Multi-Paradigm Collaborative Adversarial Attack Against Multi-Modal Large Language Models
Authors: Yuanbo Li, Tianyang Xu, Cong Hu, Tao Zhou, Xiao-Jun Wu, Josef Kittler
Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science, Jiangnan University · Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing (CVSSP), University of Surrey
The rapid progress of Multi-Modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has significantly advanced downstream applications. However, this progress also exposes serious transferable adversarial vulnerabilities. In general, existing adversarial attacks against MLLMs typically rely on surrogate models trained within a single learning paradigm and perform independent optimisation in their respective feature spaces. This straightforward setting naturally restricts the richness of feature representations, delivering limits on the search space and thus impeding the diversity of adversarial perturbations. To address this, we propose a novel Multi-Paradigm Collaborative Attack (MPCAttack) framework to boost the transferability of adversarial examples against MLLMs. In principle, MPCAttack aggregates semantic representations, from both visual images and language texts, to facilitate joint adversarial optimisation on the aggregated features through a Multi-Paradigm Collaborative Optimisation (MPCO) strategy. By performing contrastive matching on multi-paradigm features, MPCO adaptively balances the importance of different paradigm representations and guides the global perturbation optimisation, effectively alleviating the representation bias. Extensive experimental results on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of MPCAttack, indicating that our solution consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods in both targeted and untargeted attacks on open-source and closed-source MLLMs. The code is released at https://github.com/LiYuanBoJNU/MPCAttack.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A comparison of the proposed MPCAttack with typical attack solutions. (a) and (b) show previous approaches based on a single learning paradigm ( e.g. , CoA [ 48 ] , FOA-Attack [ 25 ] ), while being limited by their transferability caused by restricted feature diversity and independent optimisation. (c) illustrates the core concept of MPCAttack, which integrates features from multiple learning paradigms and performs collaborative optimisation to enhance generalisation and transferability. Models and dashed ellipses in different colours represent the feature spaces of models delivered by different learning paradigms. (d) presents the attack success rates of different methods, where our MPCAttack obtains superior performance across various MLLMs consistently.
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed MPCAttack: (a) Pipeline for MPCAttack in adversarial examples generation. (b) Pipeline for attacking MLLMs.
Targeted
Victim Black-box Open-Source Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
InternVL3-8B
LLaVa-1.5-7B
GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking
Average
Methods
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
AnyAttack
0.8
0.0365
1.0
0.0323
1.2
0.0329
1.3
0.0381
1.08
0.0350
CoA
0.1
0.0232
0.2
0.0203
0.1
0.0158
0.3
0.0257
0.18
0.0213
M-Attack
17.3
0.1919
68.1
0.5361
59.9
0.4954
31.0
0.3118
44.08
0.3838
FOA-Attack
20.0
0.2222
72.3
0.5700
63.8
0.5162
38.3
0.3522
48.60
0.4152
Table 1: Performance of ASR (%) and AvgSim on open-source MLLMs across both targeted and untargeted settings on ImageNet dataset.
Targeted
Victim Black-box Closed-Source Models
GPT-4o
GPT-5
Claude-3.5
Gemini-2.0
Average
Methods
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
AnyAttack
0.8
0.0315
0.8
0.0306
0.4
0.0272
0.4
0.0202
0.6
0.0274
CoA
0.1
0.0199
0.1
0.0205
0.1
0.0207
0.2
0.0159
0.125
0.0193
M-Attack
57.6
0.4804
67.6
0.5338
3.5
0.0970
49.2
0.4148
44.48
0.3815
FOA-Attack
63.9
0.5153
69.3
0.5580
7.3
0.1105
50.4
0.4504
47.73
0.4086
Table 2: Performance of ASR (%) and AvgSim on closed-source MLLMs across both targeted and untargeted settings on ImageNet dataset.
Targeted
Victim Black-box Open-Source Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
InternVL3-8B
LLaVa-1.5-7B
GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking
Average
Methods
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
AnyAttack
1.62
0.0830
1.76
0.0765
1.52
0.0810
1.98
0.0880
1.72
0.0821
CoA
1.60
0.0828
2.04
0.0879
2.14
0.0876
1.68
0.0897
1.87
0.0870
M-Attack
3.48
0.1046
13.80
0.1915
25.66
0.3028
13.36
0.2048
14.08
0.2009
FOA-Attack
3.62
0.1071
14.34
0.2042
28.28
0.3191
15.38
0.2198
15.41
0.2126
Table 3: Performance of ASR (%) and AvgSim on open-source MLLMs across both targeted and untargeted settings on Flickr30K dataset.
