Organizations: University of Cagliari · Sapienza, University of Rome · University of Genoa · IBM Research Zurich · Huawei Technologies France · Huawei International
Reinforcement learning (RL) enables agents to learn optimal behaviors through interaction with their environment and has been increasingly deployed in safety-critical applications, including autonomous driving. Despite its promise, RL is susceptible to attacks designed either to compromise policy learning or to induce erroneous decisions by trained agents. Although the literature on RL security has grown rapidly and several surveys exist, existing categorizations often fall short in guiding the selection of appropriate defenses for specific systems. In this work, we present a comprehensive survey of 86 recent studies on RL security, addressing these limitations by systematically categorizing attacks and defenses according to defined threat models and single- versus multi-agent settings. Furthermore, we examine the relevance and applicability of state-of-the-art attacks and defense mechanisms within the context of autonomous driving, providing insights to inform the design of robust RL systems.
Figures & tables
Literature
Defenses
RL-specific
SARL/
Defense
after 2022
MARL
guidance
Behzadan et al. [ 5 ]
-
✓
✓
✓
-
Chen et al. [ 6 ]
-
✓
✓
✓
✓
Shen et al. [ 7 ]
✓
✓
-
-
-
Ibrahum et al. [ 8 ]
✓
✓
-
✓
-
Badjie et al. [ 9 ]
✓
✓
-
-
✓
TABLE I: Limitations of existing work in DRL security.
RL Symbols
a
Action
E
Environment
s
State
r
Reward
o
Observations
R
Return
TABLE II: Summary of the notation and abbreviations.
Fig. 1: Major Components of Autonomous Driving Systems.
Fig. 2: Conceptual representation of the components of an RL policy that the attacker can manipulate without having access to the RL algorithm.
Integrity
Availability
Privacy
Test Data
- reach(sT)
- steal(M)
- min(R)
Training Data
- learn(πB)
- learn(πT)
- learn(πsT)
- learn(πU)
TABLE III: The attacks against RL, categorized according to the attackers’ capability and the security violation they cause.
AGENT MODEL
THREAT MODEL
References
Single vs.
Policy
Model
Attack’s
Attacker’s
Poisoning
Attacker’s
Attacker’s
Sequential
Attacker’s
Multi-agent
Update
Based
Time
Action
Knowledge
Goal
Attack
Agent
Wang et al. [ 17 ]
MARL
off-policy
tr
c(r)
✓
●
learn(πB)
∈E
Gleave et al. [ 19 ]
MARL
on-policy
ts
c(E)
◐
min(R)
✓
∈E
Zhao et al. [ 20 ]
SARL
on/off-policy
ts
c(o)
●
min(R)
∅
Rakhsha et al. [ 22 ]
SARL
on-policy, offline
✓
tr
c(r,a,s)
✓
○
learn(πT)
✓
∅
TABLE IV: Attacks against reinforcement learning systems. The presence of the ✓indicates that the corresponding attribute is true for the attack. For the attacker’s knowledge, we use ● to represent black-box, ◐ for gray-box, and ○ for white-box. Refer Table II for attacker’s agent in the system and Table III for attacker’s goal.
References
Target
Attacker’s
Attacker’s
Poisoning
Sequential
Multi
CDS
Component
Goal
Action
Attack
Agent
Wang et al. [ 17 ]
controller
traffic jam/crash
positions and speeds
✓
✓
Ma et al. [ 32 ]
planning
car is rerouted
training rewards
✓
Yang et al. [ 28 ]
end-to-end
car leaves lane
sensor input / FGSM
✓
Boloor et al. [ 29 ]
end-to-end
car leaves lane
paint pattern on street
✓
Sun et al. [ 30 ]
end-to-end
car leaves lane
sensor environment / FGSM
✓
✓
TABLE V: Attacks evaluated on autonomous driving tasks. /✓indicates both the presence and absence of the feature in that paper. CDS stands for cooperative driving scenario.
Fig. 3: Timeline of attacks against reinforcement learning, compared to those proposed against machine-learning classifiers.
DEFENSE MODEL
THREAT MODEL
References
Single vs.
