Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper reframes shielded reinforcement learning from a runtime safety mechanism to a design-time analytical tool, utilizing automata-theoretic methods to derive insights about system defensibility. By constructing a constrained two-player safety game, the authors analyze the interactions between a defender and an attacker, yielding a formal defensibility verdict that identifies whether a given network topology is defensible. The findings reveal that small architectural modifications can significantly impact operational outcomes, highlighting the importance of understanding both formal safety properties and adaptive behavior in network defense strategies.
Small architectural changes can drastically alter operational outcomes in network defense without affecting formal safety margins, challenging traditional views on safety mechanisms.
Shielded reinforcement learning is typically presented as a runtime safety mechanism that compiles temporal-logic specifications into automata restricting an agent's actions. We argue this is the wrong product. The same automata-theoretic machinery -- specification compilation, product game construction, attractor computation, and winning-region extraction -- is better read as a design-time analytical instrument whose outputs are structural insights about a system rather than runtime constraints on a deployed agent. We instantiate this through a constrained two-player safety game for network defense. The two specifications are enforced asymmetrically: the defender specification defines the unsafe region of the game, whereas the attacker specification restricts the adversary's legal actions during attractor computation. Solving the game yields a defensibility verdict -- a formal certificate that a topology-specification pair is or is not defensible -- with the associated winning region and shield. Beyond the binary verdict, we derive topology-level metrics from the attractor structure and combine them with post-convergence behavior from shield-constrained adversarial multi-agent reinforcement learning. Together these form a defensibility fingerprint capturing both a network's formal safety properties and its operational behavior under adaptive play. A what-if analysis shows that formal defensibility and operational effectiveness capture distinct aspects of security: small architectural changes can produce large shifts in operational outcomes while leaving formal safety margins nearly unchanged. Shield synthesis is thus most valuable not as a deployment mechanism for safe agents, but as a framework for answering architectural questions about whether, where, and how a system can be defended. The defensibility verdict is the output, not the safe policy.