The Emotional Baby Is Truly Deadly: Does Your Multimodal Large Reasoning Model Have Emotional Flattery Towards Humans?

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 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.