Targeted
Victim Black-box Closed-Source Models
GPT-4o
GPT-5
Claude-3.5
Gemini-2.0
Average
Methods
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
AnyAttack
1.36
0.0764
1.28
0.0757
1.78
0.0671
1.60
0.0766
1.51
0.0739
CoA
1.84
0.0801
1.86
0.0809
1.58
0.0726
1.92
0.0810
1.80
0.0787
M-Attack
9.72
0.1667
9.82
0.1678
8.88
0.1528
5.00
0.1209
8.35
0.1521
FOA-Attack
10.22
0.1717
11.66
0.1855
11.70
0.1686
5.54
0.1232
9.78
0.1623
Table 4: Performance of ASR (%) and AvgSim on closed-source MLLMs across both targeted and untargeted settings on Flickr30K dataset.
Figure 3: Visualization of adversarial images and perturbations.
Figure 4: Adversarial examples generated by MPCAttack, with responses from closed-source MLLMs.
Figure 5: Ablation study for different learning paradigms and MPCO strategy.
Figure 6: Impact of weighting factor λ .
Figure 7: Evaluation prompt template.
Cross-Modal Alignment Paradigm
clip-vit-base-patch16 (main)
clip-vit-base-patch32 (main)
CLIP-ViT-G-14-laion2B-s12B-b42K (main)
siglip2-base-patch16-224 (ablation)
siglip2-base-patch32-256 (ablation)
siglip2-giant-opt-patch16-256 (ablation)
Multimodal Understanding Paradigm
InternVL3-1B (main)
Table 5: The models used by each paradigm.
Targeted
Victim Black-box Open-Source Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct
InternVL3-8B
LLaVa-1.5-7B
glm-4.1v-9b-thinking
Average
M-Attack
9.94
44.23
35.38
34.46
31.00
FOA-Attack
11.20
47.09
36.98
38.50
33.44
MPCAttack
11.88
59.81
42.29
43.39
39.34
Untargeted
Victim Black-box Open-Source Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct
InternVL3-8B
LLaVa-1.5-7B
glm-4.1v-9b-thinking
Average
Table 6: Performance of ASR (%) on open-source MLLMs across both targeted and untargeted settings on MME dataset.
Targeted
Victim Black-box Closed-Source Models
GPT-4o
GPT-5
Claude-3.5
Gemini-2.0
Average
M-Attack
53.67
27.91
4.38
25.19
27.79
FOA-Attack
55.91
30.13
6.97
31.06
31.02
MPCAttack
63.42
35.95
10.03
36.09
36.37
Untargeted
Victim Black-box Closed-Source Models
GPT-4o
GPT-5
Claude-3.5
Gemini-2.0
Average
Table 7: Performance of ASR (%) on closed-source MLLMs across both targeted and untargeted settings on MME dataset.
DiffPure
Noisy
Targeted
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
M-Attack
15.05
0.1656
27.75
0.2541
FOA-Attack
17.43
0.1849
30.85
0.2831
MPCAttack
38.50
0.3330
50.85
0.4136
Untargeted
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↓)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↓)
M-Attack
48.28
0.4410
59.23
0.3591
Table 8: The Average ASR (%) and AvgSim on four black-box open-source models under defense mechanisms and diverse settings.
Targeted
Victim Black-box Open-Source Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
InternVL3-8B
LLaVa-1.5-7B
GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking
Methods
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
M-Attack
17.3
0.1919
68.1
0.5361
59.9
0.4954
31.0
0.3118
M-Attack+Multi-Paradigm
24.2
0.2508
79.7
0.6117
69.6
0.5476
33.0
0.3088
FOA-Attack
20.0
0.2222
72.3
0.5700
63.8
0.5162
38.3
0.3522
FOA-Attack+Multi-Paradigm
32.7
0.3061
84.3
0.6454
72.9
0.5707
42.4
0.3760
Table 9: Ablation study for Multi-Paradigm.
