Advertisement

Linear Loss Function for the Network Blocking Game: An Efficient Model for Measuring Network Robustness and Link Criticality

  • Aron Laszka
  • Dávid Szeszlér
  • Levente Buttyán
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7638)

Abstract

In order to design robust networks, first, one has to be able to measure robustness of network topologies. In [1], a game-theoretic model, the network blocking game, was proposed for this purpose, where a network operator and an attacker interact in a zero-sum game played on a network topology, and the value of the equilibrium payoff in this game is interpreted as a measure of robustness of that topology. The payoff for a given pair of pure strategies is based on a loss-in-value function. Besides measuring the robustness of network topologies, the model can be also used to identify critical edges that are likely to be attacked. Unfortunately, previously proposed loss-in-value functions are either too simplistic or lead to a game whose equilibrium is not known to be computable in polynomial time. In this paper, we propose a new, linear loss-in-value function, which is meaningful and leads to a game whose equilibrium is efficiently computable. Furthermore, we show that the resulting game-theoretic robustness metric is related to the Cheeger constant of the topology graph, which is a well-known metric in graph theory.

Keywords

game theory adversarial games network robustness computational complexity blocking games Cheeger constant 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gueye, A., Marbukh, V., Walrand, J.C.: Toward a metric for communication network vulnerability to attacks: A game theoretic approach. In: Proc. of the 3rd International ICST Conference on Game Theory for Networks, GameNets 2012, Vancouver, Canada (May 2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cunningham, W.: Optimal attack and reinforcement of a network. Journal of the ACM 32(3), 549–561 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer, D., Broersma, H., Schmeichel, E.: Toughness in graphs–a survey. Graphs and Combinatorics 22(1), 1–35 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laszka, A., Buttyán, L., Szeszlér, D.: Optimal selection of sink nodes in wireless sensor networks in adversarial environments. In: Proc. of the 12th IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia, WoWMoM 2011, Lucca, Italy, pp. 1–6 (June 2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gueye, A., Walrand, J.C., Anantharam, V.: Design of Network Topology in an Adversarial Environment. In: Alpcan, T., Buttyán, L., Baras, J.S. (eds.) GameSec 2010. LNCS, vol. 6442, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gueye, A., Walrand, J.C., Anantharam, V.: A network topology design game: How to choose communication links in an adversarial environment? In: Proc. of the 2nd International ICST Conference on Game Theory for Networks, GameNets 2011, Shanghai, China (April 2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laszka, A., Szeszlér, D., Buttyán, L.: Game-theoretic robustness of many-to-one networks. In: Proc. of the 3rd International ICST Conference on Game Theory for Networks, GameNets 2012, Vancouver, Canada (May 2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwartz, G.A., Amin, S., Gueye, A., Walrand, J.: Network design game with both reliability and security failures. In: Proc. of the 49th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pp. 675–681. IEEE (September 2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tardos, E.: A strongly polynomial algorithm to solve combinatorial linear programs. Operations Research 34(2), 250–256 (1986)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chung, F.R.K.: Spectral graph theory. Number 92 in CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chung, F.R.K.: Laplacians and the Cheeger inequality for directed graphs. Annals of Combinatorics 9(1), 1–19 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alon, N.: On the edge-expansion of graphs. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 6(2), 145–152 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alon, N.: Spectral techniques in graph algorithms. In: Proc. of the 3rd Latin American Symposium on Theoretical Informatics, Campinas, Brazil, pp. 206–215 (April 1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohar, B.: Isoperimetric numbers of graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B 47(3), 274–291 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohar, B.: Isoperimetric inequalities, growth, and the spectrum of graphs. Linear Algebra and Its Applications 103, 119–131 (1988)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bühler, T., Hein, M.: Spectral clustering based on the graph p-Laplacian. In: Proc. of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2009, Montreal, Canada, pp. 81–88 (June 2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aron Laszka
    • 1
  • Dávid Szeszlér
    • 2
  • Levente Buttyán
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security, Department of TelecommunicationsBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsHungary
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsHungary

Personalised recommendations