Differential Analysis of Triggers and Benign Features for Black-Box DNN Backdoor Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a data-efficient detection method for deep neural networks against backdoor attacks under a black-box scenario. The proposed approach is motivated by the intuition that features corresponding to triggers have a higher influence in determining the backdoored network output than any other benign features. To quantitatively measure the effects of triggers and benign features on determining the backdoored network output, we introduce five metrics. To calculate the five-metric values for a given input, we first generate several synthetic samples by injecting the input's partial contents into clean validation samples. Then, the five metrics are computed by using the output labels of the corresponding synthetic samples. One contribution of this work is the use of a tiny clean validation dataset. Having the computed five metrics, five novelty detectors are trained from the validation dataset. A meta novelty detector fuses the output of the five trained novelty detectors to generate a meta confidence score. During online testing, our method determines if online samples are poisoned or not via assessing their meta confidence scores output by the meta novelty detector. We show the efficacy of our methodology through a broad range of backdoor attacks, including ablation studies and comparison to existing approaches. Our methodology is promising since the proposed five metrics quantify the inherent differences between clean and poisoned samples. Additionally, our detection method can be incrementally improved by appending more metrics that may be proposed to address future advanced attacks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".