Targeted
Victim Black-box Open-Source Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct
InternVL3-8B
LLaVa-1.5-7B
GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking
Methods
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
ASR(↑)
AvgSim(↑)
τ=0.05,ω=2
6.6
0.1306
38.1
0.3895
37.1
0.3541
21.3
0.2511
τ=0.1,ω=2
31.2
0.3081
89.7
0.6712
75.1
0.5959
60.1
0.4842
τ=0.2,ω=2
31.7
0.3051
91.3
0.6929
76.5
0.6016
62.9
0.4910
τ=0.3,ω=2
32.3
0.3140
90.9
0.6856
77.6
0.6079
59.8
0.4934
Table 10: Parameter experiments of τ and ω .
Figure 8: Visualization of adversarial images in attacking commercial MLLMs.
Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) achieve strong performance on vision-language tasks, but incorporating visual inputs through a vision encoder (e.g., CLIP) substantially expands the attack surface, making these models vulnerable to visual adversarial perturbations. Prior defenses typically preserve compatibility with pretrained MLLMs by enforcing strict alignment to CLIP's original embedding space during adversarial fine-tuning; while practical, this constraint fundamentally limits achievable robustness. We present a systematic investigation of adversarial robustness in MLLMs. We first introduce a diagnostic CLIP-alignment protocol that predicts, prior to full MLLM training, which robust vision encoders will transfer effectively to the multimodal setting, revealing that large-scale multimodal adversarial pretraining, rather than unimodal scale alone, is the critical factor for strong robustness transfer. Integrating such encoders into MLLMs via end-to-end multimodal training yields average gains of 28 CIDEr points on captioning and 11.7% VQA accuracy under strong adversarial attacks compared to constrained plug-and-play baselines. We further show that adversarial training applied directly to a standard non-robust MLLM degrades both clean and adversarial performance, establishing robust visual representations as a strict prerequisite, while end-to-end adversarial training from a robust backbone delivers additional gains of 1.9 CIDEr points and 4.3% VQA accuracy. Beyond training-time defenses, lightweight test-time visual stochastic transformations serve as an effective black-box defense for non-robust MLLMs, elevating adversarial performance from near-zero to levels comparable with robust models. Finally, we show that our robust models substantially reduce toxic generation under white-box visual jailbreak attacks. Code and pretrained weights will be released publicly.
Adversarial perturbations can mislead Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) recognize a benign image as a specific target object, posing serious risks in safety-critical scenarios such as autonomous driving and medical diagnosis. This makes transfer-based targeted attacks crucial for understanding and improving black-box MLLM robustness. Existing transfer-based targeted attack methods typically rely on the final global features of the surrogate encoder and anchor optimization to original-resolution target crops, leading to their limited transferability and robustness. To address these challenges, we propose Progressive Resolution Processing and Adaptive Feature Alignment (PRAF-Attack), a targeted transfer-based attack framework that integrates multi-scale global semantic guidance with robust intermediate-layer local alignment. Unlike prior methods that align only the surrogate encoder's final layer, we design an adaptive feature alignment strategy that leverages intermediate representations to enhance transferability. Specifically, we introduce an adaptive intermediate layer selection mechanism to identify transferable hierarchical features across surrogate ensembles via gradient consistency, along with an adaptive patch-level optimization strategy that preserves highly correlated local regions through efficient patch filtering. To overcome the reliance on fixed original-resolution target crops, we propose a progressive resolution processing strategy that gradually refines optimization from coarse to fine, enabling the attack to better exploit target information at multiple scales and achieve stronger transferability. We evaluate PRAF-Attack on a diverse suite of black-box MLLMs, including six open-source models and six closed-source commercial APIs. Compared with seven state-of-the-art targeted attack baselines, the proposed PRAF-Attack consistently achieves superior transferability.
Haobo Wang, Xiaorong Ma, Weiqi Luo +2
Sun Yat-sen University, China · Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Shenzhen MSU-BIT University, China
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) integrate information from multiple modalities such as text, images, audio, and video, enabling complex capabilities such as visual question answering and audio translation. While powerful, this increased expressiveness introduces new and amplified vulnerabilities to adversarial manipulation. This survey provides a comprehensive and systematic analysis of adversarial threats to MLLMs, moving beyond enumerating attack techniques to explain the underlying causes of model susceptibility. We introduce a taxonomy that organizes adversarial attacks according to attacker objectives, unifying diverse attack surfaces across modalities and deployment settings. Additionally, we also present a vulnerability-centric analysis that links integrity attacks, safety and jailbreak failures, control and instruction hijacking, and training-time poisoning to shared architectural and representational weaknesses in multimodal systems. Together, this framework provides an explanatory foundation for understanding adversarial behavior in MLLMs and informs the development of more robust and secure multimodal language systems.