Papers › Test-Time Poisoning Attacks Against Test-Time Adaptation Models

Test-Time Poisoning Attacks Against Test-Time Adaptation Models

16 Aug 2023arXiv:2308.08505links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Tianshuo Cong, Xinlei He, Yun Shen, Yang Zhang

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Deploying machine learning (ML) models in the wild is challenging as it suffers from distribution shifts, where the model trained on an original domain cannot generalize well to unforeseen diverse transfer domains. To address this challenge, several test-time adaptation (TTA) methods have been proposed to improve the generalization ability of the target pre-trained models under test data to cope with the shifted distribution. The success of TTA can be credited to the continuous fine-tuning of the target model according to the distributional hint from the test samples during test time. Despite being powerful, it also opens a new attack surface, i.e., test-time poisoning attacks, which are substantially different from previous poisoning attacks that occur during the training time of ML models (i.e., adversaries cannot intervene in the training process). In this paper, we perform the first test-time poisoning attack against four mainstream TTA methods, including TTT, DUA, TENT, and RPL. Concretely, we generate poisoned samples based on the surrogate models and feed them to the target TTA models. Experimental results show that the TTA methods are generally vulnerable to test-time poisoning attacks. For instance, the adversary can feed as few as 10 poisoned samples to degrade the performance of the target model from 76.20% to 41.83%. Our results demonstrate that TTA algorithms lacking a rigorous security assessment are unsuitable for deployment in real-life scenarios. As such, we advocate for the integration of defenses against test-time poisoning attacks into the design of TTA methods.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

1 sample harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 1 of the 1 sample is pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from tianshuocong/tepa. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections