Backdoor Attack on Unpaired Medical Image-Text Foundation Models: A Pilot Study on MedCLIP

1 Jan 2024  ·  Ruinan Jin, Chun-Yin Huang, Chenyu You, Xiaoxiao Li ·

In recent years, foundation models (FMs) have solidified their role as cornerstone advancements in the deep learning domain. By extracting intricate patterns from vast datasets, these models consistently achieve state-of-the-art results across a spectrum of downstream tasks, all without necessitating extensive computational resources. Notably, MedCLIP, a vision-language contrastive learning-based medical FM, has been designed using unpaired image-text training. While the medical domain has often adopted unpaired training to amplify data, the exploration of potential security concerns linked to this approach hasn't kept pace with its practical usage. Notably, the augmentation capabilities inherent in unpaired training also indicate that minor label discrepancies can result in significant model deviations. In this study, we frame this label discrepancy as a backdoor attack problem. We further analyze its impact on medical FMs throughout the FM supply chain. Our evaluation primarily revolves around MedCLIP, emblematic of medical FM employing the unpaired strategy. We begin with an exploration of vulnerabilities in MedCLIP stemming from unpaired image-text matching, termed BadMatch. BadMatch is achieved using a modest set of wrongly labeled data. Subsequently, we disrupt MedCLIP's contrastive learning through BadDist-assisted BadMatch by introducing a Bad-Distance between the embeddings of clean and poisoned data. Additionally, combined with BadMatch and BadDist, the attacking pipeline consistently fends off backdoor assaults across diverse model designs, datasets, and triggers. Also, our findings reveal that current defense strategies are insufficient in detecting these latent threats in medical FMs' supply chains.

PDF Abstract

Datasets


Results from the Paper


  Submit results from this paper to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the community compare results to other papers.

Methods