skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Security Game with Non-additive Utilities and Multiple Attacker Resources

Published:13 June 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

There has been significant interest in studying security games for modeling the interplay of attacks and defenses on various systems involving critical infrastructure, financial system security, political campaigns, and civil safeguarding. However, existing security game models typically either assume additive utility functions, or that the attacker can attack only one target. Such assumptions lead to tractable analysis, but miss key inherent dependencies that exist among different targets in current complex networks. In this paper, we generalize the classical security game models to allow for non-additive utility functions. We also allow attackers to be able to attack multiple targets. We examine such a general security game from a theoretical perspective and provide a unified view. In particular, we show that each security game is equivalent to a combinatorial optimization problem over a set system ε, which consists of defender's pure strategy space. The key technique we use is based on the transformation, projection of a polytope, and the ellipsoid method. This work settles several open questions in security game domain and significantly extends the state-of-the-art of both the polynomial solvable and NP-hard class of the security game.

References

  1. Bo An, Eric Shieh, Milind Tambe, Rong Yang, Craig Baldwin, Joseph DiRenzo, Ben Maule, and Garrett Meyer. 2012. PROTECT--A Deployed Game Theoretic System for Strategic Security Allocation for the United States Coast Guard. AI Magazine 33, 4 (2012), 96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Maria-Florina Balcan, Avrim Blum, Nika Haghtalab, and Ariel D Procaccia. 2015. Commitment without regrets: Online learning in stackelberg security games. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. ACM, 61--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Sayan Bhattacharya, Vincent Conitzer, and Kamesh Munagala. 2011. Approximation algorithm for security games with costly resources. In International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics. Springer, 13--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Matthew Brown, Arunesh Sinha, Aaron Schlenker, and Milind Tambe. 2016. One size does not fit all: A game-theoretic approach for dynamically and effectively screening for threats. In AAAI conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Xi Chen, Xiaotie Deng, and Shang-Hua Teng. 2009. Settling the complexity of computing two-player Nash equilibria. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 56, 3 (2009), 14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Vincent Conitzer and Tuomas Sandholm. 2006. Computing the optimal strategy to commit to. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Electronic commerce. ACM, 82--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Constantinos Daskalakis, Paul W Goldberg, and Christos H Papadimitriou. 2009. The complexity of computing a Nash equilibrium. SIAM J. Comput. 39, 1 (2009), 195--25 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Fei Fang, Albert Xin Jiang, and Milind Tambe. 2013. Optimal patrol strategy for protecting moving targets with multiple mobile resources. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 957--964. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Fei Fang, Thanh H Nguyen, Rob Pickles, Wai Y Lam, Gopalasamy R Clements, Bo An, Amandeep Singh, Milind Tambe, and Andrew Lemieux. 2016. Deploying PAWS: Field optimization of the protection assistant for wildlife security. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Fedor V Fomin and Dieter Kratsch. 2010. Exact exponential algorithms. Springer Science & Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Martin Grötschel, László Lovász, and Alexander Schrijver. 1981. The ellipsoid method and its consequences in combinatorial optimization. Combinatorica 1, 2 (1981), 169--197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Nicole Immorlica, Adam Tauman Kalai, Brendan Lucier, Ankur Moitra, Andrew Postlewaite, and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2011. Dueling algorithms. In Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. ACM, 215--224. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Jain, D. Korzhyk, O. Vaněk, V. Conitzer, M. Pěchouček, and M Tambe. 2011. A double oracle algorithm for zero-sum security games on graphs. In The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1 (AAMAS). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 327--334. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Robert Kennes and Philippe Smets. 1990. Computational aspects of the Mobius transformation. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Elsevier Science Inc., 401--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. Kiekintveld, M. Jain, J. Tsai, J. Pita, F. Ordóñez, and M. Tambe. 2009. Computing optimal randomized resource allocations for massive security games. In Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 689--696. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Dmytro Korzhyk, Vincent Conitzer, and Ronald Parr. 2010. Complexity of Computing Optimal Stackelberg Strategies in Security Resource Allocation Games.. In AAAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Dmytro Korzhyk, Vincent Conitzer, and Ronald Parr. 2011. Security games with multiple attacker resources. In IJCAI Proceedings- International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 22. Citeseer, 273--279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Dmytro Korzhyk, Zhengyu Yin, Christopher Kiekintveld, Vincent Conitzer, and Milind Tambe. 2011. Stackelberg vs. Nash in Security Games: An Extended Investigation of Interchangeability, Equivalence, and Uniqueness. J. Artif. Intell. Res.(JAIR) 41 (2011), 297--327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Carlton E Lemke and Joseph T Howson, Jr. 1964. Equilibrium points of bimatrix games. J. Soc. Indust. Appl. Math. 12, 2 (1964), 413--423.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Joshua Letchford and Vincent Conitzer. 2013. Solving Security Games on Graphs via Marginal Probabilities.. In AAAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Richard J Lipton, Evangelos Markakis, and Aranyak Mehta. 2003. Playing large games using simple strategies. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on Electronic commerce (EC). ACM, 36--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Praveen Paruchuri, Jonathan P Pearce, Janusz Marecki, Milind Tambe, Fernando Ordonez, and Sarit Kraus. 2008. Playing games for security: an efficient exact algorithm for solving Bayesian Stackelberg games. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems-Volume 2. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 895--902. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. James Pita, Manish Jain, Janusz Marecki, Fernando Ordóñez, Christopher Portway, Milind Tambe, Craig Western, Praveen Paruchuri, and Sarit Kraus. 2008. Deployed ARMOR protection: the application of a game theoretic model for security at the Los Angeles International Airport. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: industrial track. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 125--132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Maurice Sion and others. 1958. On general minimax theorems. Pacific J. Math 8, 1 (1958), 171--176. {25} M. Tambe. 2011. Security and game theory: Algorithms, deployed systems, lessons learned. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jason Tsai, Christopher Kiekintveld, Fernando Ordonez, Milind Tambe, and Shyamsunder Rathi. 2009. IRIS-a tool for strategic security allocation in transportation networks. (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Heinrich Von Stackelberg. 1934. Marktform und gleichgewicht. J. springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Bernhard Von Stengel and Shmuel Zamir. 2004. Leadership with commitment to mixed strategies. (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Sinong Wang, Fang Liu, and Ness Shroff. 2016. Non-additive Security Game. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.00749 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Haifeng Xu. 2016. The Mysteries of Security Games: Equilibrium Computation becomes Combinatorial Algorithm Design. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.02377 (2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Haifeng Xu, Fei Fang, Albert Xin Jiang, Vincent Conitzer, Shaddin Dughmi, and Milind Tambe. 2014. Solving Zero-Sum Security Games in Discretized Spatio-Temporal Domains.. In AAAI. Citeseer, 1500--1506. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Security Game with Non-additive Utilities and Multiple Attacker Resources

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems
            Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems  Volume 1, Issue 1
            June 2017
            712 pages
            EISSN:2476-1249
            DOI:10.1145/3107080
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2017 ACM

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 13 June 2017
            Published in pomacs Volume 1, Issue 1

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!