Policy
Defense
Defense
Attack’s
Attacker’s
Poisoning
Attacker’s
Attacker’s
Sequential
Attacker’s
Multi-agent
Update
Type
Technique
Time
Action
Knowledge
Goal
Attack
Agent
Everitt et al. [ 93 ]
SARL
on-policy
proactive
reg.
tr
c(r)
✓
◐
learn(πU)
∅
Everitt et al. [ 93 ]
SARL
on-policy
reactive
san.
tr
c(r)
✓
◐
learn(πU)
∅
Wang et al. [ 54 ]
SARL
on-policy
reactive
san.
tr
c(E)
✓
○
learn(πB)
✓
∈E
Wang et al. [ 94 ]
SARL
off-policy
reactive
san.
tr
c(r)
✓
●
learn(πU)
∅
TABLE VI: Defenses for reinforcement learning systems. The presence of the ✓indicates that the corresponding attribute is true for the defense. For the attacker’s knowledge, we use ● to represent black-box, ◐ for gray-box, and ○ for white-box. All the defenses proposed so far have been tested on model-free RL algorithms, except [ 92 ] .
Federated reinforcement learning (FRL) is crucial for enabling collaborative learning across multiple agents without sharing raw data, thereby enhancing privacy and scalability in the decision-making process within dynamic vehicular environments. However, poisoning attacks pose a significant threat to the security and reliability of FRL-based systems, particularly in safety-critical autonomous driving, where this vulnerability remains largely unexplored. These attacks can compromise the global control model by subtly injecting malicious system parameters, leading to potential hazards. To counter these challenges, we present \alg (Secure Aggregation with poisoning-prevention and historical reinforcement) as a defensive framework aimed at enhancing the robustness of FRL systems designed for safety-critical driving scenarios. \alg strategically integrates digital twins for rehearsal-based learning and leverages historical aggregated model parameters along with a selected central gradient to ensure that only benign data is aggregated, effectively mitigating the influence of malicious agents. Theoretical guarantees are provided for the convergence performance of \alg in the presence of poisoning attacks. We also validate the effectiveness of \alg using developed digital twins that model realistic highway environments to evaluate the control of autonomous vehicles under adversarial conditions.
Zifan Zhang, Minghong Fang, Dianwei Chen +5
North Carolina State University, USA · University of Louisville, USA · University of Maryland, USA +2
Reinforcement learning (RL) has shown promising performance in autonomous driving, yet ensuring the safety of online RL policies remains challenging due to insufficient exposure to safety-critical driving scenes. The long-tailed nature of real-world traffic situations makes dangerous and rare interactions difficult to encounter through conventional sampling, limiting the ability of RL policies to learn robust safety behaviors. Existing methods improve training diversity by synthesizing challenging scenes or adversarial situations. However, these approaches typically optimize scene generation objectives separately from the evolving policy, without explicitly modeling how generated perturbations relate to the current policy's weaknesses and learning needs. In this paper, we propose Threat-guided Policy-aware Scene Perturbation (TPSP) for safe autonomous driving with online RL. TPSP introduces a policy-aware scene encoder to capture the interaction between policy behaviors and surrounding environments, enabling scene perturbation aligned with the current policy. Based on this representation, TPSP selectively perturbs critical objects rather than applying uniform modifications across the scene. Furthermore, we develop a threat-guided optimization strategy that evaluates perturbed scenes through threat-level differences between policy rollouts on original and perturbed scenes, guiding the generation of safety-critical scenes with higher training value. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that TPSP improves safety learning efficiency, achieving strong safety performance on NAVSIM v2 with approximately 4 million kilometers of simulated driving data. Ablation studies verify that policy-aware targeted perturbations provide more informative safety-critical experiences than random or policy-unaware strategies, enabling safer driving under limited interaction budgets.
Xincong Hu, Lei Ou, Maosen Li +3
Nanjing University · Yinwang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd
While real-world applications of reinforcement learning (RL) are becoming increasingly popular, the security of RL systems deserve more attention and exploration. In particular, recent work has revealed that RL agents are vulnerable to backdoor attacks, where a victim agent behaves normally under standard conditions but executes malicious actions when a specific trigger is activated. Existing backdoor defenses for RL either require access to the agent's internal parameters, operate only at the model or trajectory level, or are limited to specific attack types. To ensure the security of RL agents, we propose PolicyGuard, a test-time step-level backdoor defense which leverages Gaussian Process (GP) posterior variance and adapts pseudo trajectories to enable uncertainty computation for individual time step. Besides, we also provide theoretical foundations to explain the efficacy of GP posterior variance. Extensive experiments across seven RL games demonstrate that PolicyGuard achieves state-of-the-art detection performance in most cases, with average AUROC of 0.856 for perturbation-based attacks and 0.859 for adversary-agent attacks.
Junfeng Guo Heng Huang
Computer Science, University of Maryland College Park, USA.