Papers › Circumventing Backdoor Defenses That Are Based on Latent Separability
Circumventing Backdoor Defenses That Are Based on Latent Separability
Xiangyu Qi, Tinghao Xie, Yiming Li, Saeed Mahloujifar, Prateek Mittal
Recent studies revealed that deep learning is susceptible to backdoor poisoning attacks. An adversary can embed a hidden backdoor into a model to manipulate its predictions by only modifying a few training data, without controlling the training process. Currently, a tangible signature has been widely observed across a diverse set of backdoor poisoning attacks -- models trained on a poisoned dataset tend to learn separable latent representations for poison and clean samples. This latent separation is so pervasive that a family of backdoor defenses directly take it as a default assumption (dubbed latent separability assumption), based on which to identify poison samples via cluster analysis in the latent space. An intriguing question consequently follows: is the latent separation unavoidable for backdoor poisoning attacks? This question is central to understanding whether the assumption of latent separability provides a reliable foundation for defending against backdoor poisoning attacks. In this paper, we design adaptive backdoor poisoning attacks to present counter-examples against this assumption. Our methods include two key components: (1) a set of trigger-planted samples correctly labeled to their semantic classes (other than the target class) that can regularize backdoor learning; (2) asymmetric trigger planting strategies that help to boost attack success rate (ASR) as well as to diversify latent representations of poison samples. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets verify the effectiveness of our adaptive attacks in bypassing existing latent separation based backdoor defenses. Moreover, our attacks still maintain a high attack success rate with negligible clean accuracy drop. Our studies call for defense designers to take caution when leveraging latent separation as an assumption in their defenses.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
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="2205.13613")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · violated contract.
By repository: official repository: 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. 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
2 samples harvested; 2 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 2 of the 2 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 unispac/circumventing-backdoor-defenses. “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.
551169c29cd6aebd · report
d28d5580c07f1c0b · report
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