In a system of interdependent users, the security of an entity is affected not only by that user’s investment in security measures, but also by the positive externality of the security decisions of (some of) the other users. The provision of security in such system is therefore modeled as a public good provision problem, and is referred to as a security game. In this paper, we compare two well-known incentive mechanisms in this context for incentivizing optimal security investments among users, namely the Pivotal and the Externality mechanisms. The taxes in a Pivotal mechanism are designed to ensure users’ voluntary participation, while those in an Externality mechanism are devised to maintain a balanced budget. We first show the more general result that, due to the nonexcludable nature of security, no mechanism can incentivize the socially optimal investment profile, while at the same time ensuring voluntary participation and maintaining a balanced budget for all instances of security games. To further illustrate, we apply the Pivotal and Externality mechanisms to the special case of weighted total effort interdependence models, and identify some of the effects of varying interdependency between users on the budget deficit in the Pivotal mechanism, as well as on the participation incentives in the Externality mech
Finally, in the context of security games, our work in Section is most related to @cite_15 @cite_8 . The weighted total effort risk model is a generalization of the total effort model in @cite_10 , and is similar to the effective investment model in @cite_15 and the linear influence network game in @cite_17 . The linear influence models in @cite_17 have been proposed to study properties of the interdependence matrix affecting the existence and uniqueness of the Nash equilibrium. The effective investment model in @cite_15 has been considered to determine a bound on the price of anarchy gap, i.e. the gap between the socially optimal and Nash equilibrium investments, in security games. Our work on the above model complements this literature, by considering the effect of users' interdependence on the performance of incentive mechanisms.
@cite_15 @cite_10 @cite_17 @cite_8
2131832787 2556732087 2398538542 2514333820 2294444471 2007583146 2110522107 2108444537 2072113937 2045006695 2144238966 2119514226 2548493877 2963780059 2102171270 2043854726 2179146913 1839131291 2133243407 2124172444
We study a network security game where strategic players choose their investments in security. Since a player's investment can reduce the propagation of computer viruses, a key feature of the game is the positive externality exerted by the investment. With selfish players, unfortunately, the overall network security can be far from optimum. The contributions of this paper are as follows. 1) We first characterize the price of anarchy (POA) in the strategic-form game under an “Effective-investment” model and a “Bad-traffic” model, and give insight on how the POA depends on individual players' cost functions and their mutual influence. We also introduce the concept of “weighted POA” to bound the region of payoff vectors. 2) In a repeated game, players have more incentive to cooperate for their long term interests. We consider the socially best outcome that can be supported by the repeated game, as compared to the social optimum. 3) Next, we compare the benefits of improving security technology and improving incentives, and show that improving technology alone may not offset the price of anarchy. 4) Finally, we characterize the performance of correlated equilibrium (CE). Although the paper focuses on network security, many results are generally applicable to games with positive externalities . We study a setting where a set of players simultaneously invest in a shared resource. The resource has a probability of failure and a return on investment, both of which are functions of the total investment by all players. We use a simple reference dependent preference model to capture players with heterogeneous risk attitudes (risk seeking, risk neutral and risk averse). We show the existence and uniqueness of a pure strategy Nash equilibrium in this setting and examine the effect of different risk attitudes on players' strategies in the presence of uncertainty. In particular, we show that at the equilibrium, risk averse players are pushed out of the resource by risk seeking players. We compare the failure probabilities in the decentralized (game-theoretic) and centralized settings, and show that our proposed game belongs to the class of best response potential games, for which there are simple dynamics that allow all players to converge to the equilibrium. The spread of epidemics and malware is commonly modeled by diffusion processes on networks. Protective interventions such as vaccinations or installing anti-virus software are used to contain their spread. Typically, each node in the network has to decide its own strategy of securing itself, and its benefit depends on which other nodes are secure, making this a natural game-theoretic setting. There has been a lot of work on network security game models, but most of the focus has been either on simplified epidemic models or homogeneous network structure. We develop a new formulation for an epidemic containment game, which relies on the characterization of the SIS model in terms of the spectral radius of the network. We show in this model that pure Nash equilibria (NE) always exist, and can be found by a best response strategy. We analyze the complexity of finding NE, and derive rigorous bounds on their costs and the Price of Anarchy