UniSAFE: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Unified Multimodal Models
Authors: Segyu Lee, Boryeong Cho, Hojung Jung, Seokhyun An, Juhyeong Kim, Jaehyun Kwak, Yongjin Yang, Sangwon Jang, Youngrok Park, Wonjun Chang, Se-Young Yun
Organizations: KAIST AI · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, UNIST · Department of Mathematical Sciences, KAIST · University of Toronto · KAIST CS
Unified Multimodal Models (UMMs) offer powerful cross-modality capabilities but introduce new safety risks not observed in single-task models. Despite their emergence, existing safety benchmarks remain fragmented across tasks and modalities, limiting the comprehensive evaluation of complex system-level vulnerabilities. To address this gap, we introduce UniSAFE, the first comprehensive benchmark for system-level safety evaluation of UMMs across 7 I/O modality combinations, spanning conventional tasks and novel multimodal-context image generation settings. UniSAFE is built with a shared-target design that projects common risk scenarios across task-specific I/O configurations, enabling controlled cross-task comparisons of safety failures. Comprising 6,802 curated instances, we use UniSAFE to evaluate 15 state-of-the-art UMMs, both proprietary and open-source. Our results reveal critical vulnerabilities across current UMMs, including elevated safety violations in multi-image composition and multi-turn settings, with image-output tasks consistently more vulnerable than text-output tasks. These findings highlight the need for stronger system-level safety alignment for UMMs. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/segyulee/UniSAFE
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Examples of outputs generated by UniSAFE. Our benchmark consists of risk scenarios centered on a common target across 7 distinct task types, enabling evaluation across diverse risk settings.
Method
Image output
Text output
TI
IE
IC
MT
TT
IT
MU
T2ISafety [ 39 ]
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
InpaintGuardBench [ 18 ]
✗
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
CoJ-Bench [ 77 ]
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
✗
SALAD-Bench [ 38 ]
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
SafeBench [ 26 ]
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
✗
Table 1: Task coverage comparison across 7 tasks (detailed description in C.1 ): TI (Text-to-Image), IE (Image Editing), IC (Image Composition), MT (Multi-Turn image editing), TT (Text-to-Text), IT (Image-to-Text), and MU (Multimodal Understanding). Unlike existing safety benchmarks, UniSAFE covers all tasks.
Figure 2: Overview of the UniSAFE three-step data construction pipeline: (1) collect unsafe triggers across threat categories, (2) expand them into contextual target descriptions, and (3) instantiate shared, multimodal task-specific risk scenarios for safety evaluation of UMMs.
Figure 3: Taxonomy of safety categories for image and text modalities.
UMM
Image output
Text output
TI
IE
IC
MT
TT
IT
MU
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
GPT-5 [ 52 ]
26.4
0.78
29.0
0.96
34.8
1.27
31.3
0.97
6.2
0.47
5.5
0.42
12.7
0.82
Gemini-2.5 [ 19 ]
44.0
1.32
51.6
1.72
43.5
1.62
53.9
1.73
36.4
1.35
26.5
1.03
36.0
1.42
Qwen-Image [ 82 ]
73.1
2.18
57.4
1.93
-
-
53.9
1.87
-
-
-
-
-
-
Qwen2.5-VL [ 5 ]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
48.7
1.72
47.3
1.68
43.6
1.71
Table 2: Safety evaluation of 14 UMMs (12 open-sourced and 2 commercial ones) under 7 major tasks. Results are shown in Attack Success Rate (ASR, %) and Average Risk Rating (ARR, 0-3). ‘TI’: Text-to-Image, ‘IE’: Image Editing, ‘IC’: Image Composition, ‘MT’: Multi-turn Editing, ‘TT’: Text-to-Text, ‘IT’: Image-to-Text, ‘MU’: Multimodal Understanding. Empty values indicate not-supported tasks.
Figure 4: Refusal Rates for commercial UMMs across different tasks. Refusal Rates are further decomposed into system-level Refusal Rates and model-level Refusal Rates.
Figure 5: Safety risk across tasks and modalities in commercial UMMs. For GPT-5, Gemini-2.5, and Qwen-image, the bars show the proportions of test samples that produce harmful content (moderate- and high-risk) across 7 task types. Image-output tasks (text-to-image, image editing, image composition, multi-turn) consistently exhibit higher harmful content rates than text-output tasks (text-to-text, image-to-text, multimodal understanding), revealing strong modality-dependent bias in safety alignment.
