Visual Self-Fulfilling Alignment: Shaping Safety-Oriented Personas via Threat-Related Images
Authors: Qishun Yang, Shu Yang, Lijie Hu, Di Wang
Organizations: King Abdullah University of Science and Technology · Provable Responsible AI and Data Analytics Lab · China University of Petroleum-Beijing at Karamay · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) face safety misalignment, where visual inputs enable harmful outputs. To address this, existing methods require explicit safety labels or contrastive data; yet, threat-related concepts are concrete and visually depictable, while safety concepts, like helpfulness, are abstract and lack visual referents. Inspired by the Self-Fulfilling mechanism underlying emergent misalignment, we propose Visual Self-Fulfilling Alignment (VSFA). VSFA fine-tunes vision-language models (VLMs) on neutral VQA tasks constructed around threat-related images, without any safety labels. Through repeated exposure to threat-related visual content, models internalize the implicit semantics of vigilance and caution, shaping safety-oriented personas. Experiments across multiple VLMs and safety benchmarks demonstrate that VSFA reduces the attack success rate, improves response quality, and mitigates over-refusal while preserving general capabilities. Our work extends the self-fulfilling mechanism from text to visual modalities, offering a label-free approach to VLMs alignment.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the VSFA framework. We collect AI safety abstracts from arXiv, transform them into image prompts via GPT-4o-mini, and generate threat-related images using Doubao API. Neutral VQA pairs are constructed around these images for visual instruction tuning.
Model
Method
FigStep
MM-SafetyBench
SPA-VL
Avg.
ASR ↓
CS ↑
ASR ↓
CS ↑
ASR ↓
CS ↑
ASR ↓
CS ↑
Qwen3-VL-8B
No Defense
32.40
0.12
38.63
0.09
45.28
0.11
38.77
0.11
AdaShield †
2.40
0.04
8.57
0.03
32.45
0.05
14.47
0.04
VLGuard ‡
3.80
0.32
10.83
0.29
28.49
0.31
14.37
0.31
VSFA (Ours)
5.60
0.51
14.29
0.48
22.64
0.52
14.18
0.50
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
No Defense
35.60
0.14
42.26
0.11
48.49
0.13
42.12
0.13
Table 1: Safety performance comparison across different defense methods. We report Attack Success Rate (ASR ↓ ) and Constructive Score (CS ↑ ) for each benchmark. CS measures the balance between safety compliance and user-centric helpfulness Duan et al. (2025) . Best in bold , second best underlined .
Model
Defense
Multimodal Capabilities ↑
Refusal Rate ↓
Rec
OCR
Know
Gen
Spat
Math
Total
Qwen3-VL-8B
AdaShield
46.2
60.5
28.8
33.5
57.9
14.2
44.8
24.82
VLGuard
54.5
63.2
40.8
42.6
57.5
28.5
51.7
8.95
VSFA (Ours)
53.2
62.8
39.5
41.2
59.5
27.2
51.0
2.62
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
AdaShield
43.7
58.6
25.6
31.1
58.1
12.5
42.7
26.15
VLGuard
50.2
60.8
37.1
39.5
56.3
25.8
48.6
10.82
Table 2: Over-refusal evaluation on MM-Vet. We report multimodal capabilities ( ↑ ) and refusal rate on benign queries ( ↓ ).
Figure 2: Ablation study on fine-tuning modality. We compare three variants: Image (threat-related images with neutral VQA), Text (text-only safety data), and Mixed (combination of both). (a) Attack Success Rate across four models. (b) Constructive Score across four models.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Search Terms
AI safety alignment
AI risk existential
artificial intelligence threat
AI alignment problem
AI safety research
machine learning safety
AI control problem
AGI risk
AI alignment failure
AI safety measures
Appendix
Table 3: The complete arXiv search terms used for text collection. We retrieve up to 5 papers per term from categories cs.AI, cs.LG, cs.CY, and cs.CR.
Visual Styles
Photorealistic
Digital art
Concept art
Technical illustration
Documentary style
Abstract representation
Cinematic
Artistic
Professional
Casual
Futuristic
Vintage
Appendix
Table 4: The 12 visual styles applied during image generation. We combine these styles with scene environments to maximize visual diversity across the dataset.
Scene Environments
Office/Workplace
Laboratory
Public space
Home environment
Industrial setting
Educational
Medical
Research facility
Urban
Rural
Indoor
Outdoor
Virtual
Mixed reality
Studio
Appendix
Table 5: The 15 scene environments used for image composition. Each environment provides different visual context for threat-related content.
Statistic
Value
Total images
700
Total VQA pairs
4,200
VQA pairs per image
6
Image resolution
1024 × 1024
Question categories
4
Question templates
16
Appendix
Table 6: Summary statistics of the VSFA dataset. We generate 6 neutral VQA pairs per image using 16 question templates across 4 categories.
Metric
Words
Mean
85
Median
78
Min
25
Max
180
Std
32
Appendix
Table 7: Answer length statistics in word count. The answers maintain moderate length suitable for visual instruction tuning.
Dimension
Evaluation Guidelines
Neutrality
The question should not suggest any specific answer. We check for value-laden words like “dangerous”, “harmful”, or “threatening”. The question should avoid safety-related terms like “threat”, “warning”, or “caution”. A neutral question asks about facts in the image. It does not ask for opinions or value judgments. VSFA relies on implicit learning from visual content. Explicit safety terms would confound this learning process.
Clarity
The question should have one clear meaning. Ambiguous questions create confusion in training. The answer should directly address the question. Both should use correct grammar with clear subjects and verbs. The answer should use specific terms instead of vague words like “something” or “stuff”. Clear QA pairs provide strong training signals.
