The Emotional Baby Is Truly Deadly: Does Your Multimodal Large Reasoning Model Have Emotional Flattery Towards Humans?
Yuan Xun, Xiaojun Jia, Xinwei Liu, Simeng Qin, Hua Zhang
Abstract
Multimodal large reasoning models (MLRMs) have advanced visual-textual integration, enabling sophisticated human-AI interaction. While prior work has exposed MLRMs to visual jailbreaks, it remains underexplored how their reasoning capabilities reshape the security landscape under adversarial inputs. To fill this gap, we conduct a systematic security assessment of MLRMs and uncover a security-reasoning paradox: although deeper reasoning boosts cross-modal risk recognition, it also creates cognitive blind spots that adversaries can exploit. We observe that MLRMs oriented toward human-centric service are highly susceptible to users' emotional cues during the deep-thinking stage, often overriding safety protocols or built-in safety checks under high emotional intensity. Inspired by this key insight, we propose EmoAgent, an autonomous adversarial emotion-agent framework that orchestrates exaggerated affective prompts to hijack reasoning pathways. Even when visual risks are correctly identified, models can still produce harmful completions through emotional misalignment. We further identify persistent high-risk failure modes in transparent deep-thinking scenarios, such as MLRMs generating harmful reasoning masked behind seemingly safe responses. These failures expose misalignments between internal inference and surface-level behavior, eluding existing content-based safeguards. To quantify these risks, we introduce three metrics: (1) Risk-Reasoning Stealth Score (RRSS) for harmful reasoning beneath benign outputs; (2) Risk-Visual Neglect Rate (RVNR) for unsafe completions despite visual risk recognition; and (3) Refusal Attitude Inconsistency (RAIC) for evaluating refusal unstability under prompt variants. Extensive experiments on advanced MLRMs demonstrate the effectiveness of EmoAgent and reveal deeper emotional cognitive misalignments in model safety behavior. Warning: This paper contains examples that may be offensive or harmful.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 7423d88b-2e62-46d3-a7cf-7961d34ce56fCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on4
- BadChain: Backdoor Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Large Language ModelsZhen Xiang, Fengqing Jiang, Zidi Xiong, Bhaskar Ramasubramanian et al.ICLR 2024 · 98 citations
- R1-Onevision: Advancing Generalized Multimodal Reasoning Through Cross-Modal FormalizationYi Yang, Xiaoxuan He, Hongkun Pan, Xiyan Jiang et al.ICCV 2025 · 21 citations
- VisCRA: A Visual Chain Reasoning Attack for Jailbreaking Multimodal Large Language ModelsBingrui Sima, Linhua Cong, Wenxuan Wang, Kun HeEMNLP 2025 · 11 citations
- CogAgent: A Visual Language Model for GUI AgentsWenyi Hong, Weihan Wang, Qingsong Lv, Jiazheng Xu et al.CVPR 2024
Related papers
- Safe + Safe = Unsafe? Exploring How Safe Images Can Be Exploited to Jailbreak Large Vision-Language ModelsChenhang Cui, Gelei Deng, An Zhang, Jingnan Zheng et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 10 citations
- JPS: Jailbreak Multimodal Large Language Models with Collaborative Visual Perturbation and Textual SteeringRenmiao Chen, Shiyao Cui, Xuancheng Huang, Chengwei Pan et al.ACM MM 2025 · 5 citations
- Think in Safety: Unveiling and Mitigating Safety Alignment Collapse in Multimodal Large Reasoning ModelXinyue Lou, You Li, Jinan Xu, Xiangyu Shi et al.EMNLP 2025
- Mitigating Safety Context Amnesia in Multimodal Reasoning Models via Intent-Guided Safety ReasoningXiyao Dong, Guangsheng Cheng, YiLong Chen, Xiaojin Zhang et al.ACL 2026
- Teach to Reason Safely: Policy-Guided Safety Tuning for MLRMsJingyu Zhang, Kun Yang, Ming Wen, Zhuoer Xu et al.ICLR 2026
