Towards Calibration Enhanced Network by Inverse Adversarial Attack

Test automation has become increasingly important as the complexity of both design and content in Human Machine Interface (HMI) software continues to grow. Current standard practice uses Optical Character Recognition (OCR) techniques to automatically extract textual information from HMI screens for validation. At present, one of the key challenges faced during the automation of HMI screen validation is the noise handling for the OCR models. In this paper, we propose to utilize adversarial training techniques to enhance OCR models in HMI testing scenarios. More specifically, we design a new adversarial attack objective for OCR models to discover the decision boundaries in the context of HMI testing. We then adopt adversarial training to optimize the decision boundaries towards a more robust and accurate OCR model. In addition, we also built an HMI screen dataset based on real-world requirements and applied multiple types of perturbation onto the clean HMI dataset to provide a more complete coverage for the potential scenarios. We conduct experiments to demonstrate how using adversarial training techniques yields more robust OCR models against various kinds of noises, while still maintaining high OCR model accuracy. Further experiments even demonstrate that the adversarial training models exhibit a certain degree of robustness against perturbations from other patterns.

LLMs for Relational Reasoning: How Far are We?

Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized many areas (e.g. natural language processing, software engineering, etc.) by achieving state-of-the-art performance on extensive downstream tasks. Aiming to achieve robust and general artificial intelligence, there has been a surge of interest in investigating the reasoning ability of the LLMs. Whereas the textual and numerical reasoning benchmarks adopted by previous works are rather shallow and simple, it is hard to conclude that the LLMs possess strong reasoning ability by merely achieving positive results on these benchmarks. Recent efforts have demonstrated that the LLMs are poor at solving sequential decision-making problems that require common-sense planning by evaluating their performance on the reinforcement learning benchmarks. In this work, we conduct an in-depth assessment of several state-of-the-art LLMs' reasoning ability based on the inductive logic programming (ILP) benchmark, which is broadly recognized as a representative and challenging measurement for evaluating logic program induction/synthesis systems as it requires inducing strict cause-effect logic to achieve robust deduction on independent and identically distributed (IID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) test samples. Our evaluations illustrate that compared with the neural program induction systems which are much smaller in model size, the state-of-the-art LLMs are much poorer in terms of reasoning ability by achieving much lower performance and generalization using either natural language prompting or truth-value matrix prompting.