G T ] 2 0 M ay 2 01 9 Imitative Follower Deception in Stackelberg Games ∗

Information uncertainty is one of the major challenges facing applications of game theory. In the context of Stackelberg games, various approaches have been proposed to deal with the leader’s incomplete knowledge about the follower’s payoffs, typically by gathering information from the leader’s interaction with the follower. Unfortunately, these approaches rely crucially on the assumption that the follower will not strategically exploit this information asymmetry, i.e., the follower behaves truthfully during the interaction according to their actual payoffs. As we show in this paper, the follower may have strong incentives to deceitfully imitate the behavior of a different follower type and, in doing this, benefit significantly from inducing the leader into choosing a highly suboptimal strategy. This raises a fundamental question: how to design a leader strategy in the presence of a deceitful follower? To answer this question, we put forward a basic model of Stackelberg games with (imitative) follower deception and show that the leader is indeed able to reduce the loss due to follower deception with carefully designed policies. We then provide a systematic study of the problem of computing the optimal leader policy and draw a relatively complete picture of the complexity landscape; essentially matching positive and negative complexity results are provided for natural variants of the model. Our intractability results are in sharp contrast to the situation with no deception, where the leader’s optimal strategy can be computed in polynomial time, and thus illustrate the intrinsic difficulty of handling follower deception. Through simulations we also examine the benefit of considering follower deception in randomly generated games.

[1]  F. H. PageJr,et al.  Optimal contract mechanisms for principal-agent problems with moral hazard and adverse selection , 1991 .

[2]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .

[3]  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..

[4]  Gerald G. Brown,et al.  A Two-Sided Optimization for Theater Ballistic Missile Defense , 2005, Oper. Res..

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

[6]  David Zuckerman,et al.  Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 100 (2005) Linear Degree Extractors and the Inapproximability of MAX CLIQUE and CHROMATIC NUMBER , 2005 .

[7]  Robert Powell,et al.  Allocating Defensive Resources with Private Information about Vulnerability , 2007, American Political Science Review.

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

[9]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Bayesian stackelberg games and their application for security at Los Angeles international airport , 2008, SECO.

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

[11]  V. Bier,et al.  Reasons for Secrecy and Deception in Homeland‐Security Resource Allocation , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

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

[13]  Ngo Van Long,et al.  A dynamic principal-agent problem as a feedback Stackelberg differential game , 2010, Central Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  Optimal Deceptive Strategies in Security Games : A Preliminary Study , 2013 .

[15]  Vladik Kreinovich,et al.  Security games with interval uncertainty , 2013, AAMAS.

[16]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Game-Theoretic Question Selection for Tests , 2013, IJCAI.

[17]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Learning Optimal Commitment to Overcome Insecurity , 2014, NIPS.

[18]  Bo An,et al.  Regret-Based Optimization and Preference Elicitation for Stackelberg Security Games with Uncertainty , 2014, AAAI.

[19]  Haifeng Xu,et al.  Exploring Information Asymmetry in Two-Stage Security Games , 2015, AAAI.

[20]  Haifeng Xu,et al.  Information Disclosure as a Means to Security , 2015, AAMAS.

[21]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Watch and learn: optimizing from revealed preferences feedback , 2015, SECO.

[22]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Signaling in Bayesian Stackelberg Games , 2016, AAMAS.

[23]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Three Strategies to Success: Learning Adversary Models in Security Games , 2016, IJCAI.

[24]  Shaddin Dughmi,et al.  Persuasion with Limited Communication , 2016, EC.

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

[26]  Branislav Bosanský,et al.  Comparing Strategic Secrecy and Stackelberg Commitment in Security Games , 2017, IJCAI.

[27]  Haifeng Xu,et al.  Deceiving Cyber Adversaries: A Game Theoretic Approach , 2018, AAMAS.

[28]  Bo An,et al.  Inducible Equilibrium for Security Games , 2018, AAMAS.

[29]  Pingzhong Tang,et al.  Learning Optimal Strategies to Commit To , 2019, AAAI.