# How should I assess the training of my agent using PPO and Q-learning?

##### 18 件のコメント

### 回答 (3 件)

Hi @sidik,

After analyzing your attached plots, your approach to tuning the PPO model by experimenting with different learning rates and entropy values is commendable. You have to bear in mind that the balance between exploration and exploitation is crucial in reinforcement learning, and your choice of parameters reflects a thoughtful analysis of the trade-offs involved. Let me delve deeper into your findings based on the provided plots and the implications of your selected parameters.

**Success Rate Analysis**

From your first plot (p1.png), you observed the following success rates:

- PPO (LR=0.0001, Entropy=0.1): Success rate between 32 and 36.
- PPO (LR=0.001, Entropy=0.3): Success rate between 44 and 46.

The increase in success rate with a higher learning rate (0.001) and a different entropy value (0.3) suggests that the model is effectively learning and adapting to the environment. A higher success rate indicates that the agent is making better decisions, which is a positive outcome. However, it is essential to consider the trade-off with entropy; a higher entropy value typically encourages exploration, which can lead to more diverse actions but may also result in less stable learning.

**Reward Variance Analysis**

In your second plot (p3.png), the variance in rewards is as follows:

- PPO (LR=0.001, Entropy=0.3): Reward variance between 4000 and 5000.
- PPO (LR=0.0001, Entropy=0.1): Reward variance above 16000.

The significant reduction in reward variance when using a learning rate of 0.001 and an entropy of 0.3 indicates that this configuration leads to more consistent performance. High variance in rewards can be detrimental, as it suggests that the agent's performance is unstable and unpredictable. Your choice of parameters appears to have successfully mitigated this issue, leading to a more reliable learning process.

**Total Reward Analysis**

In the third plot (PPO.png), you noted the total rewards:

- PPO (LR=0.0001, Entropy=0.01): Total reward between 400 and 450.
- PPO (LR=0.001, Entropy=0.1): Total reward between 450 and 460.

The increase in total rewards with the learning rate of 0.001 and entropy of 0.1 further supports your decision. Higher total rewards indicate that the agent is not only succeeding more often but is also achieving better outcomes when it does succeed. This is a critical aspect of reinforcement learning, as the ultimate goal is to maximize cumulative rewards. Based on your analysis and the provided plots, your choice of the PPO model with a learning rate of 0.001 and an entropy coefficient of 0.01 appears to be well-founded. The combination of a higher success rate, reduced reward variance, and increased total rewards suggests that you have effectively balanced exploration and exploitation. However, it is essential to remain vigilant and continue monitoring the model's performance over time. Reinforcement learning can be sensitive to hyperparameter choices, and what works well in one scenario may not necessarily hold in another. Consider conducting further experiments with slight variations in the parameters to ensure robustness and to explore the potential for even better performance. In nutshell, your analysis seems thorough, and your selected model parameters are justified based on the observed performance metrics. Keep up the excellent work in refining your PPO model!

##### 11 件のコメント

##### 1 件のコメント

Hi @sidik,

Please see my comprehensive response below towards attached “reporting.fr.en.pdf”.

**PPO Experimentation**

*Objective & Model Training Parameters:* Your choice of PPO is well-justified given its balance between exploration and exploitation. The detailed explanation of hyperparameters such as entropy coefficients, learning rates, and gamma provides clarity on their roles in training stability.

*Training Process:* The iterative learning process you described effectively highlights how the agent adapts to WAF responses through a mutation mechanism. However, consider including more details on how the mutation process was implemented, as it is pivotal in understanding the exploration strategy.

*Results Analysis:* The graphs illustrating total rewards and success rates are insightful. The conclusion that a learning rate of 0.001 and an entropy coefficient of 0.01 yield optimal performance is compelling. However, further analysis on why higher entropy values negatively impacted stability would enhance this section.

**Q-Learning Experimentation**

*Objective & Training Parameters:* The rationale for using Q-Learning in discrete environments is sound. Your parameter selection reflects an understanding of the trade-offs involved in learning rates and discount factors.

*Training Process:* The explanation of the epsilon-greedy strategy effectively conveys how exploration is balanced with exploitation. Consider incorporating specific examples or scenarios that demonstrate how the agent adjusted its Q-table based on feedback.

*Results Analysis:* While you provided a clear overview of cumulative rewards and success rates across different configurations, a deeper discussion on the implications of reward variance would be beneficial—particularly how it relates to stability in attack strategies.

**Deep Learning Experimentation**

*Objective & Architecture:* Your choice to utilize a fully connected neural network highlights an advanced approach; however, elaborating on why this architecture was chosen over others (e.g., convolutional or recurrent networks) could strengthen your justification.

*Results Analysis:* The performance metrics indicate limitations in adaptability and effectiveness against WAFs. It would be valuable to discuss potential reasons for these shortcomings—such as overfitting or insufficient training data—and suggest possible improvements or alternative architectures.

**Combination of PPO & Q-Learning**

*Objective & Justification of Hyperparameters:* This section effectively articulates the benefits of combining both algorithms, capturing their strengths while mitigating weaknesses. Including a flowchart of the training process could visually enhance this explanation.

*Results Analysis:* Your conclusion regarding improved performance through synergy is robust. However, consider discussing how future iterations might further refine this approach—perhaps through advanced hybrid models or by integrating additional RL techniques like actor-critic methods.

**Comparative Analysis and Synthesis**

Your comparative analysis succinctly summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of each model based on empirical results. Including specific numerical data (e.g., standard deviations for reward variance) would provide a more quantitative foundation for your conclusions. Additionally, suggesting avenues for further research—such as testing additional algorithms or exploring adversarial machine learning techniques—could enhance future work.

It may be beneficial to integrate a discussion on ethical considerations related to using reinforcement learning for penetration testing against WAFs. Addressing potential implications could demonstrate a holistic understanding of cybersecurity practices. Also, incorporating real-world case studies where similar methodologies have been applied could serve as a practical reference point, further validating your findings.

Overall, your report demonstrates thorough experimentation and insightful analysis regarding the application of reinforcement learning to bypass WAF protections against SQL injection attacks. By addressing the aforementioned points, you can enhance clarity and depth while reinforcing the credibility of your findings.

I look forward to seeing how you incorporate this feedback into your final presentation!

### 参考

### カテゴリ

### Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!