Corrupted but Correct: Why Vision-Language Models Lie to Themselves Internally
cs.CV, cs.AI
Submitted: 2026-10-02
Updated: 2026-10-02
Comments: Accepted at the VLM4RWD Workshop (Grounded and Faithful Vision-Language Models for Real-World Deployment), NeurIPS 2026. 8 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: A targeted adversarial perturbation can drive a vision-language model's (VLM's) teacher-forced training loss for a fixed target caption to near zero, yet the same model, allowed to generate freely,
Abstract
A targeted adversarial perturbation can drive a vision-language model's (VLM's) teacher-forced training loss for a fixed target caption to near zero, yet the same model, allowed to generate freely, produces the original, correct description with no trace of the target. We call this dissociation the train/inference gap, and give it a precise mechanistic account on Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct using a controlled two-stage PGD attack on 200 held-out COCO images. First, we show that image-level pixel statistics, including a correctly re-implemented, texture-based attackability measure from the CNN robustness literature, have essentially no predictive power over which images are corrupted (best predictor r=-0.050, p=0.484; ridge regression R 2=0.069). Second, using the logit lens, we localise the gap to a single autoregressive step: the rank of the target token, conditioned on the correct first token already being generated, is fixed at exactly 3,488 out of 152,064 vocabulary entries for every image and every condition, with zero variance. Third, tracking target-token rank across all 28 LLM decoder layers reveals that the visual encoder corrupts every image's representation by a comparable margin regardless of eventual outcome, but the language model decoder then differentially arbitrates: amplifying the corrupted signal for susceptible images and actively suppressing it, past its clean-image baseline, for resistant ones (p<0.001, rank-biserial r=0.579). A linear probe on the merger hidden state separates these two outcomes with AUC=0.858, though we flag a circularity concern in this estimate. Together these results argue that adversarial robustness in autoregressive VLMs is substantially a property of the language decoder's prior, not the visual encoder, with direct implications for where faithfulness evaluations and defenses for deployed VLM systems should be targeted.
Sources
- Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes
- Image Hijacks: Adversarial Images can Control Generative Models at Runtime
- Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advances
- Scheduled Sampling for Sequence Prediction with Recurrent Neural Networks
- Boosting Adversarial Attacks with Momentum
- An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale
- Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memories
- Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples
- Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks
- Defense-friendly Images in Adversarial Attacks: Dataset and Metrics for Perturbation Difficulty
- Intriguing properties of neural networks
Related papers
- Loss Knows Best: Detecting Annotation Errors in Videos via Loss Trajectories
- AnchorWeave: World-Consistent Video Generation with Retrieved Local Spatial Memories
- Benchmarking the Robustness of Foundation Models for Mammography under Domain Shift
- MambaX-Net: Dual-Input Mamba-Enhanced Cross-Attention Network for Longitudinal MRI Segmentation
- TeleOCR: Navigating Document Parsing Across Digital and Camera-Captured Documents
- A Survey on Efficient Vision-Language-Action Models