or PoA (the ratio of the cost of the worst NE to the optimum social cost) in general graphs as well as in random graph models. In particular, for arbitrary power-law graphs with exponent β > 2, we show that the PoA is bounded by O(T2(β -1))), where T = γ α is the ratio of the recovery rate to the transmission rate in the SIS model. We prove that this bound is tight up to a constant factor for the Chung-Lu random power-law graph model. We study the characteristics of Nash equilibria empirically in different real communication and infrastructure networks, and find that our analytical results can help explain some of the empirical observations. Abstract Several competing human behavior models have been proposed to model boundedly rational adversaries in repeated Stackelberg Security Games (SSG). However, these existing models fail to address three main issues which are detrimental to defender performance. First, while they attempt to learn adversary behavior models from adversaries' past actions (“attacks on targets”), they fail to take into account adversaries' future adaptation based on successes or failures of these past actions. Second, existing algorithms fail to learn a reliable model of the adversary unless there exists sufficient data collected by exposing enough of the attack surface – a situation that often arises in initial rounds of the repeated SSG. Third, current leading models have failed to include probability weighting functions, even though it is well known that human beings' weighting of probability is typically nonlinear. To address these limitations of existing models, this article provides three main contributions. Our first contribution is a new human behavior model, SHARP, which mitigates these three limitations as follows: (i) SHARP reasons based on success or failure of the adversary's past actions on exposed portions of the attack surface to model adversary adaptivity; (ii) SHARP reasons about similarity between exposed and unexposed areas of the attack surface, and also incorporates a discounting parameter to mitigate adversary's lack of exposure to enough of the attack surface; and (iii) SHARP integrates a non-linear probability weighting function to capture the adversary's true weighting of probability. Our second contribution is a first “repeated measures study” – at least in the context of SSGs – of competing human behavior models. This study, where each experiment lasted a period of multiple weeks with individual sets of human subjects on the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform, illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of different models and shows the advantages of SHARP. Our third major contribution is to demonstrate SHARP's superiority by conducting real-world human subjects experiments at the Bukit Barisan Seletan National Park in Indonesia against wildlife security experts. The security game is a basic model for resource allocation in adversarial environments. Here there are two players, a defender and an attacker. The defender wants to allocate her limited resources to defend critical targets and the attacker seeks his most favorable target to attack. In the past decade, there has been a surge of research interest in analyzing and solving security games that are motivated by applications from various domains. Remarkably, these models and their game-theoretic solutions have led to real-world deployments in use by major security agencies like the LAX airport, the US Coast Guard and Federal Air Marshal Service, as well as non-governmental organizations. Among all these research and applications, equilibrium computation serves as a foundation. This paper examines security games from a theoretical perspective and provides a unified view of various security game models. In particular, each security game can be characterized by a set system E which consists of the defender's pure strategies; The defender's best response problem can be viewed as a combinatorial optimization problem over E. Our framework captures most of the basic security game models in the literature, including all the deployed systems; The set system E arising from various domains encodes standard combinatorial problems like bipartite matching, maximum coverage, min-cost flow, packing problems, etc. Our main result shows that equilibrium computation in security games is essentially a combinatorial problem. In particular, we prove that, for any set system @math , the following problems can be reduced to each other in polynomial time: (0) combinatorial optimization over E; (1) computing the minimax equilibrium for zero-sum security games over E; (2) computing the strong Stackelberg equilibrium for security games over E; (3) computing the best or worst (for the defender) Nash equilibrium for security games over E. Therefore, the hardness [polynomial solvability] of any of these problems implies the hardness [polynomial solvability] of all the others. Here, by "games over E" we mean the class of security games with arbitrary payoff structures, but a fixed set E of defender pure strategies. This shows that the complexity of a security game is essentially determined by the set system E. We view drawing these connections as an important conceptual contribution of this paper. We study network design games where @math self-interested agents have to form a network by purchasing links from a given set of edges. We consider Shapley cost sharing mechanisms that split the cost of an edge in a fair manner among the agents using the edge. It is well known that the price of anarchy of these games is as high as @math . Another line of research has