However, these works face some limitations and challenges.

Federated learning (FL) is vulnerable to backdoor attacks due to its distributed computing nature. Existing defense solution usually requires larger amount of computation in either the training or testing phase, which limits their practicality in the resource-constrain scenarios. A more practical defense, i.e., neural network (NN) pruning based defense has been proposed in centralized backdoor setting. However, our empirical study shows that traditional pruning-based solution suffers \textit{poison-coupling} effect in FL, which significantly degrades the defense performance.This paper presents Lockdown, an isolated subspace training method to mitigate the poison-coupling effect. Lockdown follows three key procedures.

Backdoor attacks embed input-dependent malicious behavior into neural networks while preserving high clean accuracy, making them a persistent threat for deployed ML systems. At the same time, real-world deployments almost never serve full-precision models: post-training quantization to INT8 or lower precision is now standard practice for reducing memory and latency. This work asks a simple question: how do existing backdoor defenses behave under standard quantization pipelines? We conduct a systematic empirical study of five representative defenses across three precision settings (FP32, INT8 dynamic, INT4 simulated) and two standard vision benchmarks using a canonical BadNet attack. We observe that INT8 quantization reduces the detection rate of all evaluated defenses to 0% while leaving attack success rates above 99%. For INT4, we find a pronounced dataset dependence: Neural Cleanse remains effective on GTSRB but fails on CIFAR-10, even though backdoors continue to survive quantization with attack success rates above 90%. Our results expose a mismatch between how defenses are commonly evaluated (on FP32 models) and how models are actually deployed (in quantized form), and they highlight quantization robustness as a necessary axis in future evaluations and designs of backdoor defenses.

Backdoor attacks pose a significant threat to deep learning models by implanting hidden vulnerabilities that can be activated by malicious inputs. While numerous defenses have been proposed to mitigate these attacks, the heterogeneous landscape of evaluation methodologies hinders fair comparison between defenses. This work presents a systematic (meta-)analysis of backdoor defenses through a comprehensive literature review and empirical evaluation. We analyzed 183 backdoor defense papers published between 2018 and 2025 across major AI and security venues, examining the properties and evaluation methodologies of these defenses. Our analysis reveals significant inconsistencies in experimental setups, evaluation metrics, and threat model assumptions in the literature. Through extensive experiments involving three datasets (MNIST, CIFAR-100, ImageNet-1K), four model architectures (ResNet-18, VGG-19, ViT-B/16, DenseNet-121), 16 representative defenses, and five commonly used attacks, totaling over 3\,000 experiments, we demonstrate that defense effectiveness varies substantially across different evaluation setups. We identify critical gaps in current evaluation practices, including insufficient reporting of computational overhead and behavior under benign conditions, bias in hyperparameter selection, and incomplete experimentation. Based on our findings, we provide concrete challenges and well-motivated recommendations to standardize and improve future defense evaluations. Our work aims to equip researchers and industry practitioners with actionable insights for developing, assessing, and deploying defenses to different systems.

Backdoor attacks on deep learning represent a recent threat that has gained significant attention in the research community.

For example, a backdoor attack uses one trigger to manipulate the model's outputs on all inputs,