Escape Sensing Games:
Detection-vs-Evasion in Security Applications

The past decade has witnessed an influential line of research in AI, particularly multiagent systems (MAS), that employs computational game theory to tackle critical challenges in security and public safety applications, ranging from protecting national ports [21] to combating smuggling [7] and illegal poaching [14] to defending our cyber systems [27]. At the core of almost all of these problems is to optimize the allocation of (often limited) external forces to protect critical targets. In this work, we adopt a similar computational game theory approach but address a fundamentally different type of security challenge that looks to improve security via optimizing the arrangement of targets in the face of adversaries. This research contributes a novel perspective to game-theoretic security strategies, emphasizing target arrangement as a defense mechanism against adversaries.

Specifically, we introduce and study Escape Sensing Games (ESGs). In these games, a blue player aims to securely navigate a set of targets through a channel, whereas her opponent, the red player, controls a set of sensors along the channel and tries to sense (and therefore “steal”) as many targets as possible. This model captures strategic interactions arising in various domains. One example is the transportation of peacekeeping resources using a convoy of ships or cars over a fixed route with malicious actors (e.g., pirates or hostile forces) trying to intercept them [25] (see Section 2 for details). In cybersecurity, the blue player could model a network administrator routing sensitive data packets through a network with an attacker trying to intercept them. Our model captures strategic interactions in these settings arising when security measures are either unavailable or have already been allocated and the blue player is only left with scheduling the targets to avoid detection by the attacker.

We study the optimal sequential play in ESGs, where the blue player first commits to an ordering of targets followed by the red player devising an optimal sensing plan. Herein, sensors’ capabilities are limited in two ways. First, each sensor is only capable of sensing certain targets, modeling that detection and interception technologies are not uniformly effective across different targets, due to differing characteristics such as size, speed, or defense mechanisms. Second, sensors need a certain time to recharge after sensing a target, modeling limits inherent in detection and interception systems, where permanent action is not feasible.

There are certain challenges integral to our model that make the computation of equilibria highly non-trivial. First, the action space of both players has an exponential size, rendering standard solution approaches such as support enumeration computationally infeasible. Second, also after the strategies of both players have been fixed, the game evolves in a complex, sequential fashion with targets moving one after each other through the channel. Connected to this, third, it turns out that the red player’s best response problem of coming up with an optimal sensing plan given a target ordering is already NP-hard. Consequently, this paper also contributes to the algorithmic research on computationally challenging games, a fairly unexplored topic outside of combinatorial game theory [10, 20, 12].

In an Escape Sensing Game (ESG) a blue player (henceforth Blue) tries to route a set of targets through a channel. They compete against a red player (henceforth Red) who controls a set of sensors and tries to sense (and therefore “steal”) as many of Blue’s targets as possible.²²2Note that the terms “sensor” and “sensing” are only part of our terminology and do not limit the applications of our model. For instance, instead of “sensing” the targets, Red might also aim to intercept them. Formally, an Escape Sensing Game is defined by

1. 1.

   a set of targets $T=\{t_{1},\dots,t_{n}\}$, each target $t_{i}\in T$ equipped with some utility value $v_{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$,

2. 2.

   a set of sensors $S=\{s_{1},\dots,s_{k}\}$ and a recharging time $\tau\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{\infty\}$ which is the same for all sensors and,

3. 3.

   a sensing matrix $D\in\{0,1\}^{n\times k}$ where $D_{i,j}=1$ means that sensor $s_{j}$ is capable of sensing target $t_{i}$.

We assume that all of these parts are known to both players at any point in time. Note that in this paper, we consider the constant-sum utility structure and leave the general-sum version for future work. That is, Blue seeks to maximize the summed value of not-sensed targets, i.e., targets not sensed by any sensor. In contrast, Red seeks to minimize this value, or equivalently, maximize the summed value of targets that are sensed by some sensor.

The strategy of Blue is an ordering of the targets $\sigma:T\to[n]$ that assigns each target $t\in T$ a unique position $\sigma(t)$, i.e., $\sigma$ is a bijection. The targets move through the channel according to $\sigma$, i.e., the target on position $1$ moves first, on position $2$ second, and so on. In each time step each target moves to the next sensor, leaves the channel (in case it passed all sensors), or enters the channel at the first sensor (in case it is the next target in the ordering $\sigma$).

