Security games with surveillance cost and optimal timing of attack execution

Stackelberg games have been used in several deployed applications to allocate limited resources for critical infrastructure protection. These resource allocation strategies are randomized to prevent a strategic attacker from using surveillance to learn and exploit patterns in the allocation. Past work has typically assumed that the attacker has perfect knowledge of the defender's randomized strategy or can learn the defender's strategy after conducting a fixed period of surveillance. In consideration of surveillance cost, these assumptions are clearly simplistic since attackers may act with partial knowledge of the defender's strategies and may dynamically decide whether to attack or conduct more surveillance. In this paper, we propose a natural model of limited surveillance in which the attacker dynamically determine a place to stop surveillance in consideration of his updated belief based on observed actions and surveillance cost. We show an upper bound on the maximum number of observations the attacker can make and show that the attacker's optimal stopping problem can be formulated as a finite state space MDP. We give mathematical programs to compute optimal attacker and defender strategies. We compare our approaches with the best known previous solutions and experimental results show that the defender can achieve significant improvement in expected utility by taking the attacker's optimal stopping decision into account, validating the motivation of our work.

[1]  Bo An,et al.  PROTECT: a deployed game theoretic system to protect the ports of the United States , 2012, AAMAS.

[2]  John Morgan,et al.  The Value of Commitment in Contests and Tournaments When Observation is Costly , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..

[3]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Solving Stackelberg games with uncertain observability , 2011, AAMAS.

[4]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Deployed ARMOR protection: the application of a game theoretic model for security at the Los Angeles International Airport , 2008, AAMAS.

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

[6]  A. Tversky,et al.  Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. , 1994 .

[7]  Manish Jain,et al.  Risk-Averse Strategies for Security Games with Execution and Observational Uncertainty , 2011, AAAI.

[8]  Bo An,et al.  Refinement of Strong Stackelberg Equilibria in Security Games , 2011, AAAI.

[9]  Erroll G. Southers Security and Game Theory: LAX – Terror Target: The History, the Reason, the Countermeasure , 2011 .

[10]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Robust solutions to Stackelberg games: Addressing bounded rationality and limited observations in human cognition , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Bo An,et al.  Mixed-Initiative Optimization in Security Games: A Preliminary Report , 2011, AAAI Spring Symposium: Help Me Help You: Bridging the Gaps in Human-Agent Collaboration.

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

[13]  Bo An,et al.  Security Games with Limited Surveillance , 2012, AAAI.

[14]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  A graph-theoretic approach to protect static and moving targets from adversaries , 2010, AAMAS.

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

[16]  E.E.C. van Damme,et al.  Games with imperfectly observable commitment , 1997 .

[17]  B. Stengel,et al.  Leadership with commitment to mixed strategies , 2004 .

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

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