focused on evaluating the price of stability, i.e., the cost of the best Nash equilibrium relative to the social optimum. In this paper we investigate to which extent coordination among agents can improve the quality of solutions. We resort to the concept of strong Nash equilibria, which were introduced by Aumann and are resilient to deviations by coalitions of agents. We analyze the price of anarchy of strong Nash equilibria and develop lower and upper bounds for unweighted and weighted games in both directed and undirected graphs. These bounds are tight or nearly tight for many scenarios. It shows that, by using coordination, the price of anarchy drops from linear to logarithmic bounds. We complement these results by also proving the first superconstant lower bound on the price of stability of standard equilibria (without coordination) in undirected graphs. More specifically, we show a lower bound of @math for weighted games, where @math is the total weight of all the agents. This almost matches the known upper bound of @math . Our results imply that, for most settings, the worst-case performance ratios of strong coordinated equilibria are essentially always as good as the performance ratios of the best equilibria achievable without coordination. These settings include unweighted games in directed graphs as well as weighted games in both directed and undirected graphs. Despite general awareness of the importance of keeping one's system secure, and widespread availability of consumer security technologies, actual investment in security remains highly variable across the Internet population, allowing attacks such as distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) and spam distribution to continue unabated. By modeling security investment decision-making in established (e.g., weakest-link, best-shot) and novel games (e.g., weakest-target), and allowing expenditures in self-protection versus self-insurance technologies, we can examine how incentives may shift between investment in a public good (protection) and a private good (insurance), subject to factors such as network size, type of attack, loss probability, loss magnitude, and cost of technology. We can also characterize Nash equilibria and social optima for different classes of attacks and defenses. In the weakest-target game, an interesting result is that, for almost all parameter settings, more effort is exerted at Nash equilibrium than at the social optimum. We may attribute this to the "strategic uncertainty" of players seeking to self-protect at just slightly above the lowest protection level. We consider structural and algorithmic questions related to the Nash dynamics of weighted congestion games. In weighted congestion games with linear latency functions, the existence of pure Nash equilibria is guaranteed by a potential function argument. Unfortunately, this proof of existence is inefficient and computing pure Nash equilibria in such games is a PLS-hard problem even when all players have unit weights. The situation gets worse when superlinear (e.g., quadratic) latency functions come into play; in this case, the Nash dynamics of the game may contain cycles and pure Nash equilibria may not even exist. Given these obstacles, we consider approximate pure Nash equilibria as alternative solution concepts. A ρ--approximate pure Nash equilibrium is a state of a (weighted congestion) game from which no player has any incentive to deviate in order to improve her cost by a multiplicative factor higher than ρ. Do such equilibria exist for small values of ρ? And if so, can we compute them efficiently? We provide positive answers to both questions for weighted congestion games with polynomial latency functions by exploiting an “approximation” of such games by a new class of potential games that we call Ψ-games. This allows us to show that these games have d!-approximate pure Nash equilibria, where d is the maximum degree of the latency functions. Our main technical contribution is an efficient algorithm for computing O(1)-approximate pure Nash equilibria when d is a constant. For games with linear latency functions, the approximation guarantee is 3+√5 2 + Oγ for arbitrarily small γ > 0; for latency functions with maximum degree d≥ 2, it is d2d+o(d). The running time is polynomial in the number of bits in the representation of the game and 1 γ. As a byproduct of our techniques, we also show the following interesting structural statement for weighted congestion games with polynomial latency functions of maximum degree d ≥ 2: polynomially-long sequences of best-response moves from any initial state to a dO(d2)-approximate pure Nash equilibrium exist and can be efficiently identified in such games as long as d is a constant. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first positive algorithmic results for approximate pure Nash equilibria in weighted congestion games. Our techniques significantly extend our recent work on unweighted congestion games through the use of Ψ-games. The concept of approximating nonpotential games by potential ones is interesting in itself and might have further applications. In the traffic assignment problem, first proposed by Wardrop in 1952, commuters select the shortest available path to travel from their origins to their destinations. We study a generalization of this problem in which competitors, who may control a nonnegligible fraction of the total flow, ship goods across a network. This type of games, usually referred to as atomic games, readily applies to situations in which the competing freight companies have market power. Other applications include intelligent