IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v14y2017i2p87-107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling a Multitarget Attacker–Defender Game with Budget Constraints

Author

Listed:
  • Peiqiu Guan

    (University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260)

  • Meilin He

    (University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260)

  • Jun Zhuang

    (University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260)

  • Stephen C. Hora

    (University of Hawaii at Hilo, Hilo, Hawaii 96720)

Abstract

Though the choices of terrorists’ attack targets are vast, their resources are limited. In this paper, a game-theoretical model is proposed to study both the defender’s (government) and the attacker’s (terrorist) expenditures among multiple targets under budget constraints to guide investment in defense. We study how the defender’s and the attacker’s equilibrium allocations depend on the budget constraints, target valuations, cost effectiveness of their investments, and inherent defense levels of targets in both sequential-move and simultaneous-move games. The equilibrium solutions are provided using the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions. At the subgame-perfect Nash equilibrium, the defender’s total marginal effects are the same among targets. Moreover, the defender’s total marginal effects can be decomposed into direct and indirect effects. We also use the multiple-infrastructure and multiple-urban-area data sets to demonstrate the model results. The regression analysis shows that both the attacker’s and the defender’s equilibrium investments increase with their own target valuations, because a higher valuation for themselves means a higher attractiveness. Interestingly, the attacker’s equilibrium investment is negatively correlated with the defender’s target valuations, since a higher defender’s valuation would make it more difficult for the attacker to successfully attack the target. By contrast, the defender’s equilibrium investment is positively correlated with the attacker’s target valuations, as a higher attacker’s valuations would increase the urgency for the defender to protect the target. To show the utility of the new model, we compare the results of this model and the model in which the defender assumes that only a single target will be attacked when there could actually be multiple targets attacked. Our results show that the defender will suffer higher expected losses if she assumes that the attacker will attack only one target. The analysis of the attacker’s and the defender’s budget constraints show that (a) the higher the budget the defender has, the less likely it is that her most valuable target will be attacked; (b) a higher proportion of defense resources should be allocated to the most valuable target if the defender’s budget is low; and (c) the attacker is less concentrated on attacking the most valuable target and spreads the resources to attack more targets as his budget increases.

