Faster Stackelberg Planning via Symbolic Search and Information Sharing

Stackelberg planning is a recent framework where a leader and a follower each choose a plan in the same planning task, the leader's objective being to maximize plan cost for the follower. This formulation naturally captures security-related (leader=defender, follower=attacker) as well as robustness- related (leader=adversarial event, follower=agent) scenarios. Solving Stackelberg planning tasks requires solving many related planning tasks at the follower level (in the worst case, one for every possible leader plan). Here we introduce new methods to tackle this source of complexity, through sharing information across follower tasks. Our evaluation shows that these methods can significantly reduce both the time needed to solve follower tasks and the number of follower tasks that need to be solved in the first place.

[1]  Stefan Edelkamp,et al.  Improving Cost-Optimal Domain-Independent Symbolic Planning , 2011, AAAI.

[2]  Stefan Edelkamp,et al.  Efficient symbolic search for cost-optimal planning , 2017, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Mausam,et al.  Discovering hidden structure in factored MDPs , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Jörg Hoffmann,et al.  Formally Reasoning about the Cost and Efficacy of Securing the Email Infrastructure , 2018, 2018 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P).

[5]  Jörg Hoffmann,et al.  Stackelberg Planning: Towards Effective Leader-Follower State Space Search , 2018, AAAI.

[6]  Malte Helmert,et al.  Concise finite-domain representations for PDDL planning tasks , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Malte Helmert,et al.  The Fast Downward Planning System , 2006, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[8]  Emin Gün Sirer,et al.  Perils of transitive trust in the domain name system , 2005, IMC '05.

[9]  Florian Geißer,et al.  When Perfect Is Not Good Enough: On the Search Behaviour of Symbolic Heuristic Search , 2020, ICAPS.

[10]  Barbara Kordy,et al.  DAG-based attack and defense modeling: Don't miss the forest for the attack trees , 2013, Comput. Sci. Rev..

[11]  Michael Backes,et al.  Who Controls the Internet?: Analyzing Global Threats using Property Graph Traversals , 2017, WWW.

[12]  Wheeler Ruml,et al.  Faster Bounded-Cost Search Using Inadmissible Estimates , 2012, ICAPS.

[13]  Sérgio Vale Aguiar Campos,et al.  Symbolic Model Checking , 1993, CAV.

[14]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Unleashing Dec-MDPs in Security Games: Enabling Effective Defender Teamwork , 2014, ECAI.

[15]  Randal E. Bryant,et al.  Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

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

[17]  Patrik Haslum Heuristics for Bounded-Cost Search , 2013, ICAPS.

[18]  Álvaro Torralba,et al.  Symbolic perimeter abstraction heuristics for cost-optimal planning , 2018, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Soft Goals Can Be Compiled Away , 2009, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[20]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  COMPLEXITY RESULTS FOR SAS+ PLANNING , 1995, Comput. Intell..

[21]  Rami Puzis,et al.  Potential-based bounded-cost search and Anytime Non-Parametric A* , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[22]  George Stephanides,et al.  The economic approach of information security , 2005, Comput. Secur..

[23]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  The FF Planning System: Fast Plan Generation Through Heuristic Search , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[24]  Carmel Domshlak,et al.  Landmarks, Critical Paths and Abstractions: What's the Difference Anyway? , 2009, ICAPS.

[25]  Jörg Hoffmann,et al.  BDD Ordering Heuristics for Classical Planning , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[26]  Stefan Edelkamp,et al.  Optimal Symbolic Planning with Action Costs and Preferences , 2009, IJCAI.