Security Games with Limited Surveillance

Randomized first-mover strategies of Stackelberg games are used in several deployed applications to allocate limited resources for the protection of critical infrastructure. Stackelberg games model the fact that a strategic attacker can surveil and exploit the defender's strategy, and randomization guards against the worst effects by making the defender less predictable. In accordance with the standard game-theoretic model of Stackelberg games, past work has typically assumed that the attacker has perfect knowledge of the defender's randomized strategy and will react correspondingly. In light of the fact that surveillance is costly, risky, and delays an attack, this assumption is clearly simplistic: attackers will usually act on partial knowledge of the defender's strategies. The attacker's imperfect estimate could present opportunities and possibly also threats to a strategic defender. In this paper, we therefore begin a systematic study of security games with limited surveillance. We propose a natural model wherein an attacker forms or updates a belief based on observed actions, and chooses an optimal response. We investigate the model both theoretically and experimentally. In particular, we give mathematical programs to compute optimal attacker and defender strategies for a fixed observation duration, and show how to use them to estimate the attacker's observation durations. Our experimental results show that the defender can achieve significant improvement in expected utility by taking the attacker's limited surveillance into account, validating the motivation of our work.

[1]  G. Leitmann On generalized Stackelberg strategies , 1978 .

[2]  A. Haurie,et al.  Sequential Stackelberg equilibria in two-person games , 1985 .

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

[4]  K. Bagwell Commitment and observability in games , 1995 .

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

[6]  J. Morgan,et al.  The Value of Commitment in Contests and Tournaments When Observation is Costly , 2004 .

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

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

[9]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Effective solutions for real-world Stackelberg games: when agents must deal with human uncertainties , 2009, AAMAS 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[21]  Milind Tambe,et al.  GUARDS: game theoretic security allocation on a national scale , 2011, AAMAS.

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

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

[24]  Bo An,et al.  GUARDS and PROTECT: next generation applications of security games , 2011, SECO.

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