Existing jailbreak defence frameworks for Large Vision-Language Models often suffer from a safety utility tradeoff, where strengthening safety inadvertently degrades performance on general visual-grounded reasoning tasks. In this work, we investigate whether safety and utility are inherently antagonistic objectives. We focus on a modality induced bias direction consistently observed across datasets, which arises from suboptimal coupling between the Large Language Model backbone and visual encoders. We further demonstrate that this direction undermines performance on both tasks. Leveraging this insight, we propose Two Birds, One Projection, an efficient inference time jailbreak defence that projects cross-modal features onto the null space of the identified bias direction to remove the corresponding components. Requiring only a single forward pass, our method effectively breaks the conventional tradeoff, simultaneously improving both safety and utility across diverse benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Trade-off Between Safety and Utility Observed in LVLM Defense Methods. By effectively eliminating the shared performance underlying direction, our approach generates safe and useful responses, thereby overcoming the conventional tradeoffs.
Figure 2: Consistent Modality-induced Bias Across Safety and Utility in LVLMs . (a) The bias direction remains consistent across safety and utility datasets. (b) Reinforcing the bias along either bsafe or butil in cross-modal features causes substantial performance degradation in both tasks. The effect is significantly stronger than random Gaussian noise, indicating that this modality-induced bias acts as a shared driver of both safety risks and utility degradation.
Method
Safety ( ↓ )
Utility ( ↑ )
MMSB
HADES
MM-VET
MME
Vanilla
38.86
39.06
41.91
1715.13
CMRM
25.02
32.30
41.11
1814.89
Ours
5.09
5.48
43.98
1870.17
Table 1: Limitated Performance Gains of the Steering-based Approach in Safety and Utility Tasks. Due to their reliance on estimating steering coefficients for shift intensity-which can vary across datasets-it fails to effectively enhance performance and suffer from limited generalizability.
Model
Method
Safety (↓)
Utility (↑)
MMSB
HADES
MM-Vet
ScienceQA
MME
LLAVA 7B
Vanilla
38.86
39.06
41.91
57.20
1715.13
Protector
7.48
16.13
37.15
48.13
725.39
Immune
9.39
14.53
21.18
41.26
1394.69
ECSO
8.48
12.00
41.31
54.16
1601.56
ETA
8.34
3.47
40.10
56.50
1698.52
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Safety and Utility Performance on LLaVA-7B and 13B . Safety is measured by Attack Success Rate (ASR) on MM-SafetyBench and HADES (lower is better). Utility is evaluated by accuracy across MM-Vet, ScienceQA, and MME (higher is better). The best and second-best results within each model scale are highlighted in bold and underlined, respectively.
Figure 3: Category-wise Performance Comparison Across Safety and Utility Tasks . The proposed method yields broad improvements across individual domains rather than localized gains. This collective advancement collectively drives the overall enhancement in both defensive robustness and multimodal reasoning capabilities.
Figure 4: Performance Gain Across LVLM Backbones over Vanilla. Ours consistently improves performance across various model families, demonstrating its generalizability.
Method
7B
13B
Vanilla
27.2
20.4
MLLP
7.2
3.8
+ Ours
3.8 (-3.4)
0.8 (-3.0)
Immune
7.6
4.8
+ Ours
4.2 (-3.4)
4.4 (-0.4)
ECSO
16.8
11.6
Table 3: Synergetic Effects with TBOP under SI-Attack on FigStep.
Figure 5: Efficiency Comparison of Response Refinement Strategies. Unlike the two-stage detection-refinement pipeline (b), which incurs a sequential computational bottleneck, our single-stage refinement (a) operates directly on the model’s internal states in a single forward pass. As shown in (c), TBOP runs about 60 × faster than the second-best baseline (ETA), demonstrating strong scalability.
Figure 6: Impacts of TBOP in Feature Space. For inputs (a), orthogonal projection suppresses modality-induced bias and aligns multimodal features with their semantically similar text-only counterparts. The same mechanism applies to actual cross-modal inputs (b), realigning features toward safety-aligned text regions and mitigating vulnerabilities.
Figure 7: Response Examples on MM-Vet spatial reasoning between the vanilla and TBOP (Ours).
Table 4: Ablation studies on key design choices of TBOP .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8: Consistency of modality-induced bias across LVLM backbones. The cosine similarities between the bias vectors bsafe and butil are 0.62 and 0.60 respectively.
Figure 9: Impact of amplifying modality-induced bias of cross-modal features for safety- and utility-related inputs. Reinforcing the bias simultaneously weakens jailbreak defense mechanisms and degrades the visual-grounded reasoning capabilities of LVLM.
Benchmark
#Questions
#Scenarios
Ans. format
Metric range
MM-SafetyBench
1680
13
Open-ended
[0, 100] %
HADES
750
5
Open-ended
[0, 100] %
FIGSTEP
500
10
Open-ended
[0, 100] %
Appendix
Table 5: Statistics of safety benchmarks used in our experiment. The metric range indicates the lowest/highest metric score. The lower is the better.
Benchmark
#Questions
#Tasks
Ans. format
Metric range
MM-Vet
218
6
Open-ended
[0, 100] %
ScienceQA
4241
8
Single-choices
[0, 100] %
MME
2374
14
Yes/No
[0, 2000]/[0, 800]
Appendix
Table 6: Statistics of the utility benchmarks used in our experiments. Metric ranges denote the minimum and maximum scores. For MME, the ranges correspond to its two subcategories: Perception and Cognition.
