Solving Online Threat Screening Games using Constrained Action Space Reinforcement Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large-scale screening for potential threats with limited resources and capacity for screening is a problem of interest at airports, seaports, and other ports of entry. Adversaries can observe screening procedures and arrive at a time when there will be gaps in screening due to limited resource capacities. To capture this game between ports and adversaries, this problem has been previously represented as a Stackelberg game, referred to as a Threat Screening Game (TSG). Given the significant complexity associated with solving TSGs and uncertainty in arrivals of customers, existing work has assumed that screenees arrive and are allocated security resources at the beginning of the time window. In practice, screenees such as airport passengers arrive in bursts correlated with flight time and are not bound by fixed time windows. To address this, we propose an online threat screening model in which screening strategy is determined adaptively as a passenger arrives while satisfying a hard bound on acceptable risk of not screening a threat. To solve the online problem with a hard bound on risk, we formulate it as a Reinforcement Learning (RL) problem with constraints on the action space (hard bound on risk). We provide a novel way to efficiently enforce linear inequality constraints on the action output in Deep Reinforcement Learning. We show that our solution allows us to significantly reduce screenee wait time while guaranteeing a bound on risk.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 0; 2023: 4; 2024: 1; 2025: 2.
10 papers.
- 2021Enforcing Policy Feasibility Constraints through Differentiable Projection for Energy Optimizationcited by 31
- 2021Action Set Based Policy Optimization for Safe Power Grid Managementcited by 21
- 2021Escaping from Zero Gradient: Revisiting Action-Constrained Reinforcement Learning via Frank-Wolfe Policy Optimizationcited by 18
- 2023Benchmarking Actor-Critic Deep Reinforcement Learning Algorithms for Robotics Control with Action Constraintscited by 11
- 2023Generative Modelling of Stochastic Actions with Arbitrary Constraints in Reinforcement Learningcited by 10
- 2023Reduced Policy Optimization for Continuous Control with Hard Constraintscited by 6
- 2023DFWLayer: Differentiable Frank-Wolfe Optimization Layercited by 2
- 2025Improving Stochastic Action-Constrained Reinforcement Learning via Truncated Distributionscited by 2
- 2024Autoregressive Policy Optimization for Constrained Allocation Taskscited by 0
- 2025Navigating Demand Uncertainty in Container Shipping: Deep Reinforcement Learning for Enabling Adaptive and Feasible Master Stowage Planningcited by 0
- 2025Improving Stochastic Action-Constrained Reinforcement Learning via Truncated Distributions27 Nov 2025
- 2025Navigating Demand Uncertainty in Container Shipping: Deep Reinforcement Learning for Enabling Adaptive and Feasible Master Stowage Planning18 Feb 2025
- 2024Autoregressive Policy Optimization for Constrained Allocation Tasks27 Sep 2024
- 2023Generative Modelling of Stochastic Actions with Arbitrary Constraints in Reinforcement Learning26 Nov 2023
- 2023Reduced Policy Optimization for Continuous Control with Hard Constraints14 Oct 2023
- 2023DFWLayer: Differentiable Frank-Wolfe Optimization Layer21 Aug 2023
- 2023Benchmarking Actor-Critic Deep Reinforcement Learning Algorithms for Robotics Control with Action Constraints18 Apr 2023
- 2021Action Set Based Policy Optimization for Safe Power Grid Management29 Jun 2021
- 2021Enforcing Policy Feasibility Constraints through Differentiable Projection for Energy Optimization19 May 2021
- 2021Escaping from Zero Gradient: Revisiting Action-Constrained Reinforcement Learning via Frank-Wolfe Policy Optimization22 Feb 2021