Dynamic Policy Decision/Enforcement Security Zoning Through Stochastic Games and Meta Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Securing Next Generation Networks (NGNs) remains a prominent topic of discussion in academia and industries alike, driven by the rapid evolution of cyber attacks. As these attacks become increasingly complex and dynamic, it is crucial to develop sophisticated security strategies with automated dynamic policy enforcement. In this paper, we propose a security strategy based on the zero-trust model, incorporating dynamic policy decisions through the utilization of stochastic games and Reinforcement Learning (RL). Our approach involves the development of an attack and defense strategy evolution model, specifically tailored to combat cyber attacks in NGNs. To achieve this, we employ RL techniques to update and adapt dynamic policies. To train the agents, we utilize the Generalized Proximal Policy Optimization with sample reuse (GePPO) algorithm, including its modified version, GePPO-ML, which incorporates meta-learning to initialize the agent’s policy and parameters. Additionally, we employ the Sample Dropout PPO with meta-learning (SDPPO-ML), a modified version of the SD-PPO algorithm, to train the agents. To evaluate the performance of these algorithms, we conduct a comparative analysis against the REINFORCE and PPO algorithms. The results illustrate the superior performance of both GePPO-ML and SDPPO-ML when compared to these baseline algorithms, with GePPO-ML exhibiting the best performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".