Combinatorial Lock for Trojan-Resilient AI Engines via Hash-Assisted Spectral Filtering
Organizations: Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, India
Abstract
Multi-trigger backdoor attacks, in which heterogeneous trigger mechanisms (e.g., patch, blend, warping, and the latent-domain Spy-Watermark) coexist within a single poisoned model, cannot be addressed by existing shortcut-based defenses that assume a single, static attack mechanism. Current multi-trigger remedies (BU+FT, BU+ANP, and BU+ABL) rely on backdoor unlearning, which incurs high training costs and loses effectiveness at low poisoning ratios. This paper proposes Combinatorial Lock, a training-free, reference-calibrated defense that reduces multi-trigger identification to a combinatorial problem over binary activation signatures. This formulation is the key novelty: it yields a multi-trigger defense that is training-free, trigger-oblivious, and directly implementable in hardware, since its decision rules can be evaluated with integer and logic operations. The framework combines anomaly-gated spectral scrubbing, which removes the malicious subspace only from inputs identified as anomalous, with a hash-compressed combinatorial signature verified by an ensemble of detection experts, including a compound-attack-aware expert for multi-trigger inputs. A joint threshold-shrinkage search identifies an operating point ( at the 97.1st percentile, ) that reduces the attack success rate (ASR) to as low as 0.1% while preserving 97.8% clean accuracy. Evaluation on six models (ResNet18, VGG16, MobileNet, AlexNet, ViT-Small, ViT-Base) shows strong generalization: near-100% ASR drops to single digits across poisoning rates of 1-10% and 1-9 simultaneous triggers, with only gradual degradation in clean accuracy. ASIC and FPGA implementations confirm practicality, adding a consistent 19-20% latency overhead across all evaluated architectures and establishing Combinatorial Lock as a hardware-native approach to multi-trigger backdoor mitigation.
Figures & tables
| Trigger Count | ResNet18 | VGG16 | MobileNet | AlexNet | ViT-Small | ViT-Base | ||||||||||||
| 1% | 5% | 10% | 1% | 5% | 10% | 1% | 5% | 10% | 1% | 5% | 10% | 1% | 5% | 10% | 1% | 5% | 10% | |
| 1 | 98.60 | 98.58 | 98.56 | 94.36 | 94.28 | 94.22 | 92.48 | 92.39 | 92.42 | 91.58 | 90.35 | 89.95 | 97.82 | 95.02 | 89.20 | 93.82 | 92.71 | 90.05 |
| 2 | 98.52 | 98.46 | 98.50 | 94.23 | 94.08 | 94.09 | 92.35 | 92.12 | 92.31 | 91.40 | 90.13 | 89.68 | 97.66 | 94.53 | 88.98 | 93.65 | 92.54 | 89.86 |
| 3 | 98.30 | 98.54 | 98.43 | 94.10 | 93.92 | 94.09 | 92.01 | 92.24 | 92.27 | 91.08 | 89.97 | 89.64 | 97.42 | 93.75 | 88.85 | 93.45 | 92.30 | 89.25 |
| 4 | 98.42 | 98.37 | 98.41 | 93.70 | 93.94 | 93.92 | 91.84 | 91.78 | 91.90 | 90.81 | 89.41 | 89.42 | 97.68 | 92.97 | 88.70 | 92.97 | 92.28 | 89.06 |
| 5 | 98.17 | 98.27 | 98.34 | 93.76 | 93.70 | 93.68 | 91.78 | 91.79 | 91.82 | 90.69 | 89.30 | 89.50 | 96.88 | 95.31 | 88.50 | 92.50 | 91.89 | 89.00 |
| Model | Cells | Area | Power | ASIC | FFs | LUTs | FPGA | FP32 | INT8 | Base | Defended | Overhead |
| (ASIC) | ( m 2 ) | (mW) | Fmax (MHz) | Fmax (MHz) | Mem. (KB) | Mem. (KB) | Latency (ms) | Latency (ms) | (%) | |||
| AlexNet | 3248 | 19241.57 | 9.834 | 218 | 136 | 954 | 185 | 14.82 | 3.71 | 4.3812 | 5.2247 | 19.25 |
| MobileNet | 3706 | 21918.34 | 10.562 | 210 | 152 | 1068 | 178 | 17.45 | 4.36 | 5.2186 | 6.2188 | 19.17 |
| ResNet18 | 4161 | 24606.82 | 11.907 | 202 | 168 | 1181 | 171 | 25.23 | 6.31 | 6.5413 | 7.8345 | 19.77 |
| VGG16 | 6512 | 38964.75 | 18.483 | 186 | 246 | 1734 | 158 | 58.34 | 14.59 | 11.4821 | 13.7645 | 19.88 |
| ViT-Small | 5374 | 32167.84 | 15.236 | 193 | 212 | 1498 | 164 | 42.71 | 10.68 | 9.2437 | 11.0516 | 19.56 |
| Method | AUROC | vs. Joint Mahalanobis (%) |
| Non-Ensemble Baselines | ||
| Rule-Based Scoring | 0.9376 | |
| Joint Mahalanobis | 0.9666 | – |
| Expert Ensemble ( -Sweep) | ||
| 0.8957 | ||
| 0.9184 | ||
| Method | ResNet18 | VGG16 | MobileNet | AlexNet | ||||
| CA | ASR | CA | ASR | CA | ASR | CA | ASR | |
| BU+FT [ 13 ] | 98.11 | 3.20 | 93.49 | 3.75 | 91.86 | 3.85 | 88.88 | 4.35 |
| BU+ANP [ 13 ] | 98.09 | 1.90 | 98.54 | 1.95 | 91.45 | 2.25 | 88.89 | 3.01 |
| BU+ABL [ 13 ] | 98.10 | 2.25 | 93.48 | 2.87 | 91.60 | 2.00 | 88.91 | 2.55 |
| Proposed | 98.25 | 0.15 | 93.65 | 0.17 | 91.76 | 0.19 | 89.81 | 1.27 |
Backdoor Defense
Backdoor defense develops methods to detect, remove, or contain hidden trigger-conditioned behaviors in machine-learning models.
See all 50 papers