Hybrid Inspector-Inspectee-Agent Games in Mobile Cloud Computing

Within the paradigm of Mobile Cloud Computing (MCC) mobile devices such as mobile phones and tablets can unload computation to a local Cloud consisting of both static and mobile devices. Due to the proximity, such Cloud can better fulfill service and latency requirements for QoS sensitive applications. However, in order to function properly, such mechanics requires a collaborative approach that not all the devices might follow: some can contribute much less than others and deviate from the Service Level Agreement. This creates a free-riding problem in MCC and a corresponding QoS issue. An approach towards this problem consists of providing incentives to nodes so that they act as inspectors and occasionally audit the recent behavior of the nodes with which they interact. This double role of potential inspectee and inspectors can be modeled within Game Theory (GT) to predict the behavior of the agents. In this work, we show that an appropriate model for this game is a symmetric four-strategies social dilemma. The solution (a.k.a. equilibrium) of the game provides a unique way to set the incentives so as to drive the system toward the desired behavior. However, even the hybrid inspector-inspectee agent approach is in principle open to a potential flaw: the possibility of inspector-inspectee collusion. The main contribution of this work is that the collusion behavior is not an equilibrium of the game, thus hybrid agent rational players should never collude.

[1]  Elöd Egyed-Zsigmond,et al.  A Watermark Inspection Game for IoT Settings , 2019, 2019 IEEE World Congress on Services (SERVICES).

[2]  F. A. Bostock,et al.  A generalized inspection game , 1991 .

[3]  Rajkumar Buyya,et al.  Heterogeneity in Mobile Cloud Computing: Taxonomy and Open Challenges , 2014, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[4]  Lionel Brunie,et al.  An investigation on the unwillingness of nodes to participate in mobile delay tolerant network routing , 2013, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[5]  D. Marc Kilgour,et al.  Efficient distributions of arms‐control inspection effort , 2004 .

[6]  T. Ferguson,et al.  On the Inspection Game , 1998 .

[7]  Ryusuke Hohzaki,et al.  An inspection game with multiple inspectees , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Quanyan Zhu,et al.  Game theory meets network security and privacy , 2013, CSUR.

[9]  Birgitta König-Ries,et al.  Stimulating Cooperative Behavior of Autonomous Devices: An Analysis of Requirements and Existing Approaches , 2003, Wireless Information Systems.

[10]  Christine Morin,et al.  Incentives for Mobile Cloud Environments through P2P Auctions , 2016, 2016 5th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Networking (Cloudnet).

[11]  Anne-Marie Kermarrec,et al.  Peer sharing behaviour in the eDonkey network, and implications for the design of server-less file sharing systems , 2006, EuroSys.

[12]  Gabriele Gianini,et al.  The effect of node selfishness on the performance of WSN cluster-based routing algorithms , 2015, AFRICON 2015.

[13]  Melvin Dresher,et al.  A Sampling Inspection Problem in Arms Control Agreements: A Game-Theoretic Analysis , 1962 .

[14]  Ernesto Damiani,et al.  A Framework for the Design Configuration of Accountable Selfish-Resilient Peer-to-Peer Systems , 2015, 2015 IEEE 34th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS).

[15]  A. J. Goldman,et al.  The dependence of inspection-system performance on levels of penalties and inspection resources , 1976 .

[16]  Ernesto Damiani,et al.  RACOON++: A Semi-Automatic Framework for the Selfishness-Aware Design of Cooperative Systems , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing.

[17]  Ernesto Damiani,et al.  Cloaking games in location based services , 2008, SWS '08.

[18]  Marco Cremonini,et al.  A game theoretic approach to vulnerability patching , 2015, 2015 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Research (ICTRC).

[19]  Wei Yang,et al.  Inspection and crime prevention: an evolutionary perspective , 2013, ArXiv.

[20]  Ernesto Damiani,et al.  A Game-Theoretical Approach to Data-Privacy Protection from Context-Based Inference Attacks: A Location-Privacy Protection Case Study , 2008, Secure Data Management.

[21]  Gabriele Gianini,et al.  An evolutionary cluster-game approach for Wireless Sensor Networks in non-collaborative settings , 2017, Pervasive Mob. Comput..

[22]  Eric van Damme,et al.  Non-Cooperative Games , 2000 .

[23]  Lionel Brunie,et al.  An Analysis of Strategies for Preventing Selfish Behavior in Mobile Delay Tolerant Networks , 2012, 2012 Sixth International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing.

[24]  M. Dufwenberg Game theory. , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[25]  Younghwan Yoo,et al.  Why does it pay to be selfish in a MANET? , 2006, IEEE Wireless Communications.

[26]  Ernesto Damiani,et al.  Many-player inspection games in networked environments , 2013, 2013 7th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST).

[27]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Rationality and Self-Interest in Peer to Peer Networks , 2003, IPTPS.

[28]  R. Webster On inspection , 1990, Nature.