Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces EviSafe, an evidence-grounded framework designed to evaluate the safety of vision-language models (VLMs) by assessing their responses in relation to textual and visual evidence, as well as their sensitivity to counterfactual changes. The study reveals significant gaps in the safety performance of eleven evaluated VLMs, with natural severity accuracy ranging from 27.6% to 52.8%, indicating that many models exhibit unsafe behavior for incorrect multimodal reasons. By moving beyond traditional outcome-level evaluations, EviSafe provides a more nuanced understanding of model safety, highlighting the need for improved safety assessments in multimodal AI systems.
VLMs show alarming safety inconsistencies, with natural response accuracy as low as 27.6%, underscoring the inadequacy of traditional safety evaluations.
Vision-language model safety benchmarks typically evaluate only final responses: whether a model refuses, warns, or complies. This outcome-level view cannot tell whether a model is safe for the right multimodal reason. Safelooking behavior may reflect keyword-triggered refusal, missed visual hazards, or over-refusal of benign-sensitive inputs. We introduce EviSafe, an evidence-grounded framework for VLM safety that jointly evaluates natural user-facing behavior, explicit grounding in textual and visual evidence, and behavioral sensitivity to counterfactual changes in safety-critical evidence. EviSafeBench instantiates the framework as a controlled benchmark with 1,181 gold image-text scenarios and 2,452 targeted counterfactual variants across eight safety domains and eight risk-source types. Each scenario includes a gold safety decision, evidence annotations, a safe-response policy, and counterfactual interventions. The three-probe protocol queries models with natural-response, evidencereporting, and counterfactual-response prompts, then scores them using an evidence-aware judge. Across eleven evaluated VLMs, natural severity accuracy ranges from 27.6% to 52.8%, relaxed diagnostic consistency from 6.1% to 29.3%, and unsafe-to-safe counterfactual transition success from 30.4% to 58.4%. These gaps show that the evaluated VLMs are not reliably safe for the right multimodal reason and motivate evaluation beyond refusal counts.
