Coalition Obstruction Temporal Logic: A New Obstruction Logic to Reason About Demon Coalitions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In multi-agent systems, especially in cybersecurity, the dynamic interplay between attackers and defenders is crucial to the security and resilience of the system. Traditional methods often assume static game models and fail to account for the strategic adaptation of the environment to the actions of the players. This paper presents Coalition Obstruction Temporal Logic (COTL), a formal framework for analyzing defender coalitions in dynamic game scenarios. Within this framework, defenders, conceptualized as demons, can actively obstruct attackers by selectively disabling certain actions in response to perceived threats. We establish the formal semantics of COTL and propose a model checking algorithm to verify complex security properties in systems with evolving adversarial dynamics. The utility of the framework is demonstrated through its application to a coalition of defenders that collaboratively defend a system against coordinated attacks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it