Cyber threat intelligence (CTI) is crucial in today's cybersecurity landscape, providing essential insights to understand and mitigate the ever-evolving cyber threats. The recent rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown potential in this domain, but concerns about their reliability, accuracy, and hallucinations persist. While existing benchmarks provide general evaluations of LLMs, there are no benchmarks that address the practical and applied aspects of CTI-specific tasks. To bridge this gap, we introduce CTIBench, a benchmark designed to assess LLMs' performance in CTI applications. CTIBench includes multiple datasets focused on evaluating knowledge acquired by LLMs in the cyber-threat landscape. Our evaluation of several state-of-the-art models on these tasks provides insights into their strengths and weaknesses in CTI contexts, contributing to a better understanding of LLM capabilities in CTI.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have raised concerns about inference costs, increasing the need for research into model compression. While knowledge distillation (KD) is a prominent method for this, research on KD for generative language models like LLMs is relatively sparse, and the approach of distilling student-friendly knowledge, which has shown promising performance in KD for classification models, remains unexplored in generative language models. To explore this approach, we propose PromptKD, a simple yet effective method that utilizes prompt tuning - for the first time in KD - to enable generative language models to transfer student-friendly knowledge. Unlike previous works in classification that require fine-tuning the entire teacher model for extracting student-friendly knowledge, PromptKD achieves similar effects by adding a small number of prompt tokens and tuning only the prompt with student guidance. Extensive experiments on instruction-following datasets show that PromptKD achieves state-of-the-art performance while adding only 0.0007% of the teacher's parameters as prompts. Further analysis suggests that distilling student-friendly knowledge alleviates exposure bias effectively throughout the entire training process, leading to performance enhancements.

Benchmarking is the de-facto standard for evaluating LLMs, due to its speed, replicability and low cost. However, recent work has pointed out that the majority of the open source benchmarks available today have been contaminated or leaked into LLMs, meaning that LLMs have access to test data during pretraining and/or fine-tuning. This raises serious concerns about the validity of benchmarking studies conducted so far and the future of evaluation using benchmarks. To solve this problem, we propose Private Benchmarking, a solution where test datasets are kept private and models are evaluated without revealing the test data to the model. We describe various scenarios (depending on the trust placed on model owners or dataset owners), and present solutions to avoid data contamination using private benchmarking. For scenarios where the model weights need to be kept private, we describe solutions from confidential computing and cryptography that can aid in private benchmarking. We build an end-to-end system, TRUCE, that enables such private benchmarking showing that the overheads introduced to protect models and benchmark are negligible (in the case of confidential computing) and tractable (when cryptographic security is required). Finally, we also discuss solutions to the problem of benchmark dataset auditing, to ensure that private benchmarks are of sufficiently high quality.

Do architectural differences significantly affect the way models represent and process language? We propose a new approach, based on metric-learning encoding models (MLEMs), as a first step to answer this question. The approach provides a feature-based comparison of how any two layers of any two models represent linguistic information. We apply the method to BERT, GPT-2 and Mamba. Unlike previous methods, MLEMs offer a transparent comparison, by identifying the specific linguistic features responsible for similarities and differences. More generally, the method uses formal, symbolic descriptions of a domain, and use these to compare neural representations. As such, the approach can straightforwardly be extended to other domains, such as speech and vision, and to other neural systems, including human brains.

There has been increasing interest in exploring the capabilities of advanced large language models (LLMs) in the field of information extraction (IE), specifically focusing on tasks related to named entity recognition (NER) and relation extraction (RE). Although researchers are exploring the use of few-shot information extraction through in-context learning with LLMs, they tend to focus only on using correct or positive examples for demonstration, neglecting the potential value of incorporating incorrect or negative examples into the learning process. In this paper, we present c-ICL, a novel few-shot technique that leverages both correct and incorrect sample constructions to create in-context learning demonstrations. This approach enhances the ability of LLMs to extract entities and relations by utilizing prompts that incorporate not only the positive samples but also the reasoning behind them. This method allows for the identification and correction of potential interface errors. Specifically, our proposed method taps into the inherent contextual information and valuable information in hard negative samples and the nearest positive neighbors to the test and then applies the in-context learning demonstrations based on LLMs. Our experiments on various datasets indicate that c-ICL outperforms previous few-shot in-context learning methods, delivering substantial enhancements in performance across a broad spectrum of related tasks. These improvements are noteworthy, showcasing the versatility of our approach in miscellaneous scenarios.

