History-Driven Fuzzing for Deep Learning Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, many Deep Learning (DL) fuzzers have been proposed for API-level testing of DL libraries. However, they either perform unguided input generation (e.g., not considering the relationship between API arguments when generating inputs) or only support a limited set of corner-case test inputs. Furthermore, many developer APIs crucial for library development remain untested, as they are typically not well documented and lack clear usage guidelines, unlike end-user APIs. This makes them a more challenging target for automated testing. To fill this gap, we propose a novel fuzzer named Orion, which combines guided test input generation and corner-case test input generation based on a set of fuzzing heuristic rules constructed from historical data known to trigger critical issues in the underlying implementation of DL APIs. To extract the fuzzing heuristic rules, we first conduct an empirical study on the root cause analysis of 376 vulnerabilities in two of the most popular DL libraries, PyTorch and TensorFlow. We then construct the fuzzing heuristic rules based on the root causes of the extracted historical vulnerabilities. Using these fuzzing heuristic rules, Orion generates corner-case test inputs for API-level fuzzing. In addition, we extend the seed collection of existing studies to include test inputs for developer APIs. Our evaluation shows that Orion reports 135 vulnerabilities in the latest releases of TensorFlow and PyTorch, 76 of which were confirmed by the library developers. Among the 76 confirmed vulnerabilities, 69 were previously unknown, and 7 have already been fixed. The rest are awaiting further confirmation. For end-user APIs, Orion detected 45.58% and 90% more vulnerabilities in TensorFlow and PyTorch, respectively, compared to the state-of-the-art conventional fuzzer, DeepRel. When compared to the state-of-the-art LLM-based DL fuzzer, AtlasFuz, and Orion detected 13.63% more vulnerabilities in TensorFlow and 18.42% more vulnerabilities in PyTorch. Regarding developer APIs, Orion stands out by detecting 117% more vulnerabilities in TensorFlow and 100% more vulnerabilities in PyTorch compared to the most relevant fuzzer designed for developer APIs, such as FreeFuzz.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".