MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Double Deep Q-Learning for Autonomous Cyber Defense Agent Training

2025· article· W7127450737 on OpenAlexaff
Ethan Morphew, Jie Gao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Multi-agent systemIntelligent agentAutonomous agentTraining set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This poster presents a DDQN-based approach for training an agent to defend networks against attackers of different types. By training the agent against adversaries with diverse strategies, we achieve consistently strong performance in network defense. Evaluations using the TTCP CAGE 2 challenge environment show that our approach achieves comparable or superior rewards to those on the global leaderboard of the challenge. In particular, our agent outperformed the “Ensembled DDDQN” and “PPO w/ RE3 Exploration” approaches by approximately $30 \%$ in the meander 100 -step reward category and $11 \%$ in the b-line 100 -step reward category, respectively.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningFrench-language works237,207