Divide to Defend: Collusive Security Games

Research on security games has focused on settings where the defender must protect against either a single adversary or multiple, independent adversaries. However, there are a variety of real-world security domains where adversaries may benefit from colluding in their actions against the defender, e.g., wildlife poaching, urban crime and drug trafficking. Given such adversary collusion may be more detrimental for the defender, she has an incentive to break up collusion by playing off the self-interest of individual adversaries. As we show in this paper, breaking up such collusion is difficult given bounded rationality of human adversaries; we therefore investigate algorithms for the defender assuming both rational and boundedly rational adversaries. The contributions of this paper include i collusive security games COSGs, a model for security games involving potential collusion among adversaries, ii SPECTRE-R, an algorithm to solve COSGs and break collusion assuming rational adversaries, iii observations and analyses of adversary behavior and the underlying factors including bounded rationality, imbalanced- resource-allocation effect, coverage perception, and individualism/collectivism attitudes within COSGs with data from 700 human subjects, iv a learned human behavioral model that incorporates these factors to predict when collusion will occur, v SPECTRE-BR, an enhanced algorithm which optimizes against the learned behavior model to provide demonstrably better performing defender strategies against human subjects compared to SPECTRE-R.

[1]  R. McKelvey,et al.  Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games , 1995 .

[2]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Stackelberg vs. Nash in Security Games: An Extended Investigation of Interchangeability, Equivalence, and Uniqueness , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[3]  M. Gelfand,et al.  Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement , 1995 .

[4]  Manish Jain,et al.  Computing optimal randomized resource allocations for massive security games , 2009, AAMAS 2009.

[5]  E. Fehr A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation , 1998 .

[6]  Milind Tambe,et al.  CAPTURE: A New Predictive Anti-Poaching Tool for Wildlife Protection , 2016, AAMAS.

[7]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Comparing human behavior models in repeated Stackelberg security games: An extended study , 2016, Artif. Intell..

[8]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

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

[10]  Rhona C. Free,et al.  21st century economics : a reference handbook , 2010 .

[11]  Andrés López Restrepo,et al.  From Smugglers to Warlords: Twentieth Century Colombian Drug Traffickers , 2003 .

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

[13]  Creola Johnson America’s First Consumer Financial Watchdog Is on a Leash: Can the CFPB Use Its Authority to Declare Payday-Loan Practices Unfair, Abusive, and Deceptive? , 2012 .

[14]  Milind Tambe,et al.  When Security Games Go Green: Designing Defender Strategies to Prevent Poaching and Illegal Fishing , 2015, IJCAI.

[15]  Juliane Hahn,et al.  Security And Game Theory Algorithms Deployed Systems Lessons Learned , 2016 .

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

[17]  Pervaze A. Sheikh,et al.  International Illegal Trade in Wildlife: Threats and U.S. Policy [July 23, 2013] , 2013 .

[18]  Michelle Renee Nelson,et al.  A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment , 2008 .

[19]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Towards a science of security games , 2016 .

[20]  M. Gelfand,et al.  Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism , 1998 .

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[22]  Bo An,et al.  Coalitional Security Games , 2016, AAMAS.

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[24]  Greg L. Warchol,et al.  Transnational Criminality: An Analysis of the Illegal Wildlife Market in Southern Africa , 2003 .

[25]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Stackelberg vs. Nash in security games: interchangeability, equivalence, and uniqueness , 2010, AAMAS.

[26]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  On the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  Horace A. Bartilow,et al.  Free Traders and Drug Smugglers: The Effects of Trade Openness on States' Ability to Combat Drug Trafficking , 2009, Latin American Politics and Society.

[28]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Security Games with Multiple Attacker Resources , 2011, IJCAI.

[29]  John F. Tomer What is Behavioral Economics? , 2005 .

[30]  C. Narrod,et al.  Current and predicted trends in the production, consumption and trade of live animals and their products. , 2011, Revue scientifique et technique.

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

[32]  Rong Yang Human Adversaries in Security Games: Integrating Models of Bounded Rationality and Fast Algorithms , 2014 .

[33]  Colin Camerer Behavioral Game Theory , 1990 .