Figure 6: Self-awareness vs. ARR of UMMs. Average self-awareness score (SAS; x-axis, higher is better) is plotted against average assessor risk rating (ARR; y-axis, higher is worse) for each model, as evaluated by 3 different judge models. Dashed lines mark the standard safety thresholds, partitioning models into four regimes (naively safe, robustly safe, obviously risky, and self-aware but risky).
Figure 7: Safety comparison between Show-o and Show-o2 (a) ASR across different tasks (b) Conditional ratio of high-risk rating samples for Show-o series.
Model
GenEval Score
Image Editing Score
Image ASR (% )
MMMU Score
Text ASR (%)
Show-o [ 85 ]
0.680
N/A
60.60
0.274
6.93
Janus-pro [ 16 ]
0.800
N/A
64.10
0.363
36.40
BAGEL
0.880
3.20
60.67
0.553
47.53
UniWorld-V1 [ 43 ]
0.840
3.26
42.40
0.586
46.77
Table 3: Unified Model Performance and Safety Metrics. Columns show the specific Generative Score or the corresponding ASR for image-output / text-output tasks.
Appendix figures & tables37 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Sub-ID
Image Count
Text Count
Violence
V1
54
59
V2
55
56
V3
58
58
V4
-
59
Sexual
S1
54
51
S2
59
60
Appendix
Table 4: Detailed distribution of UniSAFE dataset scenario templates per subcategory for Image and Text tasks. Hyphens (‘-’) indicate categories not applicable to that modality.
Figure 8: Total safe generation rates (non-harmful rates) for commercial models across all tasks. Each bar is composed of total refusal rate and pure safe generation rate.
Figure 9: Safety ranking consistency across judges. Each panel shows how the rank ordering (Rank 1 = safest) of task types or target models changes across five evaluators: human annotators (avg), the LLM ensemble, and the three individual judges (Gemini-2.5 Pro, GPT-5 Nano, Qwen-2.5 VL-72B). Flat lines indicate perfect rank agreement across evaluators. Model rankings (right panels) are unanimous across all five evaluators, while task-type rankings (left panels) show occasional disagreements among individual judges that are stabilized by the ensemble.
A
B
Pearson r
Human
Gemini-2.5 Pro
0.949
Human
GPT-5 Nano
0.953
Human
Qwen-2.5 VL-72B
0.961
Human
LLM ensemble judge
0.962
Gemini-2.5 Pro
GPT-5 Nano
0.961
Gemini-2.5 Pro
Qwen-2.5 VL-72B
0.989
Appendix
Table 5: Pearson r for human-vs-judge and inter-judge ARR correlations ( n=20 target-model × task-type cells, p<0.0001 for all).
Judge
Target Model
TI
IE
IC
MT
TT
IT
MU
Human avg
Gemini-2.5
1.42
1.67
1.74
1.77
1.69
1.27
1.71
GPT-5
0.92
0.97
1.47
1.03
0.63
0.54
1.11
Qwen
2.14
1.92
—
1.87
1.96
1.93
2.05
Gemini-2.5 Pro
Gemini-2.5
1.31
1.57
1.55
1.71
1.18
0.85
1.22
GPT-5
0.80
0.87
1.32
0.99
0.35
0.34
0.66
Qwen
2.08
1.81
—
1.69
1.60
1.60
1.68
Appendix
Table 6: Per-cell ARR by judge model across target models and task types. “—” denotes unsupported task combinations.
UMM
Image output
Text output
TI
IE
IC
MT
TT
IT
MU
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
GPT-5 [ 52 ]
27.3
0.76
31.6
0.94
34.7
1.19
34.1
0.95
2.1
0.41
2.9
0.37
5.1
0.70
Gemini-2.5 [ 19 ]
45.4
1.30
50.7
1.63
38.7
1.45
57.0
1.69
22.6
1.08
17.8
0.85
25.2
1.23
Qwen-Image [ 82 ]
69.6
2.07
52.3
1.74
-
-
45.5
1.62
-
-
-
-
-
-
Qwen2.5-VL [ 5 ]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
39.6
1.53
38.1
1.49
36.5
1.57
Appendix
Table 7: Individual judge safety evaluation results: Gemini-2.5 Pro . Format follows Table 2 . Bold indicates the highest value per column.
