Inducible Equilibrium for Security Games

Strong Stackelberg equilibrium (SSE) is the standard solution concept of Stackelberg security games. The SSE assumes that the follower breaks ties in favor of the leader and this is widely acknowledged and justified by the assertion that the defender can often induce the attacker to choose a preferred action by making an infinitesimal adjustment to her strategy. Unfortunately, in security games with resource assignment constraints, the assertion might not be valid. To overcome this issue, inspired by the notion of inducibility and the pessimistic Stackelberg equilibrium, this paper presents the inducible Stackelberg equilibrium (ISE), which is guaranteed to exist and avoids overoptimism as the outcome can always be induced with infinitesimal strategy deviation. Experimental evaluation unveils the significant overoptimism and sub-optimality of SSE and thus, verifies the advantage of the ISE as an alternative solution concept.

[1]  Nicola Basilico,et al.  Coordinating Multiple Defensive Resources in Patrolling Games with Alarm Systems , 2017, AAMAS.

[2]  Vincent Conitzer Computing Game-Theoretic Solutions and Applications to Security , 2012, AAAI.

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

[4]  Bo An,et al.  Security Games with Protection Externalities , 2015, AAAI.

[5]  Stefano Coniglio,et al.  Pessimistic Leader-Follower Equilibria with Multiple Followers , 2017, IJCAI.

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

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

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

[9]  Bo An,et al.  Deploying PAWS: Field Optimization of the Protection Assistant for Wildlife Security , 2016, AAAI.

[10]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Preventing Illegal Logging: Simultaneous Optimization of Resource Teams and Tactics for Security , 2016, AAAI.

[11]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  When Security Games Hit Traffic: Optimal Traffic Enforcement Under One Sided Uncertainty , 2017, IJCAI.

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

[13]  Zhi Yuan,et al.  Scalable Randomized Patrolling for Securing Rapid Transit Networks , 2013, IAAI.

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

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

[16]  Maria-Florina Balcan,et al.  Commitment Without Regrets: Online Learning in Stackelberg Security Games , 2015, EC.

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

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

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

[20]  Yevgeniy Vorobeychik,et al.  Feature Cross-Substitution in Adversarial Classification , 2014, NIPS.

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