The cyberthreat landscape is continuously evolving. Hence, continuous monitoring and sharing of threat intelligence have become a priority for organizations. Threat reports, published by cybersecurity vendors, contain detailed descriptions of attack Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP) written in an unstructured text format. Extracting TTP from these reports aids cybersecurity practitioners and researchers learn and adapt to evolving attacks and in planning threat mitigation. Researchers have proposed TTP extraction methods in the literature, however, not all of these proposed methods are compared to one another or to a baseline. \textit{The goal of this study is to aid cybersecurity researchers and practitioners choose attack technique extraction methods for monitoring and sharing threat intelligence by comparing the underlying methods from the TTP extraction studies in the literature.} In this work, we identify ten existing TTP extraction studies from the literature and implement five methods from the ten studies. We find two methods, based on Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency(TFIDF) and Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI), outperform the other three methods with a F1 score of 84\% and 83\%, respectively. We observe the performance of all methods in F1 score drops in the case of increasing the class labels exponentially. We also implement and evaluate an oversampling strategy to mitigate class imbalance issues. Furthermore, oversampling improves the classification performance of TTP extraction. We provide recommendations from our findings for future cybersecurity researchers, such as the construction of a benchmark dataset from a large corpus; and the selection of textual features of TTP. Our work, along with the dataset and implementation source code, can work as a baseline for cybersecurity researchers to test and compare the performance of future TTP extraction methods.

The Agents, Interaction and Complexity research group at the University of Southampton has a long track record of research in multiagent systems (MAS). We have made substantial scientific contributions across learning in MAS, game-theoretic techniques for coordinating agent systems, and formal methods for representation and reasoning. We highlight key results achieved by the group and elaborate on recent work and open research challenges in developing trustworthy autonomous systems and deploying human-centred AI systems that aim to support societal good.

Credit is an essential component of financial wellbeing in America, and unequal access to it is a large factor in the economic disparities between demographic groups that exist today. Today, machine learning algorithms, sometimes trained on alternative data, are increasingly being used to determine access to credit, yet research has shown that machine learning can encode many different versions of "unfairness," thus raising the concern that banks and other financial institutions could -- potentially unwittingly -- engage in illegal discrimination through the use of this technology. In the US, there are laws in place to make sure discrimination does not happen in lending and agencies charged with enforcing them. However, conversations around fair credit models in computer science and in policy are often misaligned: fair machine learning research often lacks legal and practical considerations specific to existing fair lending policy, and regulators have yet to issue new guidance on how, if at all, credit risk models should be utilizing practices and techniques from the research community. This paper aims to better align these sides of the conversation. We describe the current state of credit discrimination regulation in the United States, contextualize results from fair ML research to identify the specific fairness concerns raised by the use of machine learning in lending, and discuss regulatory opportunities to address these concerns.

Inappropriate design and deployment of machine learning (ML) systems leads to negative downstream social and ethical impact -- described here as social and ethical risks -- for users, society and the environment. Despite the growing need to regulate ML systems, current processes for assessing and mitigating risks are disjointed and inconsistent. We interviewed 30 industry practitioners on their current social and ethical risk management practices, and collected their first reactions on adapting safety engineering frameworks into their practice -- namely, System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Our findings suggest STPA/FMEA can provide appropriate structure toward social and ethical risk assessment and mitigation processes. However, we also find nontrivial challenges in integrating such frameworks in the fast-paced culture of the ML industry. We call on the ML research community to strengthen existing frameworks and assess their efficacy, ensuring that ML systems are safer for all people.

The recent advances of deep learning have dramatically changed how machine learning, especially in the domain of natural language processing, can be applied to legal domain. However, this shift to the data-driven approaches calls for larger and more diverse datasets, which are nevertheless still small in number, especially in non-English languages. Here we present the first large-scale benchmark of Korean legal AI datasets, LBOX OPEN, that consists of one legal corpus, two classification tasks, two legal judgement prediction (LJP) tasks, and one summarization task. The legal corpus consists of 147k Korean precedents (259M tokens), of which 63k are sentenced in last 4 years and 96k are from the first and the second level courts in which factual issues are reviewed. The two classification tasks are case names (11.3k) and statutes (2.8k) prediction from the factual description of individual cases. The LJP tasks consist of (1) 10.5k criminal examples where the model is asked to predict fine amount, imprisonment with labor, and imprisonment without labor ranges for the given facts, and (2) 4.7k civil examples where the inputs are facts and claim for relief and outputs are the degrees of claim acceptance. The summarization task consists of the Supreme Court precedents and the corresponding summaries (20k). We also release realistic variants of the datasets by extending the domain (1) to infrequent case categories in case name (31k examples) and statute (17.7k) classification tasks, and (2) to long input sequences in the summarization task (51k). Finally, we release LCUBE, the first Korean legal language model trained on the legal corpus from this study. Given the uniqueness of the Law of South Korea and the diversity of the legal tasks covered in this work, we believe that LBOX OPEN contributes to the multilinguality of global legal research. LBOX OPEN and LCUBE will be publicly available.