UMM
Image output
Text output
TI
IE
IC
MT
TT
IT
MU
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
GPT-5 [ 52 ]
28.5
0.86
32.1
1.11
42.6
1.52
31.3
1.06
12.3
0.58
9.9
0.50
23.5
1.02
Gemini-2.5 [ 19 ]
48.9
1.48
59.0
1.97
54.4
1.94
58.3
1.96
52.3
1.74
38.4
1.32
49.9
1.74
Qwen-Image [ 82 ]
79.9
2.39
66.5
2.25
-
-
61.4
2.14
-
-
-
-
-
-
Qwen2.5-VL [ 5 ]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
65.2
2.14
63.1
2.08
59.3
2.09
Appendix
Table 8: Individual judge safety evaluation results: GPT-5 Nano . Format follows Table 2 . Bold indicates the highest value per column.
UMM
Image output
Text output
TI
IE
IC
MT
TT
IT
MU
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
ASR
ARR
GPT-5 [ 52 ]
23.4
0.72
23.3
0.83
27.2
1.10
28.5
0.89
4.2
0.43
3.8
0.38
9.5
0.73
Gemini-2.5 [ 19 ]
37.7
1.18
45.0
1.56
37.4
1.47
46.4
1.56
34.3
1.24
23.3
0.92
32.9
1.29
Qwen-Image [ 82 ]
69.8
2.07
53.3
1.78
-
-
54.9
1.85
-
-
-
-
-
-
Qwen2.5-VL [ 5 ]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
41.2
1.49
40.8
1.46
34.8
1.47
Appendix
Table 9: Individual judge safety evaluation results: Qwen-2.5 VL-72B . Format follows Table 2 . Bold indicates the highest value per column.
Figure 10: Category-wise ASR Heatmaps for different models: GPT-5, Gemini-2.5, and OmniGen-2.
Task
Global
GPT-5
Gemini-2.5
OmniGen-2
Text-to-Image
0.1755
0.2931
0.1595
0.1716
Image Editing
0.0869
0.1313
0.1782
0.1260
Composition
0.1857
0.1451
0.1526
0.3371
Multi-turn
0.1197
0.1819
0.1757
0.4683
Text-to-Text
0.3310
0.3913
0.3333
0.3515
Image Captioning
0.3521
0.4047
0.3597
0.3827
Appendix
Table 10: We report the safety fluctuation defined by standard deviation divided by mean ASR for different categories. We report the values of 3 models: GPT-5, Gemini-2.5, OmniGen-2, and average values of the 3 models. Highest value among different tasks is bolded for each model.
Figure 11: Average safety scores (ARR, ASR) of open sourced models and commercial models across all tasks: (a) average ARR(Average Risk Rating) of the commercial models and open source models (b) average ASR(Attack Success Rate) of the commercial models and open source models.
Figure 12: Conditional rate of high-risk samples (risk rating 3) among non-refused samples. Average values are plotted for open-source models and commercial models.
Figure 13: Average ARR for image-output tasks and text-output tasks for different UMMs.
Figure 14: Average ASR for image-output tasks and text-output tasks for different UMMs.
(a) Prompt for generating minimal unsafe triggers for Image Output tasks.
(a) Prompt for generating minimal unsafe triggers for Text Output tasks.
Figure 17: Prompts used in the Unsafe Trigger Construction pipeline. We utilize separate prompts for (a) Image and (b) Text modalities for AI-assisted bulk generation. Additionally, (c) a selection prompt is provided, which enables the full automation of the filtering process aligned with our safety taxonomy, and served as a baseline reference for our human curation.
Figure 18: Prompts used for expanding atomic unsafe triggers into full target scenarios (Appendix C.5 ). (a) expands image triggers into coherent scenes, while (b) wraps text triggers in benign-sounding operational instructions.
(a) Prompt for Image Editing (IE). The model decomposes the target into a safe base and a context-dependent instruction.
(a) Prompt for Image Composition (IC). The unsafe concept is split across two benign images and reassembled via instruction.
Figure 21: Prompts used for Scenario Generation on Image Tasks.
Figure 22: Prompts for Multimodal Understanding (MU) scenarios. The Cross-Modal Trigger Split strategy pairs harmful images with benign text instructions.
Figure 23: The risk rating guidelines used for the Image Tasks evaluation prompt.
Figure 24: The risk rating guidelines used for the Text Tasks evaluation prompt.
(a) Text-to-Image (TI)
(a) Image Editing (IE)
(a) Image Composition (IC)
Figure 28: Evaluation prompts for the four Image Tasks: (a) Text-to-Image, (b) Image Editing, (c) Image Composition, and (d) Multi-turn.
Figure 39
Figure 30: Evaluation prompts for Text Generation Tasks: (a) Text-to-Text, (b) Image-to-Text, and (c) Multimodal Understanding.
Figure 31: Safety evaluation instructions provided to human evaluators.
Figure 32: Example of input data from the Violence (V2) category in the UniSAFE image outputs dataset.
Figure 33: Example of input data from the Hate (H1) category in the UniSAFE image outputs dataset.
Figure 34: Example of input data from the Sexual (S1) category in the UniSAFE image outputs dataset.
Figure 35: Example of input data from the Cybersecurity (C1) category in the UniSAFE text outputs dataset.
Figure 36: Example of input data from the Economic Harm & Scams (E3) category in the UniSAFE text outputs dataset.
Figure 37: Example of input data from the Economic Sexual (S1) category in the UniSAFE text outputs dataset.
Unified Multimodal Large Models (UMLMs) integrate understanding and generation capabilities within a single architecture. While unified architectures expand multimodal capabilities, their safety implications remain important yet underexplored. Existing safety benchmarks predominantly focus on isolated understanding or generation tasks, failing to evaluate the holistic safety of UMLMs when handling diverse tasks under a unified framework. To address this, we introduce Uni-SafeBench, a comprehensive benchmark featuring a taxonomy of six major safety categories across seven task types. To ensure rigorous assessment, we develop Uni-Judger, a framework that effectively decouples contextual safety from intrinsic safety. Based on comprehensive evaluations across Uni-SafeBench, we find that the original safety alignment of the underlying LLM is not consistently preserved in current unified models. Moreover, open-source UMLMs exhibit much lower safety performance than multimodal large models specialized for either generation or understanding tasks, particularly on the generation side.
Zixiang Peng, Yongxiu Xu, Qin-Yi Zhang +5
Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences School of Cyber Security, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China
Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Text-to-Image (T2I) models have led to the emergence of Unified Multimodal Models (UMMs), where multimodal understanding and image generation are tightly integrated within a shared architecture. Prior studies suggest that such reciprocity enhances cross-functionality performance through shared representations and joint optimization. However, the safety implications of this tight coupling remain largely unexplored, as existing safety research predominantly analyzes understanding and generation functionalities in isolation. In this work, we investigate whether cross-functionality reciprocity itself constitutes a structural source of vulnerability in UMMs. We propose RICE: Reciprocal Interaction-based Cross-functionality Exploitation, a novel attack paradigm that explicitly exploits bidirectional interactions between understanding and generation. Using this framework, we systematically evaluate Generation-to-Understanding (G-U) and Understanding-to-Generation (U-G) attack pathways, demonstrating that unsafe intermediate signals can propagate across modalities and amplify safety risks. Extensive experiments show high Attack Success Rates (ASR) in both directions, revealing previously overlooked safety weaknesses inherent to UMMs.
Kaishen Wang, Heng Huang
University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
As Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) transition toward natively unified architectures, evaluating their safety in synergistic harmful image-text generation tasks becomes a critical challenge. Unlike unimodal threats, synergistic risks emerge when text and image modalities are coordinated to produce harm that significantly exceeds their individual components. We introduce UnifiedAttack, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate LMM safety in collaborative scenarios by focusing on the harmfulness gain achieved through cross-modal synergy. The benchmark incorporates samples filtered for their multimodal potential alongside a novel subset of synthesized disinformation queries. To verify identified vulnerabilities, we propose a synergistic hijacking framework featuring In-Context Reskinning (ICR) and Cognitive Planning Injection (CPI). ICR utilizes few-shot learning to wrap adversarial intent in benign virtual shells to desensitize safety filters, while CPI hijacks the reasoning path by enforcing a plan-then-execute paradigm. By compelling the system to commit to a neutral logical plan, we exploit its internal drive for consistency to induce the synchronized generation of harmful multimodal content. Extensive evaluations on state-of-the-art architectures demonstrate that UnifiedAttack consistently bypasses modern alignment. Our findings reveal that the structural helpfulness and logical coherence of unified models can be systematically weaponized, highlighting the urgent need for logic-aware defenses in synergistic generation tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/bingjunluo/UnifiedAttack .
Bingjun Luo, Jialin Guo, Tony Wang +1
Tsinghua University · Harbin Engineering University