transportation systems, competition among telecommunication network service providers, and scheduling with flexible machines. Our goal is to determine to what extent these systems can benefit from some form of coordination or regulation. We measure the quality of the outcome of the game without centralized control by computing the worst-case inefficiency of Nash equilibria. The main conclusion is that although self-interested competitors will not achieve a fully efficient solution from the system's point of view, the loss is not too severe. We show how to compute several bounds for the worst-case inefficiency that depend on the characteristics of cost functions and on the market structure in the game. In addition, building upon the work of Catoni and Pallotino, we show examples in which market aggregation (or collusion) adversely impacts the aggregated competitors, even though their market power increases. For example, Nash equilibria of atomic network games may be less efficient than the corresponding Wardrop equilibria. When competitors are completely symmetric, we provide a characterization of the Nash equilibrium using a potential function, and prove that this counterintuitive phenomenon does not arise. Finally, we study a pricing mechanism that elicits more coordination from the players by reducing the worst-case inefficiency of Nash equilibria. Firms have been increasing their information technology (IT) security budgets significantly to deal with increased security threats. An examination of current practices reveals that managers view security investment as any other and use traditional decision-theoretic risk management techniques to determine security investments. We argue in this paper that this method is incomplete because of the problem's strategic nature-hackers alter their hacking strategies in response to a firm's investment strategies. We propose game theory for determining IT security investment levels and compare game theory and decision theory approaches on several dimensions such as the investment levels, vulnerability, and payoff from investments. We show that the sequential game results in the maximum payoff to the firm, but requires that the firm move first before the hacker. Even if a simultaneous game is played, the firm enjoys a higher payoff than that in the decision theory approach, except when the firm's estimate of the hacker effort in the decision theory approach is sufficiently close to the actual hacker effort. We also show that if the firm learns from prior observations of hacker effort and uses these to estimate future hacker effort in the decision theory approach, then the gap between the results of decision theory and game theory approaches diminishes over time. The rate of convergence and the extent of loss the firm suffers before convergence depend on the learning model employed by the firm to estimate hacker effort. In various settings, such as when customers use the same passwords at several independent web sites, security decisions by one organization may have a significant impact on the security of another. We develop a model for security decision-making in such settings, using a variation of linear influence networks. The linear influence model uses a matrix to represent linear dependence between security investment at one organization and resulting security at another, and utility functions to measure the overall benefit to each organization. A simple matrix condition implies the existence and uniqueness of Nash equilibria, which can be reached by a natural iterative algorithm. A free-riding index, expressible using quantities computed in this model, measures the degree to which one organization can potentially reduce its security investment and benefit from investments of others. We apply this framework to investigate three examples: web site security with shared passwords, customer education against phishing and identity theft, and anti-spam email filters. While we do not have sufficient quantitative data to draw quantitative conclusions about any of these situations, the model provides qualitative information about each example. Internet security does not only depend on the security-related investments of individual users, but also on how these users affect each other. In a non-cooperative environment, each user chooses a level of investment to minimize its own security risk plus the cost of investment. Not surprisingly, this selfish behavior often results in undesirable security degradation of the overall system. In this paper, we first characterize the price of anarchy (POA) of network security under two models: an "Effective-investment" model, and a "Bad-traffic" model. We give insight on how the POA depends on the network topology, individual users' cost functions, and their mutual influence. We also introduce the concept of "weighted POA" to bound the region of all feasible payoffs. In a repeated game, on the other hand, users have more incentive to cooperate for their long term interests. We consider the socially best outcome that can be supported by the repeated game, and give a ratio between this outcome and the social optimum. Although the paper focuses on Internet security, many results are generally applicable to games with positive externalities. We consider in this chapter a class of two-player nonzero-sum stochastic games with incomplete information, which is inspired by recent applications of game theory in network security. We develop fully distributed reinforcement learning algorithms, which require for each player a minimal amount of information regarding the other player. At each time, each player