Security games: solution concepts and algorithms

Algorithms for finding game-theoretic solutions are now used in several real-world security applications. Many of these applications are based on different but related game-theoretical models collectively known as security games. Much of the research in this area has focused on the two-player setting in which the first player (leader, defender) commits to a strategy, after which the second player (follower, attacker) observes that strategy and responds to it. This is commonly known as the Stackelberg, or leader-follower, model. If none of the players can observe the actions of the others then such a setting is called a simultaneous-move game. A common solution concept in simultaneous-move games is the Nash equilibrium (NE). In the present dissertation, we contribute to this line of research in two ways. First, we consider new ways of modeling commitment. We propose the new model in which the leader can commit to a correlated strategy. We show that this model is equivalent to the Stackelberg model in two-player games and is different from the existing models in games with three or more players. We propose an algorithm for computing a solution to this model in polynomial time. We also consider a leader-follower setting in which the players are uncertain about whether the follower can observe. We describe an iterative algorithm for solving such games. Second, we analyze the computational complexity of computing Stackelberg and NE strategies in security games. We describe algorithms to solve some variants of the security game model in polynomial time and prove NP-hardness of solving other variants of the model. We also extend the family of security games by allowing the attacker have multiple resources. We provide an algorithm for computing an NE of such games in polynomial time, and we show that computing a Stackelberg strategy is NP-hard.

[1]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  New complexity results about Nash equilibria , 2008, Games Econ. Behav..

[2]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Security and Game Theory: IRIS – A Tool for Strategic Security Allocation in Transportation Networks , 2011, AAMAS 2011.

[3]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Computing the optimal strategy to commit to , 2006, EC '06.

[4]  Bo An,et al.  PROTECT - A Deployed Game Theoretic System for Strategic Security Allocation for the United States Coast Guard , 2012, AI Mag..

[5]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Using Game Theory for Los Angeles Airport Security , 2009, AI Mag..

[6]  George B. Dantzig,et al.  Decomposition Principle for Linear Programs , 1960 .

[7]  Silvio Micali,et al.  Priority queues with variable priority and an O(EV log V) algorithm for finding a maximal weighted matching in general graphs , 1982, 23rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1982).

[8]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Security scheduling for real-world networks , 2013, AAMAS.

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

[10]  H. Stackelberg,et al.  Marktform und Gleichgewicht , 1935 .

[11]  Eitan Zemel,et al.  Nash and correlated equilibria: Some complexity considerations , 1989 .

[12]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Coherent Cooperation Among Communicating Problem Solvers , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[13]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Mixed-Integer Programming Methods for Finding Nash Equilibria , 2005, AAAI.

[14]  Manish Jain,et al.  Quality-bounded solutions for finite Bayesian Stackelberg games: scaling up , 2011, AAMAS.

[15]  R. Aumann Subjectivity and Correlation in Randomized Strategies , 1974 .

[16]  Avrim Blum,et al.  Planning in the Presence of Cost Functions Controlled by an Adversary , 2003, ICML.

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

[18]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Solving Security Games on Graphs via Marginal Probabilities , 2013, AAAI.

[19]  Yevgeniy Vorobeychik,et al.  Computing Optimal Security Strategies for Interdependent Assets , 2012, UAI.

[20]  Bernhard von Stengel,et al.  Leadership games with convex strategy sets , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

[21]  Andrew McLennan,et al.  Gambit: Software Tools for Game Theory , 2006 .

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

[23]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  The State of Solving Large Incomplete-Information Games, and Application to Poker , 2010, AI Mag..

[24]  Manish Jain,et al.  Security Games with Arbitrary Schedules: A Branch and Price Approach , 2010, AAAI.

[25]  Xiaotie Deng,et al.  Settling the complexity of computing two-player Nash equilibria , 2007, JACM.

[26]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Computing optimal strategies to commit to in extensive-form games , 2010, EC '10.

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

[28]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Computing Optimal Strategies to Commit to in Stochastic Games , 2012, AAAI.

[29]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Game-theoretic randomization for security patrolling with dynamic execution uncertainty , 2013, AAMAS.

[30]  Paul W. Goldberg,et al.  The Complexity of Computing a Nash Equilibrium , 2009, SIAM J. Comput..

[31]  J. Neumann Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele , 1928 .

[32]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Approximation Algorithm for Security Games with Costly Resources , 2011, WINE.

[33]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Run the GAMUT: a comprehensive approach to evaluating game-theoretic algorithms , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

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

[35]  J. Nash Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games. , 1950, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  C. E. Lemke,et al.  Equilibrium Points of Bimatrix Games , 1964 .