Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2412.00746

BDefects4NN: A Backdoor Defect Database for Controlled Localization Studies in Neural Networks

Abstract

Pre-trained large deep learning models are now serving as the dominant component for downstream middleware users and have revolutionized the learning paradigm, replacing the traditional approach of training from scratch locally. To reduce development costs, developers often integrate third-party pre-trained deep neural networks (DNNs) into their intelligent software systems. However, utilizing untrusted DNNs presents significant security risks, as these models may contain intentional backdoor defects resulting from the black-box training process. These backdoor defects can be activated by hidden triggers, allowing attackers to maliciously control the model and compromise the overall reliability of the intelligent software. To ensure the safe adoption of DNNs in critical software systems, it is crucial to establish a backdoor defect database for localization studies. This paper addresses this research gap by introducing BDefects4NN, the first backdoor defect database, which provides labeled backdoor-defected DNNs at the neuron granularity and enables controlled localization studies of defect root causes. In BDefects4NN, we define three defect injection rules and employ four representative backdoor attacks across four popular network architectures and three widely adopted datasets, yielding a comprehensive database of 1,654 backdoor-defected DNNs with four defect quantities and varying infected neurons. Based on BDefects4NN, we conduct extensive experiments on evaluating six fault localization criteria and two defect repair techniques, which show limited effectiveness for backdoor defects. Additionally, we investigate backdoor-defected models in practical scenarios, specifically in lane detection for autonomous driving and large language models (LLMs), revealing potential threats and highlighting current limitations in precise defect localization.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yisong Xiao, Aishan Liu, Xinwei Zhang, Tianyuan Zhang, Tianlin Li, Siyuan Liang, Xianglong Liu, Yang Liu, Dacheng Tao. 2024-12-01. BDefects4NN: A Backdoor Defect Database for Controlled Localization Studies in Neural Networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.00746

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE