You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Recent trojan attacks on deep neural network (DNN) models are one insidious variant of data poisoning attacks. Trojan attacks exploit an effective backdoor created in a DNN model by leveraging the difficulty in interpretability of the learned model to misclassify any inputs signed with the attacker's chosen trojan trigger input. Trojan attacks are easy to craft; survive even in adverse conditions such as different viewpoints, and lighting conditions on images; and threaten real world applications such as autonomous vehicles and robotics. The trojan trigger is a secret guarded and exploited by the attacker. Therefore, detecting such trojaned inputs is a challenge, especially at run-time when models are in active operation. We focus on vision systems and build the STRong Intentional Perturbation (STRIP) based run-time trojan attack detection system. We intentionally perturb the incoming input, for instance by superimposing various image patterns, and observe the randomness of the predicted classes for the perturbed inputs for a given model---malicious or benign---under deployment. A low entropy in the predicted classes violates the input-dependence property of a benign model and implies the presence of a malicious input---a characteristic of a trojaned input. The high efficacy of our method is validated through case studies on two popular and contrasting datasets: MNIST and CIFAR10. We achieve an overall false acceptance rate (FAR) of less than 1 , given a preset false rejection rate (FRR) of 1 , for four different tested trojan trigger types---three triggers are identified in previous attack works and one dedicated trigger is crafted by us to demonstrate the trigger-size insensitivity of the STRIP detection approach. In particular, on the dataset of natural images in CIFAR10, we have empirically achieved the desired result of 0 for both FRR and FAR.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: While machine learning (ML) models are being increasingly trusted to make decisions in different and varying areas, the safety of systems using such models has become an increasing concern. In particular, ML models are often trained on data from potentially untrustworthy sources, providing adversaries with the opportunity to manipulate them by inserting carefully crafted samples into the training set. Recent work has shown that this type of attack, called a poisoning attack, allows adversaries to insert backdoors or trojans into the model, enabling malicious behavior with simple external backdoor triggers at inference time and only a blackbox perspective of the model itself. Detecting this type of attack is challenging because the unexpected behavior occurs only when a backdoor trigger, which is known only to the adversary, is present. Model users, either direct users of training data or users of pre-trained model from a catalog, may not guarantee the safe operation of their ML-based system. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to backdoor detection and removal for neural networks. Through extensive experimental results, we demonstrate its effectiveness for neural networks classifying text and images. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first methodology capable of detecting poisonous data crafted to insert backdoors and repairing the model that does not require a verified and trusted dataset.
Chen [1] propose an activation clustering (AC) method to detect whether the training data has been trojaned or not prior to the deployment. The intuition behind this method is that the reasons why the trojaned and the benign samples receive the same predicted label by the trojaned DNN model are different. By observing neuron activation of benign samples and trojaned samples that produce the same label in hidden layers, one can potentially distinguish trojaned samples from legitimate samples via the activation difference. However, this method requires that the user has access to the trojaned training data in hand, which appears to be unrealistic. It is very unlikely that the attacker will ship his her trojaned data samples to the user given that the attacker has performed the trojaned attacks.