mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Fuzzing the brain: Automated stress testing for the safety of ML-driven neurostimulation

arXiv 2512.05383 ↗First posted 5 Dec 2025cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Objective: Machine learning (ML) models are increasingly used to generate electrical stimulation patterns in neuroprosthetic devices such as visual prostheses. While these models promise precise and personalized control, they also introduce new safety risks when model outputs are delivered directly to neural tissue. We propose a systematic, quantitative approach to detect and characterize unsafe stimulation patterns in ML-driven neurostimulation systems. Approach: We adapt an automated software testing technique known as coverage-guided fuzzing to the domain of neural stimulation. Here, fuzzing performs stress testing by perturbing model inputs and tracking whether resulting stimulation violates biophysical limits on charge density, instantaneous current, or electrode co-activation. The framework treats encoders as black boxes and steers exploration with coverage metrics that quantify how broadly test cases span the space of possible outputs and violation types. Main results: Applied to deep stimulus encoders for the retina and cortex, the method systematically reveals diverse stimulation regimes that exceed established safety limits. Two violation-output coverage metrics identify the highest number and diversity of unsafe outputs, enabling interpretable comparisons across architectures and training strategies. Significance: Violation-focused fuzzing reframes safety assessment as an empirical, reproducible process. By transforming safety from a training heuristic into a measurable property of the deployed model, it establishes a foundation for evidence-based benchmarking, regulatory readiness, and ethical assurance in next-generation neural interfaces.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Dec 2025.

Builds on

11 of 66 references.

References · 11

  1. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
  2. 2017DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testing of Deep Learning Systemscited by 311
  3. 2018DeepGauge: Multi-Granularity Testing Criteria for Deep Learning Systemscited by 147
  4. 2021Black-Box Testing of Deep Neural Networks Through Test Case Diversitycited by 18
  5. 2022Revisiting Neuron Coverage Metrics and Quality of Deep Neural Networkscited by 15
  6. 2022Hybrid Neural Autoencoders for Stimulus Encoding in Visual and Other Sensory Neuroprosthesescited by 10
  7. 2023Human-in-the-Loop Optimization for Deep Stimulus Encoding in Visual Prosthesescited by 8
  8. 2022A Neural-Network Framework for the Design of Individualised Hearing-Loss Compensationcited by 4
  9. 2022Adapting Brain-Like Neural Networks for Modeling Cortical Visual Prosthesescited by 3
  10. 2025Evaluating Deep Human-in-the-Loop Optimization for Retinal Implants Using Sighted Participantscited by 1
  11. 2025Bionic Vision as Neuroadaptive XR: Closed-Loop Perceptual Interfaces for Neurotechnologycited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.