Learning Adversary Behavior in Security Games: A PAC Model Perspective

Recent applications of Stackelberg Security Games (SSG), from wildlife crime to urban crime, have employed machine learning tools to learn and predict adversary behavior using available data about defender-adversary interactions. Given these recent developments, this paper commits to an approach of directly learning the response function of the adversary. Using the PAC model, this paper lays a firm theoretical foundation for learning in SSGs (e.g., theoretically answer questions about the numbers of samples required to learn adversary behavior) and provides utility guarantees when the learned adversary model is used to plan the defender's strategy. The paper also aims to answer practical questions such as how much more data is needed to improve an adversary model's accuracy. Additionally, we explain a recently observed phenomenon that prediction accuracy of learned adversary behavior is not enough to discover the utility maximizing defender strategy. We provide four main contributions: (1) a PAC model of learning adversary response functions in SSGs; (2) PAC-model analysis of the learning of key, existing bounded rationality models in SSGs; (3) an entirely new approach to adversary modeling based on a non-parametric class of response functions with PAC-model analysis and (4) identification of conditions under which computing the best defender strategy against the learned adversary behavior is indeed the optimal strategy. Finally, we conduct experiments with real-world data from a national park in Uganda, showing the benefit of our new adversary modeling approach and verification of our PAC model predictions.

[1]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[2]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Robust Protection of Fisheries with COmPASS , 2014, AAAI.

[3]  J. Lamperti ON CONVERGENCE OF STOCHASTIC PROCESSES , 1962 .

[4]  W. H. Bowen,et al.  Oeuvres complètes. I , 1957 .

[5]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Security and Game Theory - Algorithms, Deployed Systems, Lessons Learned , 2011 .

[6]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Complexity of Computing Optimal Stackelberg Strategies in Security Resource Allocation Games , 2010, AAAI.

[7]  D. McFadden Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey , 1976 .

[8]  Evgueni A. Haroutunian,et al.  Information Theory and Statistics , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[9]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  The art of computer programming, volume 3: (2nd ed.) sorting and searching , 1998 .

[10]  Yevgeniy Vorobeychik,et al.  Optimal randomized classification in adversarial settings , 2014, AAMAS.

[11]  David Haussler,et al.  Decision Theoretic Generalizations of the PAC Model for Neural Net and Other Learning Applications , 1992, Inf. Comput..

[12]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Playing games for security: an efficient exact algorithm for solving Bayesian Stackelberg games , 2008, AAMAS.

[13]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Towards Addressing Challenges in Green Security Games in the Wild , 2015 .

[14]  S. Tanny A probabilistic interpretation of Eulerian numbers , 1973 .

[15]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  The Art of Computer Programming: Volume 3: Sorting and Searching , 1998 .

[16]  Richard S. John,et al.  Empirical Comparisons of Descriptive Multi-objective Adversary Models in Stackelberg Security Games , 2014, GameSec.

[17]  Milind Tambe,et al.  "A Game of Thrones": When Human Behavior Models Compete in Repeated Stackelberg Security Games , 2015, AAMAS.

[18]  Rong Yang,et al.  Adaptive resource allocation for wildlife protection against illegal poachers , 2014, AAMAS.

[19]  Umesh V. Vazirani,et al.  An Introduction to Computational Learning Theory , 1994 .

[20]  Peter L. Bartlett,et al.  Neural Network Learning - Theoretical Foundations , 1999 .

[21]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Learning and Approximating the Optimal Strategy to Commit To , 2009, SAGT.

[22]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  The art of computer programming: sorting and searching (volume 3) , 1973 .

[23]  Nicole D. Sintov,et al.  Human Adversaries in Opportunistic Crime Security Games: Evaluating Competing Bounded Rationality Models , 2015 .

[24]  Noa Agmon,et al.  Making the Most of Our Regrets: Regret-Based Solutions to Handle Payoff Uncertainty and Elicitation in Green Security Games , 2015, GameSec.

[25]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Beware the Soothsayer: From Attack Prediction Accuracy to Predictive Reliability in Security Games , 2015, GameSec.

[26]  Nicola Basilico,et al.  Leader-follower strategies for robotic patrolling in environments with arbitrary topologies , 2009, AAMAS.

[27]  Ulrike von Luxburg,et al.  Distance-Based Classification with Lipschitz Functions , 2004, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[28]  A. Kolmogorov,et al.  Entropy and "-capacity of sets in func-tional spaces , 1961 .

[29]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Learning Optimal Commitment to Overcome Insecurity , 2014, NIPS.

[30]  Maria-Florina Balcan,et al.  Commitment Without Regrets: Online Learning in Stackelberg Security Games , 2015, EC.

[31]  Gerald Tesauro,et al.  Playing repeated Stackelberg games with unknown opponents , 2012, AAMAS.

[32]  Amos Azaria,et al.  Analyzing the Effectiveness of Adversary Modeling in Security Games , 2013, AAAI.

[33]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Keeping Pace with Criminals: Designing Patrol Allocation Against Adaptive Opportunistic Criminals , 2015, AAMAS.

[34]  Nicolas Christin,et al.  Audit Games , 2013, IJCAI.

[35]  Nicolas Christin,et al.  Audit Games with Multiple Defender Resources , 2014, AAAI.

[36]  Maria-Florina Balcan,et al.  Learning Cooperative Games , 2015, IJCAI.

[37]  Xianfu Wang Volumes of Generalized Unit Balls , 2005 .

[38]  Bo An,et al.  Security Games with Protection Externalities , 2015, AAAI.