Advertisement

Single Plant Protection: Playing the Chemical Plant Protection Game Involving Attackers with Bounded Rationality

  • Laobing Zhang
  • Genserik Reniers
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications book series (ASTSA)

Abstract

In this chapter, we model attackers with bounded rationality in the Chemical Plant Protection game. Three different behaviour models of attackers are investigated, namely, the epsilon-optimal attacker, the monotonic-optimal attacker, and the MiniMax attacker. All these attacker models are integrated to the Stackelberg CPP game, which means that the defender moves first, and the attackers follow. Furthermore, the monotonic-optimal attacker is investigated in the Interval CPP game with only one type of attacker, and a game solution named Monotoic MaxiMin Solution for the Interval CPP game (MoSICP) is defined [1]. The MoSICP solution incorporates both bounded rational attackers and distribution-free uncertainties into the CPP game. The epsilon-optimal attacker model, being related to the defender’s distribution-free uncertainties, and the MiniMax attacker model, being the most conservative model, are therefore investigated in the Bayesian Stackelberg CPP game framework, instead of in the Interval CPP game framework. The defender is still assumed to behave rationally to maximize her payoff.

References

  1. 1.
    Zhang L, Reniers G, Chen B, Qiu X. A chemical plant protection game incorporating boundedly raitonal attackers and distribution-free uncertainties. Submitted to Process Safety and Environmental Protection; 2018.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guikema SD. Game theory models of intelligent actors in reliability analysis: an overview of the state of the art. In: Game theoretic risk analysis of security threats. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pita J, Jain M, Tambe M, Ordóñez F, Kraus S. Robust solutions to Stackelberg games: addressing bounded rationality and limited observations in human cognition. Artif Intell. 2010;174(15):1142–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McKelvey RD, Palfrey TR. Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang R, Ordonez F, Tambe M, editors. Computing optimal strategy against quantal response in security games. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems-volume 2. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems; 2012.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rothschild C, McLay L, Guikema S. Adversarial risk analysis with incomplete information: a level-k approach. Risk Anal. 2012;32(7):1219–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiang AX, Nguyen TH, Tambe M, Procaccia AD, editors. Monotonic maximin: A robust stackelberg solution against boundedly rational followers. In: International conference on decision and game theory for security. Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nguyen TH, Jiang AX, Tambe M, editors. Stop the compartmentalization: unified robust algorithms for handling uncertainties in security games. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems; 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nguyen TH, Yang R, Azaria A, Kraus S, Tambe M, editors. Analyzing the effectiveness of adversary modeling in security games. New York: AAAI; 2013.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nagel R. Unraveling in guessing games: an experimental study. Am Econ Rev. 1995;85(5):1313–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laobing Zhang
    • 1
  • Genserik Reniers
    • 1
  1. 1.Safety and Security Science GroupDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations