R-TPT: Improving Adversarial Robustness of Vision-Language Models through Test-Time Prompt Tuning
About
Vision-language models (VLMs), such as CLIP, have gained significant popularity as foundation models, with numerous fine-tuning methods developed to enhance performance on downstream tasks. However, due to their inherent vulnerability and the common practice of selecting from a limited set of open-source models, VLMs suffer from a higher risk of adversarial attacks than traditional vision models. Existing defense techniques typically rely on adversarial fine-tuning during training, which requires labeled data and lacks of flexibility for downstream tasks. To address these limitations, we propose robust test-time prompt tuning (R-TPT), which mitigates the impact of adversarial attacks during the inference stage. We first reformulate the classic marginal entropy objective by eliminating the term that introduces conflicts under adversarial conditions, retaining only the pointwise entropy minimization. Furthermore, we introduce a plug-and-play reliability-based weighted ensembling strategy, which aggregates useful information from reliable augmented views to strengthen the defense. R-TPT enhances defense against adversarial attacks without requiring labeled training data while offering high flexibility for inference tasks. Extensive experiments on widely used benchmarks with various attacks demonstrate the effectiveness of R-TPT. The code is available in https://github.com/TomSheng21/R-TPT.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Classification | ImageNet-R | Top-1 Acc76.93 | 474 | |
| Fine-grained Image Classification | Stanford Cars | Accuracy67 | 206 | |
| Fine grained classification | Aircraft | Top-1 Acc24.03 | 62 | |
| Fine grained classification | EuroSAT | Accuracy44.3 | 57 | |
| Image Classification | ImageNet A | Accuracy57.72 | 50 | |
| Image Classification | Flowers102 | Clean Accuracy83.5 | 49 | |
| Image Classification | StanfordCars | Clean Accuracy77.5 | 40 | |
| Classification | PCAM | Clean Accuracy55.4 | 39 | |
| Image Classification | CIFAR10 | Clean Accuracy90.2 | 37 | |
| Fine-grained Image Classification | UCF101 | Accuracy67.35 | 34 |