Security Games with Ambiguous Beliefs of Agents

  • Hossein KhaniEmail author
  • Mohsen Afsharchi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9387)


Currently the Dempster-Shafer based algorithm and Uniform Random Probability based algorithm are the preferred methods of resolving security games, in which security forces are able to identify attackers and need only to determine their strategies. However this model is inefficient in situations where resources are limited and both the identity of the attackers and their strategies are ambiguous. The intent of this study is to find a more effective algorithm to guide the security forces in choosing which outside forces with which to cooperate given both ambiguities. We designed an experiment where security forces were compelled to engage with outside forces in order to maximize protection of their targets. We introduced two important notions: the behavior of each agent in target protection and the tolerance threshold in the target protection process. From these, we proposed an algorithm that was applied by each security force to determine the best outside force(s) with which to cooperate. Our results show that our proposed algorithm is safer than the Dempster-Shafer based and Uniform Random Probability based algorithm.


Ambiguous games Tolerance threshold Behavior Optimistic Pessimistic Self-confidence Security games 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Tambe, M.: Security And Game Theory: Algorithms, Deployed Systems. Lessons Learned. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pita, J., Jain, M., Marecki, J., Ordonez, F., Portway, C., Tambe, M., Western, C., Paruchuri, P., Kraus, S.: 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, pp. 125–132 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marinacci, M.: Ambiguous Games. Games and Economic Behavior 31(2), 191–219 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shehory, O., Sykara, S.: Multi-agent Coordination through Coalition Formation. In: Rao, A., Singh, M., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) ATAL1997. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 1365, pp. 143–154. Springer, Heidelberg (1997) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sless, L., Hazon, N., Kraus, S., Wooldridge, M.: Forming coalitions and facilitating relationships for completing tasks in social networks, AAMAS (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marinacci, M., Montrucchio, L.: Introduction to the Mathematics of Ambiguity. Dipartimento di Statistica e Matematica Applicata and ICER Universit di Torino (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghirardato, P.: Ambiguity. Universita di Torino, Dipartimento di Matematica Applicata and Collegio Carlo Alberto (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Savage, L.J.: The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York (1954) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Segal, U.: The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach. University of Toronto, Department of Economics (1985)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bade, S.: Ambiguous act equilibria. Games and Economic Behavior 71(2), 246–260 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wakker, P.: Testing and characterizing properties of nonadditive measures through violations of the sure thing principle. Econometrica 69, 1039–1060 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Pita, J., Jain, M., Ordonez, F., Portway, C., Tambe, M., Western, C., Paruchuri, P., Kraus, S.: Using game theory for Los Angeles airport security. AI Magazine 30(1), 43–57 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang, Y., Luo, X., Ma, W.: Security Games with Ambiguous Information about Attacker Types. In: Cranefield, S., Nayak, A. (eds.) AI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8272, pp. 14–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic SciencesZanjanIran
  2. 2.University of ZanjanZanjanIran

Personalised recommendations