can be in an active mode or in a sleep mode. If †This material is based upon work supported in part by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) under grant number AFOSR MURI FA9550-09-1-0249. D R A F T October 2, 2011, 1:59am D R A F T 2 HYBRID LEARNING IN STOCHASTIC GAMES AND ITS APPLICATION IN NETWORK SECURITY a player is in an active mode, she updates her strategy and estimates of unknown quantities using a specific pure or hybrid learning pattern. The players’ intelligence and rationality are captured by the weighted linear combination of different learning patterns. We use stochastic approximation techniques to show that, under appropriate conditions, the pure or hybrid learning schemes with random updates can be studied using their deterministic ordinary differential equation (ODE) counterparts. Convergence to state-independent equilibria is analyzed for special classes of games, namely, games with two actions, and potential games. Results are applied to network security games between an intruder and an administrator, where the noncooperative behaviors are well characterized by the features of distributed hybrid learning. We study the problem of two competing camps aiming to maximize the adoption of their respective opinions, by optimally investing in nodes of a social network in multiple phases. The final opinion of a node in a phase acts as its biased opinion in the following phase. Using an extension of Friedkin-Johnsen model, we formulate the camps' utility functions, which we show to involve what can be interpreted as multiphase Katz centrality. We hence present optimal investment strategies of the camps, and the loss incurred if myopic strategy is employed. Simulations affirm that nodes attributing higher weightage to bias necessitate higher investment in initial phase. The extended version of this paper analyzes a setting where a camp's influence on a node depends on the node's bias; we show existence and polynomial time computability of Nash equilibrium. Weighted voting is a classic model of cooperation among agents in decision-making domains. In such games, each player has a weight, and a coalition of players wins the game if its total weight meets or exceeds a given quota. A player's power in such games is usually not directly proportional to his weight, and is measured by a power index, the most prominent among which are the Shapley-Shubik index and the Banzhaf index. In this paper, we investigate by how much a player can change his power, as measured by the Shapley-Shubik index or the Banzhaf index, by means of a false-name manipulation, i.e., splitting his weight among two or more identities. For both indices, we provide upper and lower bounds on the effect of weight-splitting. We then show that checking whether a beneficial split exists is NP-hard, and discuss efficient algorithms for restricted cases of this problem, as well as randomized algorithms for the general case. We also provide an experimental evaluation of these algorithms. Finally, we examine related forms of manipulative behavior, such as annexation, where a player subsumes other players, or merging, where several players unite into one. We characterize the computational complexity of such manipulations and provide limits on their effects. For the Banzhaf index, we describe a new paradox, which we term the Annexation Non-monotonicity Paradox. We study the dynamics of network selection in heterogeneous wireless networks (HetNets). Users in such networks selfishly select the best radio access technology (RAT) with the objective of maximizing their own throughputs. We propose two general classes of throughput models that capture the basic properties of random access (e.g., Wi-Fi) and scheduled access (e.g., WiMAX, LTE, 3G) networks. Next, we formulate the problem as a non-cooperative game, and study its convergence, efficiency, and practicality. Our results reveal that: (i) Singleclass RAT selection games converge to Nash equilibria, while an improvement path can be repeated infinitely with a mixture of classes. We next introduce a hysteresis mechanism in RAT selection games, and prove that with appropriate hysteresis policies, convergence can still be guaranteed; (ii) We analyze the Pareto-efficiency of the Nash equilibria of these games. We derive the conditions under which Nash equilibria are Paretooptimal, and we quantify the distance of Nash equilibria with respect to the set of Pareto-dominant points when the conditions are not satisfied; (iii) Finally, with extensive measurement-driven simulations we show that RAT selection games converge to Nash equilibria in a small number of steps, and hence are amenable to practical implementation. We also investigate the impact of noisy throughput measurements, and propose solutions to handle them. We consider strategic games in which each player seeks a mixed strategy to minimize her cost evaluated by a concave valuationV (mapping probability distributions to reals); such valuations are used to model risk. In contrast to games with expectation-optimizer players where mixed equilibria always exist (Nash 1950; Nash Ann. Math. 54, 286---295, 1951), a mixed equilibrium for such games, called a V-equilibrium, may fail to exist, even though pure equilibria (if any) transfer over. What is the exact impact of such valuations on the existence, structure and complexity of mixed equilibria? We address this fundamental question in the context of expectation plus variance, a particular concave valuation denoted as RA, which stands for risk-averse; so, variance enters as a measure of risk and it is used as an additive adjustment to