Exploring the Efficacy of Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Cyber Defence: A CAGE Challenge 4 Perspective
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
As cyber threats become increasingly automated and sophisticated, novel solutions must be introduced to improve defence of enterprise networks. Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) has demonstrated potential in mitigating these advanced threats. Single DRL Agents have proven utility toward execution of autonomous cyber defence. Despite the success of employing single DRL Agents, this approach presents significant limitations, especially regarding scalability within large enterprise networks. An attractive alternative to the single agent approach is the use of Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL). However, developing MARL agents is costly with few options for examining MARL cyber defence techniques against adversarial agents. This paper presents a MARL network security environment, the fourth iteration of the Cyber Autonomy Gym for Experimentation (CAGE) challenges. This challenge was specifically designed to test the efficacy of MARL algorithms in an enterprise network. Our work aims to evaluate the potential of MARL as a robust and scalable solution for autonomous network defence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it