arXiv preprint ·
Does Target Alignment Mean Target Recovery? An Evidence-Ladder Study of Adversarial Claims on Contrastive Encoders
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Adversarial attacks on vision-language models optimize an image toward a text target, then cite the attacked model's similarity score as evidence of success. We ask whether that score - victim-space target alignment (VTS) - predicts recovery of the target by an independent model. We first build a measurement instrument: supervised judges outside the attacked geometry, real-target blend controls, shuffled-target negatives, and a reference level derived from a 50% target-image blend. Two preregistered studies then compare six contrastive encoders under a matched attack at three perturbation budgets. Robustly trained encoders (FARE, TeCoA, PMG, TRADES) transfer substantially more independent evidence than vanilla CLIP or SigLIP; all eight contrasts reject at the bootstrap floor. However, no cell reaches the blend-derived reference level. The three best cells fall within its replication band, leaving practical recovery undecided. Within robust encoders, per-sample alignment gain correlates with evidence gain ($ρ= 0.24-0.51$); within vanilla CLIP the correlation is consistent with zero. Across encoders we find no monotone alignment-evidence relation. VTS is therefore informative only within a fixed robust encoder, and we provide a reporting protocol in its place.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computer Vision
Get the few papers worth your time in Computer Vision every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.