Organizations: Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · PCALab, VCIP, College of Computer Science, Nankai University, Tianjin, China · Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Prompt learning is a parameter-efficient approach for vision-language models, yet its robustness under label noise is less investigated. Visual content contains richer and more reliable semantic information, which remains more robust under label noise. However, the prompt itself is highly susceptible to label noise. Motivated by this intuition, we propose VisPrompt, a lightweight and robust vision-guided prompt learning framework for noisy-label settings. Specifically, we exploit a cross-modal attention mechanism to reversely inject visual semantics into prompt representations. This enables the prompt tokens to selectively aggregate visual information relevant to the current sample, thereby improving robustness by anchoring prompt learning to stable instance-level visual evidence and reducing the influence of noisy supervision. To address the instability caused by using the same way of injecting visual information for all samples, despite differences in the quality of their visual cues, we further introduce a lightweight conditional modulation mechanism to adaptively control the strength of visual information injection, which strikes a more robust balance between text-side semantic priors and image-side instance evidence. The proposed framework effectively suppresses the noise-induced disturbances, reduce instability in prompt updates, and alleviate memorization of mislabeled samples. VisPrompt significantly improves robustness while keeping the pretrained VLM backbone frozen and introducing only a small amount of additional trainable parameters. Extensive experiments under synthetic and real-world label noise demonstrate that VisPrompt generally outperforms existing baselines on seven benchmark datasets and achieves stronger robustness. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/gezbww/Vis_Prompt.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Prior label-driven prompt methods can be misled by noisy supervision and produce incorrect predictions, while our method injects reliable image-grounded information to guide prompt learning toward the correct class.
Figure 2. The overall architecture of VisPrompt which consists of four steps. Step 2 and Step 3 denote the robust update process.
Dataset
Classes
Train
Test
Noise Type
Objective
Caltech101 ( Fei-Fei et al., 2004 )
100
4,128
2,465
Synthetic
Objects
Flowers102 ( Nilsback and Zisserman, 2008 )
102
4,093
2,463
Synthetic
Flowers
OxfordPets ( Parkhi et al., 2012 )
37
2,944
3,669
Synthetic
Pets
UCF101 ( Peng et al., 2018 )
101
7,639
3,783
Synthetic
Human actions
DTD ( Cimpoi et al., 2014 )
47
2,820
1,692
Synthetic
Textures
EuroSAT ( Helber et al., 2019 )
10
13,500
8,100
Synthetic
Satellite scenes
Table 1. Dataset Statistics.
Dataset
Method
Symmetric Label Noise
avg.
Asymmetric Label Noise
avg.
12.5%
25.0%
37.5%
50.0%
62.5%
75.0%
12.5%
25.0%
37.5%
50.0%
62.5%
75.0%
Flowers102 ( Nilsback and Zisserman, 2008 )
CoOp ( Zhou et al., 2022b )
88.93
83.50
77.93
70.10
55.60
37.17
68.87
86.97
74.70
60.43
42.60
26.53
12.60
50.64
GCE ( Zhang and Sabuncu, 2018 )
88.80
88.33
86.73
84.07
78.37
70.37
82.78
88.40
86.37
80.33
69.93
61.50
39.23
70.96
JoAPR ( Guo and others, 2024 )
85.57
81.23
74.60
70.23
67.90
66.93
74.41
85.17
79.63
73.97
73.83
53.37
13.27
63.21
NLPrompt ( Pan and others, 2025 )
93.87
92.57
92.73
89.90
84.77
76.80
88.44
93.80
93.40
91.77
81.10
73.63
55.33
81.51
VisPrompt
95.57
95.29
93.99
92.37
89.77
77.73
90.79
95.33
93.87
89.61
83.84
77.69
55.63
82.66
Table 2. Performance (%) over different datasets with varying noise rates. The bold denotes the best performance.
Figure 3. Test accuracy (%) under different context token lengths
Method
CoOp ( Zhou et al., 2022b )
GCE ( Zhang and Sabuncu, 2018 )
JoAPR ( Guo and others, 2024 )
NLPrompt ( Pan and others, 2025 )
VisPrompt
Accuracy (%)
69.50
71.32
72.57
76.46
79.20
Table 3. Performance on Food101N dataset.
Backbones
ViT-B/16
ViT-B/32
RN50x16
RN50x4
RN50
RN101
Accuracy (%)
83.62
82.83
82.78
83.67
82.83
82.69
Table 4. Accuracy (%) over vision backbones on EuroSAT dataset.
Figure 4. Ablation performance comparison.
Shots
Noise Rates
12.5%
25.0%
37.5%
50.0%
62.5%
75.0%
1
43.15
42.74
33.84
28.31
27.11
19.36
2
57.00
45.52
37.17
27.13
26.60
20.18
4
72.59
62.37
55.36
54.63
42.37
24.23
8
76.12
75.89
67.38
58.46
38.53
29.77
16
82.83
80.58
75.50
67.70
59.16
36.35
Table 5. Accuracy (%) under symmetric noise at different noise rates and shot settings.