Skip to main content

Empirical Comparisons of Descriptive Multi-objective Adversary Models in Stackelberg Security Games

  • Conference paper

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNSC,volume 8840)

Abstract

Stackelberg Security Games (SSG) have been used to model defender- attacker relationships for analyzing real-world security resource allocation problems. Research has focused on generating algorithms that are optimal and efficient for defenders, based on a presumed model of adversary choices. However, relatively less has been done descriptively to investigate how well those models capture adversary choices and psychological assumptions about adversary decision making. Using data from three experiments, including over 1000 human subjects playing over 25000 games, this study evaluates adversary choices by comparing 9 adversary models both nomothetically and ideographically in a SSG setting. We found that participants tended to be consistent with utility maximization and avoid a target with high probability of being protected even if the reward or expected value of that target is high. It was also found in two experiments that adversary choices were dependent on the defender’s payoffs, even after accounting for attacker’s own payoffs.

Keywords

  • adversary modeling
  • Stackelberg Security Game
  • utility function

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12601-2_17
  • Chapter length: 10 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-12601-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Pita, J., John, R., Maheswaran, R., Tambe, M., Yang, R., Kraus, S.: A robust approach to addressing human adversaries in security games. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 3 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Yang, R., Kiekintveld, C., Ordóñez, F., Tambe, M., John, R.: Improving resource allocation strategies against human adversaries in security games: An extended study. Artificial Intelligence 195, 440–469 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Nguyen, T.H., Yang, R., Azaria, A., Kraus, S., Tambe, M.: Analyzing the effectiveness of adversary modeling in security games. In: Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Luce, R.D.: Individual choice behavior. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1959)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. McFadden, D.L.: Quantal choice analaysis: A survey. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5(4), 363–390 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  6. McFadden, D.: Economic choices. American Economic Review, 351–378 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  7. McKelvey, R.D., Palfrey, T.R.: Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior 10(1), 6–38 (1995)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Simon, H.A.: A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1), 99–118 (1955)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Asal, V.H., Rethemeyer, R.K., Anderson, I., Stein, A., Rizzo, J., Rozea, M.: The softest of targets: A study on terrorist target selection. Journal of Applied Security Research 4(3), 258–278 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Lerner, J.S., Keltner, D.: Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & Emotion 14(4), 473–493 (2000)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Stott, H.P.: Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 32(2), 101–130 (2006)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Brunswik, E.: The conceptual framework of psychology, vol. 1. University of Chicago Press (1952)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hammond, K.R.: Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. Psychological Review 62(4), 255 (1955)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Scholz, F.: Maximum likelihood estimation. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Akaike, H.: A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19(6), 716–723 (1974)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R.: Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. Springer (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cui, J., John, R.S. (2014). Empirical Comparisons of Descriptive Multi-objective Adversary Models in Stackelberg Security Games. In: Poovendran, R., Saad, W. (eds) Decision and Game Theory for Security. GameSec 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8840. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12601-2_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12601-2_17

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12600-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12601-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)