The DOI matches its DataCite record.
On Evaluating Adversarial Robustness of Large Vision-Language Models
Abstract
Large vision-language models (VLMs) such as GPT-4 have achieved unprecedented performance in response generation, especially with visual inputs, enabling more creative and adaptable interaction than large language models such as ChatGPT. Nonetheless, multimodal generation exacerbates safety concerns, since adversaries may successfully evade the entire system by subtly manipulating the most vulnerable modality (e.g., vision). To this end, we propose evaluating the robustness of open-source large VLMs in the most realistic and high-risk setting, where adversaries have only black-box system access and seek to deceive the model into returning the targeted responses. In particular, we first craft targeted adversarial examples against pretrained models such as CLIP and BLIP, and then transfer these adversarial examples to other VLMs such as MiniGPT-4, LLaVA, UniDiffuser, BLIP-2, and Img2Prompt. In addition, we observe that black-box queries on these VLMs can further improve the effectiveness of targeted evasion, resulting in a surprisingly high success rate for generating targeted responses. Our findings provide a quantitative understanding regarding the adversarial vulnerability of large VLMs and call for a more thorough examination of their potential security flaws before deployment in practice. Code is at https://github.com/yunqing-me/AttackVLM.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Visual input is vulnerable in vision-language models.
“For vision-language models, Zhao et al. [258] evaluated LLMs on visual input and transferred them to other visual-linguistic models, revealing the vulnerability of visual input.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [258]
LLMs demonstrate susceptibility when processing visual modal information.
“LLMs demonstrate susceptibility when processing visual modal information [258].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [258]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 4,254
“[244] evaluated LLMs on visual input and transferred them to other visual-linguistic models, revealing the vulnerability of visual input.”
Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuning
Liu, H., Li, C., Li, Y., & Lee, Y. J. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02484 · Cited by 1,748
Self-citationMMMU: A Massive Multi-Discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI
Yue, X., Ni, Y., Zheng, T., Zhang, K., Liu, R., Zhang, G., Stevens, S., Jiang, D., Ren, W., Sun, Y., et al. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00913 · Cited by 429
He, K., Mao, R., Lin, Q., Ruan, Y., Lan, X., Feng, M., & Cambria, E. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4809363 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhao, Y., Pang, T., Du, C., Yang, X., Li, C., Cheung, N.-M., & Lin, M.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2305.16934
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review