Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

MOSSBench: Is Your Multimodal Language Model Oversensitive to Safe Queries?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.17806 v1 pith:2GYHCQHK submitted 2024-06-22 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CRcs.CVcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CRcs.CVcs.LG
keywords mllmsqueriesstimulimossbenchmultimodaloversensitivitysafetymodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Humans are prone to cognitive distortions -- biased thinking patterns that lead to exaggerated responses to specific stimuli, albeit in very different contexts. This paper demonstrates that advanced Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit similar tendencies. While these models are designed to respond queries under safety mechanism, they sometimes reject harmless queries in the presence of certain visual stimuli, disregarding the benign nature of their contexts. As the initial step in investigating this behavior, we identify three types of stimuli that trigger the oversensitivity of existing MLLMs: Exaggerated Risk, Negated Harm, and Counterintuitive Interpretation. To systematically evaluate MLLMs' oversensitivity to these stimuli, we propose the Multimodal OverSenSitivity Benchmark (MOSSBench). This toolkit consists of 300 manually collected benign multimodal queries, cross-verified by third-party reviewers (AMT). Empirical studies using MOSSBench on 20 MLLMs reveal several insights: (1). Oversensitivity is prevalent among SOTA MLLMs, with refusal rates reaching up to 76% for harmless queries. (2). Safer models are more oversensitive: increasing safety may inadvertently raise caution and conservatism in the model's responses. (3). Different types of stimuli tend to cause errors at specific stages -- perception, intent reasoning, and safety judgement -- in the response process of MLLMs. These findings highlight the need for refined safety mechanisms that balance caution with contextually appropriate responses, improving the reliability of MLLMs in real-world applications. We make our project available at https://turningpoint-ai.github.io/MOSSBench/.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Securing Multimodal AI through Internal Information Decomposition

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A one-class detector using first-token distributional consistency between text-only, vision-only, and joint predictions reduces multimodal jailbreak attack success rates to below 15% with ~2.4% utility loss.

  2. USB: A Comprehensive and Unified Safety Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models

    cs.CR 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    USB-SafeBench is a unified MLLM safety benchmark with 61 risk categories, 4 modality combinations, and dual-language vulnerability and oversensitivity tests.

  3. Reason Before You Retrieve: Agentic Planning for Multi-modal RAG

    cs.AI 2026-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    MM-R2 claims SOTA multimodal RAG accuracy on InfoSeek and Encyclopedic VQA via intent grounding plus a 10-topic KnowledgeMap, but its teacher trajectories leak the gold Wikipedia page and omit the image.

  4. VSCBench: Bridging the Gap in Vision-Language Model Safety Calibration

    cs.IR 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new benchmark, VSCBench, measures oversafety and undersafety in vision-language models and shows that most models, including proprietary ones, are miscalibrated on at least one safety dimension.

  5. A Survey of Safety on Large Vision-Language Models: Attacks, Defenses and Evaluations

    cs.CR 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of LVLM safety that adds a lifecycle taxonomy and new benchmark results showing Janus-Pro-7B has weaker safety than several open-source LVLMs.

Pith tools