This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Slide 1
Advisor: Yeong-Sung Lin Presented by I-Ju Shih 2011/9/13
Modeling secrecy and deception in a multiple- period
attackerdefender signaling game 1
Slide 2
Agenda 2011/9/13 Introduction Signaling game Model formulation
for repeated game Attacker observes defensive investment from the
previous period Attacker does not observe defensive investment
Conclusions and future research 2
Slide 3
Agenda 2011/9/13 Introduction Signaling game Model formulation
for repeated game Attacker observes defensive investment from the
previous period Attacker does not observe defensive investment
Conclusions and future research 3
Slide 4
Introduction 2011/9/13 Most applications of game theory to
homeland-security resource allocation so far have involved only
one-period games. Dresher (1961) was among the first researchers to
apply game theory to military strategic interactions. However, he
did not explicitly model deception and secrecy. Recent
game-theoretic research has also indicated that publicizing
defensive information instead of keeping it secret may help to
deter attacks. 4
Slide 5
Introduction 2011/9/13 In practice, however, security-related
information such as defensive resource allocations is often kept
secret. There is a long tradition of deception in the military
arena, as well as in business and capital ventures. Few of these
studies have focused specifically on disclosure of resource
allocations. Defenders might also have incentives to deceive by
either overstating or understating their defenses, to deter or
disinterest potential attackers, respectively. 5
Slide 6
Introduction 2011/9/13 Zhuang and Bier (2007) indicate that
truthful disclosure should always be preferred to secrecy, which is
not surprising, since their model is a game of complete
information. Attacker uncertainty about defender private
information can create opportunities for either defender secrecy or
deception. Zhuang and Bier (2011) found that defender secrecy
and/or deception could be strictly preferred in a one-period game
in which the defender has private information (i.e., the attacker
is uncertain about the defender type). 6
Slide 7
Introduction 2011/9/13 Secrecy has been sometimes modeled as
simultaneous play in game theory, since in a simultaneous game,
each player moves without knowing the moves chosen by the other
players. Some researchers have modeled deception as sending noisy
or imperfect signals to mislead ones opponents. Hespanha et al.
(2000) and Brown et al. (2005) defined deception in a zero-sum
attacker-defender game as occurring when the defender discloses
only a subset of the defenses, in an attempt to route attacks to
heavily-defended locations. 7
Slide 8
Introduction 2011/9/13 By contrast, this paper defines
deception as disclosing a signal (in the domain of the action
space) that differs from the chosen (hidden) action. This paper
applies game theory to model strategies of secrecy and deception in
a multiple-period attacker-defender resource-allocation and
signaling game with incomplete information. 8
Slide 9
Introduction 2011/9/13 Games are classified into two major
classes: cooperative games and non-cooperative games. In
traditional non-cooperative games it is assumed that 1. The players
are rational. 2. There are no enforceable agreements between
players. 3. The players know all the data of the game. However,
real-game situations may involve other types of uncertainty. 9
Slide 10
Introduction 2011/9/13 In this paper they focus on the case
where the defender does have private information, while the
attacker does not. In this case, they allow two types of updates
about the defender type the attacker updates his knowledge about
the defender type after observing the defenders signals, and also
after observing the result of a contest (if one occurs in any given
time period). 10
Slide 11
Agenda 2011/9/13 Introduction Signaling game Model formulation
for repeated game Attacker observes defensive investment from the
previous period Attacker does not observe defensive investment
Conclusions and future research 11
Slide 12
Signaling game 2011/9/13 12 Games are classified into four
major classes.
Slide 13
Signaling game 2011/9/13 13 A signaling game is a dynamic game
of incomplete information involving two players, a Sender and a
Receiver. It involves two players one with private information, the
other without and two moves: first the informed player (Sender,
she) makes a decision, she "sends a signal". then the uninformed
player (Receiver, he) having observed the informed players decision
but not her private information makes a decision, he "reacts to the
signal".
Slide 14
Signaling game 2011/9/13 14 The timing of the game is as
follows: Nature selects a type t i for Sender from a set of
feasible types T = {t 1,..., t I } according to a commonly-known
probability distribution p(.), where p(t i ) > 0 (prior belief)
for every i {1,...,I} and p(t i ) = 1. Sender observes t i and, on
the basis of t i, chooses a message m j from a set of feasible
messages M = {m 1,...,m J }. Receiver observes m j and, on the
basis of m j, selects an action a k from a set of feasible actions
A ={a 1,...,a K }. Payoffs are realised: if nature has drawn type t
i, S has chosen message m j and R has selected action a k, then
payoffs for S and R are u S (t i, m j, a k ) and u R (t i, m j, a k
).