Suggested Citation

  • Peiqiu Guan & Meilin He & Jun Zhuang & Stephen C. Hora, 2017. "Modeling a Multitarget Attacker–Defender Game with Budget Constraints," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 87-107, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:14:y:2017:i:2:p:87-107
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2017.0346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2017.0346
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2017.0346?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vicki Bier & Santiago Oliveros & Larry Samuelson, 2007. "Choosing What to Protect: Strategic Defensive Allocation against an Unknown Attacker," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(4), pages 563-587, August.
    2. Stergios Skaperdas, 1996. "Contest success functions (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 283-290.
    3. Jun Zhuang & Vicki M. Bier, 2007. "Balancing Terrorism and Natural Disasters---Defensive Strategy with Endogenous Attacker Effort," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 976-991, October.
    4. Jack Hirshleifer, 1989. "Conflict and rent-seeking success functions: Ratio vs. difference models of relative success," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Arye L. Hillman & Kai A. Konrad (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 1, pages 251-262, Springer.
    5. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2009. "False targets efficiency in defense strategy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 155-162, April.
    6. Gregory Levitin & Kjell Hausken, 2010. "Resource Distribution in Multiple Attacks Against a Single Target," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1231-1239, August.
    7. Kjell Hausken & Gregory Levitin, 2011. "Shield versus sword resource distribution in K-round duels," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 19(4), pages 589-603, December.
    8. Richard G. Little, 2007. "Cost-effective Strategies to Address Urban Terrorism: A Risk Management Approach," Chapters, in: Harry W Richardson & Peter Gordon & James E. Moore II (ed.), The Economic Costs and Consequences of Terrorism, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Llussá, Fernanda & Tavares, José, 2011. "Which terror at which cost? On the economic consequences of terrorist attacks," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 52-55, January.
    10. Hausken, Kjell & Zhuang, Jun, 2013. "The impact of disaster on the strategic interaction between company and government," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 363-376.
    11. Kjell Hausken & Vicki M. Bier & Jun Zhuang, 2009. "Defending Against Terrorism, Natural Disaster, and All Hazards," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Vicki M. M. Bier & M. Naceur Azaiez (ed.), Game Theoretic Risk Analysis of Security Threats, chapter 4, pages 65-97, Springer.
    12. Hausken, Kjell & Levitin, Gregory, 2009. "Minmax defense strategy for complex multi-state systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 577-587.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Shuliang & Sun, Jingya & Zhang, Jianhua & Dong, Qiqi & Gu, Xifeng & Chen, Chen, 2023. "Attack-Defense game analysis of critical infrastructure network based on Cournot model with fixed operating nodes," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Smith, J. Cole & Song, Yongjia, 2020. "A survey of network interdiction models and algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(3), pages 797-811.
    3. Simon, Jay & Omar, Ayman, 2020. "Cybersecurity investments in the supply chain: Coordination and a strategic attacker," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(1), pages 161-171.
    4. Peng, Rui & Xiao, Hui & Guo, Jianjun & Lin, Chen, 2020. "Defending a parallel system against a strategic attacker with redundancy, protection and disinformation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Abdolmajid Yolmeh & Melike Baykal-Gürsoy, 2019. "Two-Stage Invest–Defend Game: Balancing Strategic and Operational Decisions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 46-66, March.
    6. Zhang, Xiaoxiong & Ding, Song & Ge, Bingfeng & Xia, Boyuan & Pedrycz, Witold, 2021. "Resource allocation among multiple targets for a defender-attacker game with false targets consideration," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    7. Chaoqi, Fu & Yangjun, Gao & Jilong, Zhong & Yun, Sun & Pengtao, Zhang & Tao, Wu, 2021. "Attack-defense game for critical infrastructure considering the cascade effect," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    8. Han, Lin & Zhao, Xudong & Chen, Zhilong & Wu, Yipeng & Su, Xiaochao & Zhang, Ning, 2021. "Optimal allocation of defensive resources to defend urban power networks against different types of attackers," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qingqing Zhai & Rui Peng & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Defender–Attacker Games with Asymmetric Player Utilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 408-420, February.
    2. Peiqiu Guan & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling Resources Allocation in Attacker‐Defender Games with “Warm Up” CSF," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 776-791, April.
    3. Mohsen Golalikhani & Jun Zhuang, 2011. "Modeling Arbitrary Layers of Continuous‐Level Defenses in Facing with Strategic Attackers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 533-547, April.
    4. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2009. "Intelligence and impact contests in systems with redundancy, false targets, and partial protection," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(12), pages 1927-1941.
    5. Zhiheng Xu & Jun Zhuang, 2019. "A Study on a Sequential One‐Defender‐N‐Attacker Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1414-1432, June.
    6. Ben Yaghlane, Asma & Azaiez, M. Naceur, 2017. "Systems under attack-survivability rather than reliability: Concept, results, and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1156-1164.
    7. Hausken, Kjell, 2010. "Defense and attack of complex and dependent systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 29-42.
    8. Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "The strategic interaction between a company and the government surrounding disasters," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 27-40, February.
    9. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2010. "Separation in homogeneous systems with independent identical elements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 625-634, June.
    10. Abhra Roy & Jomon Paul, 2013. "Terrorism deterrence in a two country framework: strategic interactions between R&D, defense and pre-emption," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 399-432, December.
    11. Hausken, Kjell & Bier, Vicki M., 2011. "Defending against multiple different attackers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 370-384, June.
    12. G Levitin & K Hausken, 2010. "Defence and attack of systems with variable attacker system structure detection probability," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(1), pages 124-133, January.
    13. R Peng & G Levitin & M Xie & S H Ng, 2011. "Optimal defence of single object with imperfect false targets," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(1), pages 134-141, January.
    14. Kjell Hausken, 2014. "Choosing what to protect when attacker resources and asset valuations are uncertain," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 24(3), pages 23-44.
    15. Di Wu & Xiangbin Yan & Rui Peng & Shaomin Wu, 2020. "Optimal defence-attack strategies between one defender and two attackers," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(11), pages 1830-1846, November.
    16. Chen, Die & Xu, Maochao & Shi, Weidong, 2018. "Defending a cyber system with early warning mechanism," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 224-234.
    17. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Jun Zhuang, 2012. "Robust Allocation of a Defensive Budget Considering an Attacker's Private Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 930-943, May.
    18. Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "How companies and governments react to disasters," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 230(4), pages 417-426, August.
    19. Hu, Xiaoxiao & Xu, Maochao & Xu, Shouhuai & Zhao, Peng, 2017. "Multiple cyber attacks against a target with observation errors and dependent outcomes: Characterization and optimization," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 119-133.
    20. Mathews, Timothy & Paul, Jomon A., 2022. "Natural disasters and their impact on cooperation against a common enemy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1417-1428.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:14:y:2017:i:2:p:87-107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.