Model
Method
Illegal
Hate
Malware
Physical
Economic
Fraud
Sex
Politics
Privacy
Legal
Finance
Health
Govt.
Avg.
LLaVA 7B
Vanilla
79.49
24.43
55.56
60.34
12.24
65.32
13.64
0.00
59.82
8.65
0.00
9.09
0.00
29.89
MLLM-Protector [ 32 ]
8.97
0.00
13.89
12.07
3.06
6.45
3.41
0.00
11.61
2.88
0.00
12.50
0.00
5.76
ECSO [ 12 ]
16.67
17.56
8.33
2.59
5.10
17.74
6.82
4.88
0.89
0.00
4.48
9.09
0.00
7.24
Immune [ 10 ]
15.38
9.16
19.44
14.66
2.04
10.48
3.41
0.00
9.82
3.85
2.24
5.68
0.00
7.40
ETA [ 6 ]
11.54
2.29
13.89
12.07
6.12
11.29
0.00
1.63
8.93
4.81
1.49
12.50
0.00
6.66
Ours
10.26
0.76
8.33
6.90
0.00
9.68
4.55
0.00
7.14
0.96
0.00
2.27
0.00
3.91
Appendix
Table 7: Jailbreaking defense performance comparison on MM-SafetyBench across various safety-related categories evaluated by LLaMA-Guard-4. All values represent percentages (%). A lower Attack Success Rate (ASR) indicates better defense performance. Bold values indicate the best ASR within each category among the inference-time frameworks, while underlined values denote the second-best.
Figure 10: Qualitative Analysis of TBOP on MM-SafetyBench.
Model
Method
Inference Time Per Token
Peak Memory
MM-Safety
MM-Vet
MM-Safety
MM-Vet
LLaVA 7B
Vanilla
0.04
0.04
14.73
14.31
ECSO
0.29 (×7.9)
0.06 (×1.3)
14.92 (×1.0)
14.36 (×1.0)
Immune
0.08 (×2.0)
0.07 (×1.6)
28.70 (×1.9)
28.37 (×2.0)
ETA
2.23 (×60.8)
0.13 (×2.8)
43.89 (×3.0)
33.69 (×2.4)
Ours
0.04 (×1.0)
0.05 (×1.0)
14.73 (×1.0)
14.31 (×1.0)
Appendix
Table 8: Computational and Memory efficiency measured by inference time per token (seconds ↓ ) and peak memory usage (GB ↓ ). Values in parentheses indicate the ratio relative to the vanilla model for each baseline. Bold values indicate the best efficiency within each dataset among jailbreak defense strategies.
Figure 11: Effectiveness of TBOP approach on the HADES blank setting for LLaVA 7B and 13B.
ϵ=64/255
Unconstrained
Model
Method
Perplexity
Detoxify
Perplexity
Detoxify
LLaVA 7B
Vanilla
82.32
80.05
77.98
74.54
Ours
78.07
76.04
74.64
72.70
LLaVA 13B
Vanilla
60.63
57.10
59.97
56.59
Ours
59.97
56.59
59.55
56.09
Appendix
Table 9: Jailbreaking defense performance on Visual Adversarial Attacks [ 33 ] . We report ASR (%) on images optimized with varying levels of adversarial noise, denoted by ϵ , with “unconstrained” representing the most challenging scenario.
Large vision-language models (VLMs) often exhibit weakened safety alignment with the integration of the visual modality. Even when text prompts contain explicit harmful intent, adding an image can substantially increase jailbreak success rates. In this paper, we observe that VLMs can clearly distinguish benign inputs from harmful ones in their representation space. Moreover, even among harmful inputs, jailbreak samples form a distinct internal state that is separable from refusal samples. These observations suggest that jailbreaks do not arise from a failure to recognize harmful intent. Instead, the visual modality shifts representations toward a specific jailbreak state, thereby leading to a failure to trigger refusal. To quantify this transition, we identify a jailbreak direction and define the jailbreak-related shift as the component of the image-induced representation shift along this direction. Our analysis shows that the jailbreak-related shift reliably characterizes jailbreak behavior, providing a unified explanation for diverse jailbreak scenarios. Finally, we propose a defense method that enhances VLM safety by removing the jailbreak-related shift (JRS-Rem) at inference time. Experiments show that JRS-Rem provides strong defense across multiple scenarios while preserving performance on benign tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/LeeQueue513/JRS-Rem.
Zhihua Wei, Qiang Li, Jian Ruan +4
School of Computer Science and Technology, Tongji University · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
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) rely on attention-based retrieval of safety instructions to maintain alignment during generation. Existing attacks typically optimize image perturbations to maximize harmful output likelihood, but suffer from slow convergence due to gradient conflict between adversarial objectives and the model's safety-retrieval mechanism. We propose Attention-Guided Visual Jailbreaking, which circumvents rather than overpowers safety alignment by directly manipulating attention patterns. Our method introduces two simple auxiliary objectives: (1) suppressing attention to alignment-relevant prefix tokens and (2) anchoring generation on adversarial image features. This simple yet effective push-pull formulation reduces gradient conflict by 45% and achieves 94.4% attack success rate on Qwen-VL (vs. 68.8% baseline) with 40% fewer iterations. At tighter perturbation budgets (ε=8/255), we maintain 59.0% ASR compared to 45.7% for standard methods. Mechanistic analysis reveals a failure mode we term safety blindness: successful attacks suppress system-prompt attention by 80%, causing models to generate harmful content not by overriding safety rules, but by failing to retrieve them.
Jingru Li, Wei Ren, Tianqing Zhu
China University of Geosciences, Wuhan · City University of Macau