expectation. We obtain the following results about RA-equilibria: A collection of general structural properties of RA-equilibria connecting to (i)E-equilibria and Var-equilibria, which correspond to the expectation and variance valuations E and Var, respectively, and to (ii) other weaker or incomparable properties such as Weak Equilibrium and Strong Equilibrium. Some of these structural properties imply quantitative constraints on the existence of mixed RA-equilibria.A second collection of (i) existence, (ii) equivalence and separation (with respect to E-equilibria), and (iii) characterization results for RA-equilibria in the new class of player-specific scheduling games. We provide suitable examples with a mixed RA-equilibrium that is not an E-equilibrium and vice versa.A purification technique to transform a player-specific scheduling game on two identical links into a player-specific scheduling game on two links so that all non-pureRA-equilibria are eliminated while no new pure equilibria are created; so, a particular player-specific scheduling game on two identical links with no pure equilibrium yields a player-specific scheduling game with noRA-equilibrium (whether mixed or pure). As a by-product, the first ?????-completeness result for the computation of RA-equilibria follows. We propose a natural model for agent failures in congestion games. In our model, each of the agents may fail to participate in the game, introducing uncertainty regarding the set of active agents. We examine how such uncertainty may change the Nash equilibria (NE) of the game. We prove that although the perturbed game induced by the failure model is not always a congestion game, it still admits at least one pure Nash equilibrium. Then, we turn to examine the effect of failures on the maximal social cost in any NE of the perturbed game. We show that in the limit case where failure probability is negligible new equilibria never emerge, and that the social cost may decrease but it never increases. For the case of nonnegligible failure probabilities, we provide a full characterization of the maximal impact of failures on the social cost under worst-case equilibrium outcomes. The price of anarchy (POA) is a worst-case measure of the inefficiency of selfish behavior, defined as the ratio of the objective function value of a worst Nash equilibrium of a game and that of an optimal outcome. This measure implicitly assumes that players successfully reach some Nash equilibrium. This drawback motivates the search for inefficiency bounds that apply more generally to weaker notions of equilibria, such as mixed Nash and correlated equilibria; or to sequences of outcomes generated by natural experimentation strategies, such as successive best responses or simultaneous regret-minimization. We prove a general and fundamental connection between the price of anarchy and its seemingly stronger relatives in classes of games with a sum objective. First, we identify a "canonical sufficient condition" for an upper bound of the POA for pure Nash equilibria, which we call a smoothness argument. Second, we show that every bound derived via a smoothness argument extends automatically, with no quantitative degradation in the bound, to mixed Nash equilibria, correlated equilibria, and the average objective function value of regret-minimizing players (or "price of total anarchy"). Smoothness arguments also have automatic implications for the inefficiency of approximate and Bayesian-Nash equilibria and, under mild additional assumptions, for bicriteria bounds and for polynomial-length best-response sequences. We also identify classes of games --- most notably, congestion games with cost functions restricted to an arbitrary fixed set --- that are tight, in the sense that smoothness arguments are guaranteed to produce an optimal worst-case upper bound on the POA, even for the smallest set of interest (pure Nash equilibria). Byproducts of our proof of this result include the first tight bounds on the POA in congestion games with non-polynomial cost functions, and the first structural characterization of atomic congestion games that are universal worst-case examples for the POA. We develop a game-theoretic framework for the study of competition between firms who have budgets to "seed" the initial adoption of their products by consumers located in a social network. The payoffs to the firms are the eventual number of adoptions of their product through a competitive stochastic diffusion process in the network. This framework yields a rich class of competitive strategies, which depend in subtle ways on the stochastic dynamics of adoption, the relative budgets of the players, and the underlying structure of the social network. We identify a general property of the adoption dynamics --- namely, decreasing returns to local adoption --- for which the inefficiency of resource use at equilibrium (the Price of Anarchy) is uniformly bounded above, across all networks. We also show that if this property is violated the Price of Anarchy can be unbounded, thus yielding sharp threshold behavior for a broad class of dynamics. We also introduce a new notion, the Budget Multiplier, that measures the extent that imbalances in player budgets can be amplified at equilibrium. We again identify a general property of the adoption dynamics --- namely, proportional local adoption between competitors --- for which the (pure strategy) Budget Multiplier is uniformly bounded above, across all networks. We show that a violation of this property can lead to unbounded Budget Multiplier, again yielding sharp threshold behavior for a broad class of dynamics.