhao et al. (2023) .
Figure 6: Example of a failure case in the consolidation process. Most transformed views hallucinate a third motorcycle, causing the consolidated caption to mistake.
Model
Attack
Off
VALD
Always On
LLaVA
Clean
0.722
0.723
0.733
MF-ii
0.268
0.716
0.716
MixAttk
0.440
0.701
0.701
M-Attack
0.360
0.673
0.673
MiniGPT
Clean
0.703
0.705
0.726
MF-ii
0.217
0.706
0.706
Appendix
Table 6: Defense performance with and without detection. Enabling detection preserves VALD defense performance, yielding results nearly identical to always applying the defense.
ϵ
Attack
Off
FARE
VALD
Clean
0.722
0.672
0.723
8
MF-ii
0.282
0.617
0.726
MixAttack
0.603
0.644
0.720
M-Attack
0.429
0.671
0.702
16
MF-ii
0.268
0.570
0.716
MixAttack
0.440
0.586
0.701
Appendix
Table 7: Robustness under different perturbation budget ( ϵ ). VALD consistently outperforms the adversarially trained baseline FARE, with a larger performance gap at higher perturbation levels.
Stage
Runtime (Average)
Caption generation (Defense off)
1.8
Caption generation with ED (Best Case)
1.9
LVLM querying
18.0
Late Detector
0.2
Response generation
2.8
VALD total runtime (Worst Case)
22.9
Appendix
Table 8: Runtime breakdown (sec / image). Images filtered by the Early Detector (ED) correspond to the best case runtime, while the worst case occurs when images pass through the full pipeline.
Attack
Clean %
Acc
Rec
Prec
Time
MF-ii
50
0.979
0.998
0.962
12.8
MF-ii
95
0.962
1
0.568
3.8
MixAttk
50
0.973
0.992
0.956
12.9
MixAttk
95
0.961
1
0.562
3.8
M-Attack
50
0.979
0.994
0.965
12.8
M-Attack
95
0.962
1
0.568
3.8
Appendix
Table 9: Runtime as a function of clean images percentage. Average runtime decreases as the proportion of clean images increases.
Model
Attack
Off
SVLM
SVLM
VALD
Acc
Prec
Rec
Ours
(ours)
LLaVA
Clean
0.713
0.690
0.704
0.722
0.55
0
N/A
MF-ii
0.213
0.642
0.694
0.710
1
1
1
MixAttk
0.382
0.608
0.643
0.664
1
1
1
M-Attack
0.347
0.651
0.652
0.663
0.98
1
0.98
Appendix
Table 10: Captioning and detection results on the Flickr8k Expert dataset. VALD surpasses the SVLM baseline in captioning performance while correctly detecting nearly all adversarial images.
Crop
Pixel masking
JPEG
Blur
Attack
95%
90%
85%
10%
15%
20%
30
40
50
5
7
9
Clean
0.722
0.722
0.722
0.726
0.725
0.724
0.723
0.722
0.722
0.722
0.722
0.723
MF-ii
0.716
0.716
0.713
0.694
0.693
0.689
0.722
0.718
0.712
0.700
0.718
0.718
MixAttack
0.697
0.693
0.688
0.672
0.677
0.676
0.707
0.696
0.675
0.677
0.713
0.716
M-Attack
0.359
0.359
0.360
0.687
0.686
0.680
0.701
0.679
0.653
0.600
0.697
0.707
Appendix
Table 12: Transformation parameter ablation. For cropping and pixel masking, performance is best when most of the original image is preserved, whereas for JPEG compression and blur, stronger transformations provide better robustness.
Model
ϵ
Off
SVLM
SVLM
VALD
Ours
(ours)
Clean
–
0.722
0.713
0.722
0.723
MF-ii
8
0.282
0.684
0.712
0.726
16
0.268
0.679
0.703
0.716
24
0.262
0.665
0.695
0.704
MixAttack
8
0.603
0.683
0.704
0.720
Appendix
Table 11: Impact of perturbation. Increasing noise degrades performance without defense (Off), while our defense improves robustness and increasingly outperforms SmoothVLM (SVLM).
Vision-language model robustness studies whether models remain reliable under visual, textual, and distribution shifts, adversarial inputs, and safety challenges.
Vision-language models (VLMs) are vulnerable to adversarial image perturbations. Existing works based on adversarial training against task-specific adversarial examples are computationally expensive and often fail to generalize to unseen attack types. To address these limitations, we introduce Paraphrase-Decomposition-Aggregation (PDA), a training-free defense framework that leverages text augmentation to enhance VLM robustness under diverse adversarial image attacks. PDA performs prompt paraphrasing, question decomposition, and consistency aggregation entirely at test time, thus requiring no modification on the underlying models. To balance robustness and efficiency, we instantiate PDA as invariants that reduce the inference cost while retaining most of its robustness gains. Experiments on multiple VLM architectures and benchmarks for visual question answering, classification, and captioning show that PDA achieves consistent robustness gains against various adversarial perturbations while maintaining competitive clean accuracy, establishing a generic, strong and practical defense framework for VLMs during inference.
Jingning Xu, Haochen Luo, Chen Liu
Department of Computer Science City University of Hong Kong
Image inputs enable Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) to perceive fine-grained visual information, but also introduce a pixel-level attack surface through which adversarial perturbations can elicit unsafe model behaviors. However, most existing defenses are designed for traditional computer vision settings and thus often overlook the cross-modal alignment required by LVLMs, leading to degraded performance. Meanwhile, the limited defenses tailored to LVLMs often require substantial image modifications and introduce considerable computational overhead, thereby compromising inference quality and efficiency. To address these limitations, we propose Structure-Induced Guided Neutralization (SIGN), a lightweight, plug-and-play defense framework that improves LVLM compatibility via Prior Structural Extraction and achieves efficient perturbation suppression via Dynamic Guided Neutralization. Extensive experiments show that SIGN achieves over 87% defense success rate with only 0.5% pixel modification and 0.16 seconds per image, while nearly preserving original visual representations and benign task performance. Our work offers a lightweight alternative to defenses that require costly model training and highlights the potential of exploiting a vision encoder for efficient adversarial protection. Our code is open source on https://anonymous.4open.science/r/SIGN-BCB1.
Yuanhe Zhang, Xueting Wang, YanBin Ren +6
1Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · University of Science and Technology of China · 3JIUTIAN Research +2
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are foundational to modern multimodal applications, yet their susceptibility to adversarial attacks remains a critical concern. Prior white-box attacks rarely generalize across tasks, and black-box methods depend on expensive transfer, which limits efficiency. The vision encoder, standardized and often shared across LVLMs, provides a stable gray-box pivot with strong cross-model transfer. Building on this premise, we introduce PA-Attack (Prototype-Anchored Attentive Attack). PA-Attack begins with a prototype-anchored guidance that provides a stable attack direction towards a general and dissimilar prototype, tackling the attribute-restricted issue and limited task generalization of vanilla attacks. Building on this, we propose a two-stage attention enhancement mechanism: (i) leverage token-level attention scores to concentrate perturbations on critical visual tokens, and (ii) adaptively recalibrate attention weights to track the evolving attention during the adversarial process. Extensive experiments across diverse downstream tasks and LVLM architectures show that PA-Attack achieves an average 75.1% score reduction rate (SRR), demonstrating strong attack effectiveness, efficiency, and task generalization in LVLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/hefeimei06/PA-Attack.
Hefei Mei, Zirui Wang, Chang Xu +2
City University of Hong Kong · The University of Sydney