A Double-Sided Jamming Game with Resource Constraints

Chapter
Part of the Annals of the International Society of Dynamic Games book series (AISDG, volume 14)

Abstract

In this article, we study the problem of power allocation in teams of mobile agents in a conflict situation. Each team consists of two agents who try to split their available power between the tasks of communication and jamming the nodes of the other team. The agents have constraints on their total energy and instantaneous power usage. The cost function is the difference between the rates of erroneously transmitted bits of each team. We present a 2-level game formulation: At the higher level, the agents solve a continuous-kernel power allocation game at each instant. Based on the communications model, we present sufficient conditions on the physical parameters of the agents for the existence of a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium for the continuous-kernel power allocation game. At the lower level, we have a zero-sum differential game between the two teams and use Isaacs’ approach to obtain necessary conditions for the optimal trajectories. The optimal power allocation scheme obtained at the upper level is used to solve the lower level differential game. This gives rise to a games-in-games scenario which is one of the first such phenomena documented in the literature.

Keywords

Pursuit-evasion games Jamming Games-in-games Nash equilibrium Multi-level games 

Math Classification Number(2010):

49N90 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) MURI grant FA9550-10-1-0573, and Iowa State University research initiation grant.

References

  1. Arnold VI (1983) Geometric method in the theory of ordinary differential equations. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Başar T, Olsder GJ (1999) Dynamic noncooperative game theory, 2nd edn. SIAM series in classics in applied mathematics. SIAM, PhiladelphiaMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya S, Başar T (2010a) Differential game-theoretic approach for spatial jamming attack in a UAV communication network. In: 14th international symposium on dynamic games and applications, BanffGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya S, Başar T (2010b) Game-theoretic analysis of an aerial jamming attack on a UAV communication network. In: Proceedings of the American control conference, Baltimore, pp 818–823Google Scholar
  5. Bhattacharya S, Başar T (2010c) Graph-theoretic approach to connectivity maintenance in mobile networks in the presence of a jammer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on decision and control, Atlanta, pp 3560–3656Google Scholar
  6. Bhattacharya S, Başar T (2010d) Optimal strategies to evade jamming in heterogeneous mobile networks. In: Proceedings of the workshop on search and pursuit-evasion, AnchorageGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd S, Vandenberghe L (2004) Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Available at http://www.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/
  8. Dong L, Han Z, Petropulu A, Poor H (2010) Improving wireless physical layer security via cooperating relays. IEEE Trans Signal Process 58(3):1875–1888MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fu L, Liew SC, Huang J (2010) Fast algorithms for joint power control and scheduling in wireless networks. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 9(3):1186–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldsmith A (2005) Wireless communications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Han Z, Marina N, Debbah M, Hjorungnes A (2009a) Physical layer security game: How to date a girl with her boyfriend on the same table. In: International conference on game theory for networks, 2009. GameNets ’09, pp 287–294Google Scholar
  12. Han Z, Marina N, Debbah M, Hjorungnes A (2009b) Physical layer security game: interaction between source, eavesdropper, and friendly jammer. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw (Special issue on Wireless Physical Layer Security) 2009(11):1–10Google Scholar
  13. Isaacs R (1965) Differential games. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Luenberger DG (1969) Optimization by vector space methods. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Mukherjee A, Swindlehurst AL (2010) Equilibrium outcomes of dynamic games in mimo channels with active eavesdroppers. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), pp 1–5Google Scholar
  16. Owen G (2001) Game theory. Academic, LondonCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Palomar DP, Bengtsson M, Ottersten B (2005) Minimum BER linear transceivers for mimo channels via primal decomposition. IEEE Trans Signal Process 53(8):2866–2882MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Srivastava V, Neel J, Mackenzie A, Menon R, Dasilva L, Hicks J, Reed J, Gilles R (2005) Using game theory to analyze wireless ad hoc networks. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 7(4):46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tague P, Slater D, Noubir G, Poovendran R (2009) Linear programming models for jamming attacks on network traffic flows. In: Proceedings of 6th international symposium on modeling and optimization in mobile, ad hoc, and wireless networks (WiOpt’08), BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sourabh Bhattacharya
    • 1
  • Ali Khanafer
    • 2
  • Tamer Başar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Coordinated Science LaboratoryUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations