Emily Dix

Casey Ford, Madison Van Doren, Sicheng Jin et al.

The attack surface of a multimodal large language model (MLLM) is language-dependent in ways that reveal the mechanistic structure of alignment failures. We present the first systematic cross-lingual, multimodal red-teaming study comparing jailbreak vulnerability in US English (en-US) and Mexican Spanish (es-MX) across four frontier MLLMs: Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5, Pixtral Large, and Qwen Omni. Using a fixed adversarial benchmark of 363 diverse prompt scenarios administered in text-only and multimodal conditions, we collected 52,272 harm ratings and binary attack success judgements from matched panels of nine native-speaker annotators per language group. Our central finding is that language does not scale vulnerability uniformly. Bayesian mixed-effects analyses reveal that linguistic framing attacks such as role-play become substantially less effective under Spanish prompting, while visually explicit multimodal attacks become more effective, which directly implicates the prompt-language interface rather than global annotator leniency. This dissociation indicates that linguistic and visual alignment failures operate through distinct mechanisms, and that switching language is sufficient to expose that separation. The practical consequence is that safety rankings are not preserved across languages. Qwen Omni overtakes Pixtral Large as the most vulnerable model among es-MX participants, a rank reversal no scalar correction of English-condition scores could recover, and absolute attack success rates have declined across model generations without closing the gaps between them. These findings demonstrate that safety evaluation frameworks treating language and modality as independent dimensions fundamentally misspecify the attack surface of globally deployed MLLMs, and must be redesigned accordingly.

Casey Ford, Madison Van Doren, Emily Dix

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world systems, yet their safety under adversarial prompting remains underexplored. We present a two-phase evaluation of MLLM harmlessness using a fixed benchmark of 726 adversarial prompts authored by 26 professional red teamers. Phase 1 assessed GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 3.5, Pixtral 12B, and Qwen VL Plus; Phase 2 evaluated their successors (GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Pixtral Large, and Qwen Omni) yielding 82,256 human harm ratings. Large, persistent differences emerged across model families: Pixtral models were consistently the most vulnerable, whereas Claude models appeared safest due to high refusal rates. Attack success rates (ASR) showed clear alignment drift: GPT and Claude models exhibited increased ASR across generations, while Pixtral and Qwen showed modest decreases. Modality effects also shifted over time: text-only prompts were more effective in Phase 1, whereas Phase 2 produced model-specific patterns, with GPT-5 and Claude 4.5 showing near-equivalent vulnerability across modalities. These findings demonstrate that MLLM harmlessness is neither uniform nor stable across updates, underscoring the need for longitudinal, multimodal benchmarks to track evolving safety behaviour.

Madison Van Doren, Casey Ford, Emily Dix

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used in real world applications, yet their safety under adversarial conditions remains underexplored. This study evaluates the harmlessness of four leading MLLMs (GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 3.5, Pixtral 12B, and Qwen VL Plus) when exposed to adversarial prompts across text-only and multimodal formats. A team of 26 red teamers generated 726 prompts targeting three harm categories: illegal activity, disinformation, and unethical behaviour. These prompts were submitted to each model, and 17 annotators rated 2,904 model outputs for harmfulness using a 5-point scale. Results show significant differences in vulnerability across models and modalities. Pixtral 12B exhibited the highest rate of harmful responses (~62%), while Claude Sonnet 3.5 was the most resistant (~10%). Contrary to expectations, text-only prompts were slightly more effective at bypassing safety mechanisms than multimodal ones. Statistical analysis confirmed that both model type and input modality were significant predictors of harmfulness. These findings underscore the urgent need for robust, multimodal safety benchmarks as MLLMs are deployed more widely.