Papers › Safety Mirage: How Spurious Correlations Undermine VLM Safety Fine-tuning

Safety Mirage: How Spurious Correlations Undermine VLM Safety Fine-tuning

14 Mar 2025arXiv:2503.11832archive 2025-07-28

YiWei Chen, Yuguang Yao, Yihua Zhang, Bingquan Shen, Gaowen Liu, Sijia Liu

Recent vision-language models (VLMs) have made remarkable strides in generative modeling with multimodal inputs, particularly text and images. However, their susceptibility to generating harmful content when exposed to unsafe queries raises critical safety concerns. While current alignment strategies primarily rely on supervised safety fine-tuning with curated datasets, we identify a fundamental limitation we call the "safety mirage" where supervised fine-tuning inadvertently reinforces spurious correlations between superficial textual patterns and safety responses, rather than fostering deep, intrinsic mitigation of harm. We show that these spurious correlations leave fine-tuned VLMs vulnerable even to a simple one-word modification-based attack, where substituting a single word in text queries with a spurious correlation-inducing alternative can effectively bypass safeguards. Additionally, these correlations contribute to the over prudence, causing fine-tuned VLMs to refuse benign queries unnecessarily. To address this issue, we show machine unlearning (MU) as a powerful alternative to supervised safety fine-tuning as it avoids biased feature-label mappings and directly removes harmful knowledge from VLMs while preserving their general capabilities. Extensive evaluations across safety benchmarks show that under one-word attacks, MU-based alignment reduces the attack success rate by up to 60.17% and cuts unnecessary rejections by over 84.20%. Codes are available at https://github.com/OPTML-Group/VLM-Safety-MU. WARNING: There exist AI generations that may be offensive in nature.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

14 samples harvested; 9 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 14 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from 3 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections