Papers › BackdoorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Analysis of Backdoor Learning
BackdoorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Analysis of Backdoor Learning
Baoyuan Wu, Hongrui Chen, Mingda Zhang, Zihao Zhu, Shaokui Wei, Danni Yuan, Mingli Zhu, Ruotong Wang, Li Liu, Chao Shen
As an emerging approach to explore the vulnerability of deep neural networks (DNNs), backdoor learning has attracted increasing interest in recent years, and many seminal backdoor attack and defense algorithms are being developed successively or concurrently, in the status of a rapid arms race. However, mainly due to the diverse settings, and the difficulties of implementation and reproducibility of existing works, there is a lack of a unified and standardized benchmark of backdoor learning, causing unfair comparisons or unreliable conclusions (e.g., misleading, biased or even false conclusions). Consequently, it is difficult to evaluate the current progress and design the future development roadmap of this literature. To alleviate this dilemma, we build a comprehensive benchmark of backdoor learning called BackdoorBench. Our benchmark makes three valuable contributions to the research community. 1) We provide an integrated implementation of state-of-the-art (SOTA) backdoor learning algorithms (currently including 20 attack and 32 defense algorithms), based on an extensible modular-based codebase. 2) We conduct comprehensive evaluations with 5 poisoning ratios, based on 4 models and 4 datasets, leading to 11,492 pairs of attack-against-defense evaluations in total. 3) Based on above evaluations, we present abundant analysis from 10 perspectives via 18 useful analysis tools, and provide several inspiring insights about backdoor learning. We hope that our efforts could build a solid foundation of backdoor learning to facilitate researchers to investigate existing algorithms, develop more innovative algorithms, and explore the intrinsic mechanism of backdoor learning. Finally, we have created a user-friendly website at http://backdoorbench.com, which collects all important information of BackdoorBench, including codebase, docs, leaderboard, and model Zoo.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2407.19845")
Code
Syntology Ran 9 of 16 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 7 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 2 ran · our draft was wrong; 6 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 15 samples from 1 repository, 8 ran; 1 identical to code first harvested elsewhere. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
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
16 samples harvested; 9 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have 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: 16 of the 16 samples are 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 sclbd/backdoorbench. Some samples are identical code Syntology first harvested from another repository; for those, this paper's copy is not located and its licence is not recorded. “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.
efd3b8b851a0f5e7 · report
1e9b4bedd9340fe0 · report
ecc54476b2581685 · report
70493a0d9a933777 · report
68d3f51b067a8c7c · report
c92710e81ca322f6 · report
213b3de0b016d2f7 · report
a562634d0be51558 · report
31ff894ab3f7a745 · report
3f472db5c0c14538 · report
1c1c354c8558eb8f · report
f0c1578d10c53cc8 · report
31ce5e9860be17e4 · report
433cf4cd7e583ce3 · report
c90c471ae2414cc1 · report
855d4d7e071246f8 · report
Tasks
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