Advertisement

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

  • Jinshu Cui
  • Richard S. John
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, 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 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 4.
    Luce, R.D.: Individual choice behavior. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1959)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McFadden, D.L.: Quantal choice analaysis: A survey. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5(4), 363–390 (1976)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McFadden, D.: Economic choices. American Economic Review, 351–378 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKelvey, R.D., Palfrey, T.R.: Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior 10(1), 6–38 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simon, H.A.: A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1), 99–118 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stott, H.P.: Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 32(2), 101–130 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brunswik, E.: The conceptual framework of psychology, vol. 1. University of Chicago Press (1952)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hammond, K.R.: Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. Psychological Review 62(4), 255 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs (1976)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scholz, F.: Maximum likelihood estimation. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Akaike, H.: A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19(6), 716–723 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R.: Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. Springer (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jinshu Cui
    • 1
  • Richard S. John
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations