Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:49:01.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Introduction and Overview of Security Games

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2012

Milind Tambe
By
Milind Tambe  and
Manish Jain
Milind Tambe
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Game theory's popularity continues to increase in a whole variety of disciplines, including economics, biology, political science, computer science, electrical engineering, business, law, and public policy. In the arena of security, where game theory has always been popular, there now seems to be an exponential increase in interest. This increase is in part due to the new set of problems our societies face, from terrorism to drugs to crime. These problems are ubiquitous. Yet, limited security resources cannot be everywhere all the time, raising a crucial question of how to best utilize them.

Game theory provides a sound mathematical approach for deploying limited security resources to maximize their effectiveness. While the connection between game theory and security has been studied for the last several decades, there has been a fundamental shift in the relationship due to the emergence of computational game theory. More specifically, with the development of new computational approaches to game theory over the past two decades, very large-scale problems can be cast in game-theoretic contexts, thus providing us computational tools to address problems of security allocations.

My research group has been at the forefront of this effort to apply computational game theory techniques to security problems. We have led a wide range of actual deployed applications of game theory for security. Our first application, Assistant for Randomized Monitoring Over Routes (ARMOR), successfully deployed game-theoretic algorithms at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in 2007 and has been in use there ever since.

Type
Chapter
Information
Security and Game Theory
Algorithms, Deployed Systems, Lessons Learned
 , pp. 1 - 24
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

N., Basilico, N., Gatti, and F., Amigoni. Leader-follower strategies for robotic patrolling in environments with arbitrary topologies. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2009.Google Scholar
C. F., Camerer. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 2003.Google Scholar
V., Conitzer and T., Sandholm. Computing the optimal strategy to commit to. In ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, 2006.Google Scholar
J., Dickerson, G., Simari, V., Subrahmanian, and S., Kraus. A graph-theoretic approach to protect static and moving targets from adversaries. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2010.Google Scholar
D., Fudenberg and J., Tirole. Game Theory. MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
GAO United States Government Accountability Office Federal Air Marshal Service Has Taken Actions to Fulfill Its Core Mission and Address Workforce Issues, but Additional Actions Are Needed to Improve Workforce Survey, http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d09273high.pdf, 2009.
J. C., Harsanyi and R., Selten. A generalized Nash solution for two-person bargaining games with incomplete information. Management Science, 18(5):80–106, 1972.Google Scholar
M., Jain, E., Kardes, C., Kiekintveld, F., Ordonez, and M., Tambe. Security Games with Arbitrary Schedules: A Branch and Price Approach. In Proceedings of Association for Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2010.Google Scholar
M., Jain, D., Korzhyk, O., Vanek, V., Conitzer, M., Pechoucek, and M., Tambe. A Double Oracle Algorithm for Zero-Sum Security Games on Graphs. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2011a.Google Scholar
M., Jain, C., Kiekintveld, and M., Tambe. Quality-bounded Solutions for Finite Bayesian Stackelberg Games: Scaling up. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2011b.Google Scholar
C., Kiekintveld, M., Jain, J., Tsai, J., Pita, M., Tambe, and F., Ordonez. Computing Optimal Randomized Resource Allocations for Massive Security Games. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2009.Google Scholar
C., Kiekintveld, J., Marecki, and M., Tambe. Approximation Methods for Infinite Bayesian Stackelberg Games: Modeling Distributional Uncertainty. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2011.Google Scholar
D., Korzhyk, V., Conitzer, and R., Parr. Complexity of computing optimal Stackelberg strategies in security resource allocation games. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2010.Google Scholar
A., Murr. The Element of Surprise. Newsweek National News, http://www.newsweek.com/2007/10/13/random-checks.html, 2007
J., Nash. Non-cooperative Games. The Annals of Mathematics. 54, 2:286–295, 1951.Google Scholar
P., Paruchuri, J. P., Pearce, M., Tambe, F., Ordonez, and S., Kraus. An Efficient Heuristic Approach for Security Against Multiple Adversaries. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2007.Google Scholar
P., Paruchuri, J., Pearce, J., Marecki, M., Tambe, F., Ordonez, and S., Kraus. Coordinating randomized policies for increasing security of agent systems. In Journal of Information Technology and Management (ITM), 10:67–79, 2009.Google Scholar
J., Pita, M., Jain, C., Western, C., Portway, M., Tambe, F., Ordonez, S., Kraus, and P., Paruchuri. Deployed ARMOR protection: The application of game theoretic model for security at the Los Angeles International Airport. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Industry Track, 2008.Google Scholar
J., Pita, M., Jain, M., Tambe, F., Ordonez, S., Kraus, and R., Magori-Cohen. Efficient solutions for real-world Stackelberg games. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2009.Google Scholar
J., Pita, C., Kiekintveld, M., Tambe, S., Cullen, and E., Steigerwald. GUARDS – Game Theoretic Security Allocation on a National Scale. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2011.Google Scholar
R., Powell. Defending against terrorist attacks with limited resources. American Political Science Review 101(3): 527–541, 2007.Google Scholar
J., Tsai, S., Rathi, C., Kiekintveld, F., Ordonez, and M., Tambe. IRIS – a tool for strategic security application in transportation networks. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Industry Track, 2009.Google Scholar
J., Tsai, Z., Yin, J., Kwak, D., Kempe, C., Kiekintveld, and M., Tambe. Urban Security: Game-Theoretic Resource Allocation in Networked Physical Domains. In Proceedings of Association for Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2010.Google Scholar
O., Vanek, B., Bošanský, M., Jakob, and M., Pechoucek. Transiting areas patrolled by a mobile adversary. In IEEE CIG, 2010.Google Scholar
J., von Neumann and O., Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1944.Google Scholar
H., von Stackelberg. Marktform und Gleichgewicht. Springer. 1934. (translated: Market Structure and Equilibrium. 1st Edition. 2010).Google Scholar
W. A., Wagenaar. Generation of Random Sequences by Human Subjects: A Critical Survey of Literature. Psychological Bulletin 77(1):65–72, 1972.Google Scholar
Z., Yin, D., Korzhyk, C., Kiekintveld, V., Conitzer, and M., Tambe. Stackelberg vs. Nash in Security Games: Interchangeability, Equivalence, and Uniqueness. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2010.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×