Consistency
The answer should not contradict itself. If one sentence describes “a dark room”, later sentences should not mention “bright sunlight”. All descriptions should match what appears in the image. The model should not describe objects that are not visible. The reasoning should follow a logical order. In multi-turn dialogues, answers should stay consistent across turns.
Appendix
Table 8: Evaluation criteria for QA quality control. Each dimension is scored on a 0-10 scale. We discard samples with overall score below 6.0.
Figure 3: Bidirectional steering effects of top SAE latents. Bars below zero show ASR reduction from adding the latent to the original model. Bars above zero show ASR increase from removing it from the VSFA model. Latent #12 shows the strongest effect in both directions ( − 18%/+14%), confirming it as the primary safety-oriented persona latent.
Teacher Model
Images
QA Pairs
Avg. Length
ASR (%) ↓
Baseline (no fine-tuning)
–
–
–
35.6
GPT-4o-mini (ours)
60
360
659 chars
12.0
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
60
360
1,322 chars
22.2
Gemini-3-pro
60
360
2,467 chars
28.8
GPT-5
60
360
769 chars
22.8
Appendix
Table 9: FigStep ASR across teacher models on Qwen2.5-VL-7B. All models use 60 images and about 360 QA pairs. Lower ASR means safer.
Visual Style
Images
FigStep ASR (%) ↓
No Defense (baseline)
0
35.6
Photorealistic
50
12.8
Digital art
50
13.1
Concept art
50
12.4
Technical illustration
50
13.7
Documentary style
50
11.9
Appendix
Table 10: Visual style ablation on Qwen2.5-VL-7B. Each row is a separate training run using 50 images of one style. Lower ASR means safer.
Benchmark
Baseline
VSFA
Diff
MMLU
68.52%
68.13%
− 0.39%
MMMU
50.56%
50.11%
− 0.45%
Appendix
Table 11: General capability evaluation on Qwen2.5-VL-7B before and after VSFA training.
Model
Size
Baseline ASR
VSFA ASR
Diff
Gemma 3 IT
4B
37.0%
7.2%
− 29.8%
Llama 3.2 Vision
11B
49.8%
17.6%
− 32.2%
Appendix
Table 12: VSFA on additional model families. Each model is trained with only 60 images. Lower ASR means safer.
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in vision-language reasoning tasks, yet ensuring their safety remains a critical challenge. Recent input-side defenses detect unsafe images with CLIP and prepend safety prefixes to prompts, but they still suffer from inaccurate detection in complex scenes and unstable safety signals during decoding. To address these issues, we propose GuardAlign, a training-free defense framework that integrates two strategies. First, OT-enhanced safety detection leverages optimal transport to measure distribution distances between image patches and unsafe semantics, enabling accurate identification of malicious regions without additional computational cost. Second, cross-modal attentive calibration strengthens the influence of safety prefixes by adaptively reallocating attention across layers, ensuring that safety signals remain consistently activated throughout generation. Extensive evaluations on six representative MLLMs demonstrate that GuardAlign reduces unsafe response rates by up to 39% on SPA-VL, while preserving utility, achieving an improvement on VQAv2 from 78.51% to 79.21%.
Xingyu Zhu, Beier Zhu, Junfeng Fang +4
MoE Key Lab of BIPC, University of Science and Technology of China · Nanyang Technological University · National University of Singapore +1
The visual modality of vision-language models (VLMs) is an underexplored attack surface for bypassing safety alignment. We introduce four jailbreak attacks exploiting the vision component: (1) encoding harmful instructions as visual symbol sequences with a decoding legend, (2) replacing harmful objects with benign substitutes (e.g., bomb -> banana) then prompting for harmful actions using the substitute term, (3) replacing harmful text in images (e.g., on book covers) with benign words while visual context preserves the original meaning, and (4) visual analogy puzzles whose solution requires inferring a prohibited concept. Evaluating across six frontier VLMs, our visual attacks bypass safety alignment and expose a cross-modality alignment gap: text-based safety training does not automatically generalize to harmful intent conveyed visually. For example, our visual cipher achieves 40.9% attack success on Claude-Haiku-4.5 versus 10.7% for an equivalent textual cipher. To further our insight into the attack mechanism, we present preliminary interpretability and mitigation results. These findings highlight that robust VLM alignment requires treating vision as a first-class target for safety post-training.
Aharon Azulay, Jan Dubiński, Zhuoyun Li +2
Independent · NASK National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland · Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland +3
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that exploit visual inputs to bypass safety alignment inherited from their language backbones. We propose SafeCap, a reinforcement-learning framework that aligns LVLMs through learned self-captioning. SafeCap trains a policy model to first generate a safety-relevant image caption and then produce a final answer; the caption is further optimized by whether it enables a frozen LLM to reach a safety-aligned decision. This caption-mediated objective encourages the policy to expose visual cues relevant to safe response generation rather than relying solely on direct refusal supervision. Across five multimodal safety benchmarks and six vision-utility benchmarks, SafeCap substantially improves aggregate safety performance under its intended DirectCap protocol, with gains of 3.7-19.0 points in safety average across four model settings while maintaining comparable or improved vision utility. Under controlled comparisons on matched backbones and data, SafeCap outperforms safety SFT, DPO, and SafeGRPO, demonstrating the effectiveness of caption-mediated reinforcement learning for multimodal safety alignment.
Caoyuan Ma, Wenpu Liu, Weichu Xie +12
The University of Tokyo · Peking University · Wuhan University +4