Mitigating biases in machine learning models has become an increasing concern in Natural Language Processing (NLP), particularly in developing fair text embeddings, which are crucial yet challenging for real-world applications like search engines. In response, this paper proposes a novel method for learning fair text embeddings. First, we define a novel content-conditional equal distance (CCED) fairness for text embeddings, ensuring content-conditional independence between sensitive attributes and text embeddings. Building on CCED, we introduce a content-conditional debiasing (CCD) loss to ensure that embeddings of texts with different sensitive attributes but identical content maintain the same distance from the embedding of their corresponding neutral text. Additionally, we tackle the issue of insufficient training data by using Large Language Models (LLMs) with instructions to fairly augment texts into different sensitive groups. Our extensive evaluations show that our approach effectively enhances fairness while maintaining the utility of embeddings. Furthermore, our augmented dataset, combined with the CCED metric, serves as an new benchmark for evaluating fairness.

When building Large Language Models (LLMs), it is paramount to bear safety in mind and protect them with guardrails. Indeed, LLMs should never generate content promoting or normalizing harmful, illegal, or unethical behavior that may contribute to harm to individuals or society. This principle applies to both normal and adversarial use. In response, we introduce ALERT, a large-scale benchmark to assess safety based on a novel fine-grained risk taxonomy. It is designed to evaluate the safety of LLMs through red teaming methodologies and consists of more than 45k instructions categorized using our novel taxonomy. By subjecting LLMs to adversarial testing scenarios, ALERT aims to identify vulnerabilities, inform improvements, and enhance the overall safety of the language models. Furthermore, the fine-grained taxonomy enables researchers to perform an in-depth evaluation that also helps one to assess the alignment with various policies. In our experiments, we extensively evaluate 10 popular open- and closed-source LLMs and demonstrate that many of them still struggle to attain reasonable levels of safety.

While Large language models (LLMs) have the capability to iteratively reflect on their own outputs, recent studies have observed their struggles with knowledge-rich problems without access to external resources. In addition to the inefficiency of LLMs in self-assessment, we also observe that LLMs struggle to revisit their predictions despite receiving explicit negative feedback. Therefore, We propose Mirror, a Multiple-perspective self-reflection method for knowledge-rich reasoning, to avoid getting stuck at a particular reflection iteration. Mirror enables LLMs to reflect from multiple-perspective clues, achieved through a heuristic interaction between a Navigator and a Reasoner. It guides agents toward diverse yet plausibly reliable reasoning trajectory without access to ground truth by encouraging (1) diversity of directions generated by Navigator and (2) agreement among strategically induced perturbations in responses generated by the Reasoner. The experiments on five reasoning datasets demonstrate that Mirror's superiority over several contemporary self-reflection approaches. Additionally, the ablation study studies clearly indicate that our strategies alleviate the aforementioned challenges.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to significantly contribute to patient care, diagnostics, and administrative processes. Emerging biomedical LLMs aim to address healthcare-specific challenges, including privacy demands and computational constraints. Assessing the models' suitability for this sensitive application area is of the utmost importance. However, evaluation has primarily been limited to non-clinical tasks, which do not reflect the complexity of practical clinical applications. To fill this gap, we present the Clinical Language Understanding Evaluation (CLUE), a benchmark tailored to evaluate LLMs on clinical tasks. CLUE includes six tasks to test the practical applicability of LLMs in complex healthcare settings. Our evaluation includes a total of $25$ LLMs. In contrast to previous evaluations, CLUE shows a decrease in performance for nine out of twelve biomedical models. Our benchmark represents a step towards a standardized approach to evaluating and developing LLMs in healthcare to align future model development with the real-world needs of clinical application. We open-source all evaluation scripts and datasets for future research at https://github.com/TIO-IKIM/CLUE.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) can cause them to lose their general capabilities. However, the intrinsic mechanisms behind such forgetting remain unexplored. In this paper, we begin by examining this phenomenon by focusing on knowledge understanding and instruction following, with the latter identified as the main contributor to forgetting during fine-tuning. Consequently, we propose the Instruction Vector (IV) framework to capture model representations highly related to specific instruction-following capabilities, thereby making it possible to understand model-intrinsic forgetting. Through the analysis of IV dynamics pre and post-training, we suggest that fine-tuning mostly adds specialized reasoning patterns instead of erasing previous skills, which may appear as forgetting. Building on this insight, we develop IV-guided training, which aims to preserve original computation graph, thereby mitigating catastrophic forgetting. Empirical tests on three benchmarks confirm the efficacy of this new approach, supporting the relationship between IVs and forgetting. Our code will be made available soon.