We consider the problem of learning implicit neural representations (INRs) for signals on non-Euclidean domains. In the Euclidean case, INRs are trained on a discrete sampling of a signal over a regular lattice. Here, we assume that the continuous signal exists on some unknown topological space from which we sample a discrete graph. In the absence of a coordinate system to identify the sampled nodes, we propose approximating their location with a spectral embedding of the graph. This allows us to train INRs without knowing the underlying continuous domain, which is the case for most graph signals in nature, while also making the INRs independent of any choice of coordinate system. We show experiments with our method on various real-world signals on non-Euclidean domains.

Large language models have been shown to achieve remarkable performance across a variety of natural language tasks using few-shot learning, which drastically reduces the number of task-specific training examples needed to adapt the model to a particular application. To further our understanding of the impact of scale on few-shot learning, we trained a 540-billion parameter, densely activated, Transformer language model, which we call Pathways Language Model PaLM. We trained PaLM on 6144 TPU v4 chips using Pathways, a new ML system which enables highly efficient training across multiple TPU Pods. We demonstrate continued benefits of scaling by achieving state-of-the-art few-shot learning results on hundreds of language understanding and generation benchmarks. On a number of these tasks, PaLM 540B achieves breakthrough performance, outperforming the finetuned state-of-the-art on a suite of multi-step reasoning tasks, and outperforming average human performance on the recently released BIG-bench benchmark. A significant number of BIG-bench tasks showed discontinuous improvements from model scale, meaning that performance steeply increased as we scaled to our largest model. PaLM also has strong capabilities in multilingual tasks and source code generation, which we demonstrate on a wide array of benchmarks. We additionally provide a comprehensive analysis on bias and toxicity, and study the extent of training data memorization with respect to model scale. Finally, we discuss the ethical considerations related to large language models and discuss potential mitigation strategies.

Legal literature on machine learning (ML) tends to focus on harms, and thus tends to reason about individual model outcomes and summary error rates. This focus has masked important aspects of ML that are rooted in its reliance on randomness -- namely, stochasticity and non-determinism. While some recent work has begun to reason about the relationship between stochasticity and arbitrariness in legal contexts, the role of non-determinism more broadly remains unexamined. In this paper, we clarify the overlap and differences between these two concepts, and show that the effects of non-determinism, and consequently its implications for the law, become clearer from the perspective of reasoning about ML outputs as distributions over possible outcomes. This distributional viewpoint accounts for randomness by emphasizing the possible outcomes of ML. Importantly, this type of reasoning is not exclusive with current legal reasoning; it complements (and in fact can strengthen) analyses concerning individual, concrete outcomes for specific automated decisions. By illuminating the important role of non-determinism, we demonstrate that ML code falls outside of the cyberlaw frame of treating ``code as law,'' as this frame assumes that code is deterministic. We conclude with a brief discussion of what work ML can do to constrain the potentially harm-inducing effects of non-determinism, and we indicate where the law must do work to bridge the gap between its current individual-outcome focus and the distributional approach that we recommend.

Designing and generating new data under targeted properties has been attracting various critical applications such as molecule design, image editing and speech synthesis. Traditional hand-crafted approaches heavily rely on expertise experience and intensive human efforts, yet still suffer from the insufficiency of scientific knowledge and low throughput to support effective and efficient data generation. Recently, the advancement of deep learning induces expressive methods that can learn the underlying representation and properties of data. Such capability provides new opportunities in figuring out the mutual relationship between the structural patterns and functional properties of the data and leveraging such relationship to generate structural data given the desired properties. This article provides a systematic review of this promising research area, commonly known as controllable deep data generation. Firstly, the potential challenges are raised and preliminaries are provided. Then the controllable deep data generation is formally defined, a taxonomy on various techniques is proposed and the evaluation metrics in this specific domain are summarized. After that, exciting applications of controllable deep data generation are introduced and existing works are experimentally analyzed and compared. Finally, the promising future directions of controllable deep data generation are highlighted and five potential challenges are identified.

Among the great challenges posed to democracy today is the use of technology, data, and automated systems in ways that threaten the rights of the American public. Too often, these tools are used to limit our opportunities and prevent our access to critical resources or services. These problems are well documented. In America and around the world, systems supposed to help with patient care have proven unsafe, ineffective, or biased. Algorithms used in hiring and credit decisions have been found to reflect and reproduce existing unwanted inequities or embed new harmful bias and discrimination.