The strategy of Red is a sensing plan $\psi:S\to 2^{T}$ that maps each sensor to a subset of targets $T^{\prime}\subseteq T$ sensed by the sensor, where each sensor senses different targets, i.e., $\psi(s)\cap\psi(s^{\prime})=\emptyset$ for each $s\neq s^{\prime}\in S$. Red cannot play arbitrary sensing plans but only those which are valid. A sensing plan is valid (with respect to a senor ordering $\sigma$) if (i) a sensor only senses targets it has the capabilities to sense, i.e., for each $s_{j}\in S$ and $t_{i}\in\psi(s_{j})$ we have $D_{i,j}=1$, and (ii) a sensor pauses for at least $\tau$ time steps after sensing a target, i.e., for each $s\in S$ and $t,t^{\prime}\in\psi(s)$ we have $|\sigma(t)-\sigma(t^{\prime})|>\tau$. Given a sensing plan, we can immediately calculate the value of not-sensed targets as $v(\psi):=\sum_{t_{i}\in T\setminus\cup_{s\in S}\psi(s)}v_{i}$, which quantifies Blue’s utility.

While the escape sensing game model is new, it is closely related to a few lines of AI research, as detailed below.

We analyze the computational complexity of ESGs starting with Red’s best response problem, followed by computing equilibria.

We analyze the quality and performance of our algorithms to compute the Stackelberg equilibrium.⁸⁸8We use Gurobi [15] to solve the ILP from Proposition 3 and MIBS [23] to solve the bilevel program from Proposition 5. Both are among the most popular off-the-shelf tools for solving the respective problem. We consider three simulated game settings for generating ESGs. For each setting, we determine the value of a target by drawing a number uniformly within $[0,1]$⁹⁹9In our full version [6], we analyze supplementary scenarios, reinforcing similar conclusions to those presented here.:

1. 1.

   Default (Def): For each $i\in[n]$ and $j\in[k]$, we set $D_{i,j}=1$ with probability $0.2$.

2. 2.

   Euclidean (Euc): Each target $t_{i}\in T$ and each sensor $s_{j}\in S$ are uniformly sampled points in $[0,1]\times[0,1]$. A sensor can sense a target (i.e., $D_{i,j}=1$) if the Euclidean distance between their points is below $0.3$.

3. 3.

   RandomLevel (Rand): Each target $t_{i}\in T$ has a difficulty level $d_{i}$ uniformly sampled from $[0,1]$, and each sensor $s_{j}\in S$ has a skill level $s_{j}$ uniformly sampled from $[0,1]$. For each $i\in[n]$ and $j\in[k]$, we set $D_{i,j}=1$ with probability $(1-d_{i})\cdot s_{j}$.

In all our experiments, if not stated otherwise, we average over $50$ instances generated according to one of the models. We present our experimental results as tables where each entry contains Blue’s average utility (i.e., the summed value of not-sensed targets) from the computed target ordering assuming Red best responds and the average running time in seconds in italics, both followed by their respective standard deviations. Note that standard deviations are calculated across the different sampled instances, implying that independent of the solution method some non-trivial standard deviation is to be expected, as certain instances are more favorable for Blue than others.

We analyze the maximum size of instances that we can solve exactly using the bilevel program, which we denote as OPT. We present results for the Default game setting in Table 3 (results for other simulated game settings are similar). It turns out that while instances with $5$ targets can be solved within a second by OPT, instances with $9$ targets take already around $9$ hours to solve. This demonstrates that the bilevel program is only usable for quite small instances. Moreover, we observe the to-be-expected trend that Blue’s utility increases when Blue has more targets or Red has less sensors. However, we do not find any consistent trend regarding whether it is more advantageous for Blue: more targets or fewer sensors.

Motivated by the high computational cost of the bilevel program, we now turn to analyzing the quality of our heuristics. We also include the Random method here as a baseline where Blue simply picks an arbitrary ordering of targets (and Red best responds to it). In addition, we compare our heuristics against a naive random strategy of comparable computational cost. For this, we include the Random2 method which generates $3000$ random orderings for Table 3 and $3\cdot 10^{7}$ random orderings for Table 3. The sampled ordering that achieves the highest utility for Blue assuming that Red best responds is returned.

In Table 3, we show the algorithms’ performance for small instances where we can still compute Blue’s maximum utility (OPT) via the bilevel program. In Table 3, we consider larger instances where the optimum value is unknown. Note that higher values correspond to a better performance of the algorithm, as we always report Blue’s utility for Red’s best response.

From the results in Table 3, we can see that all heuristics perform well on small instances. In particular, SA_Relax, SA, and Random2 find the optimal solution in all (but one) cases. However, SA_Relax proves advantageous because it only needs a sixth of the running time of the other two methods.

While our two heuristics SA and SA_Relax show a similar approximation quality for small instances, for larger instances (Table 3) SA clearly outperforms SA_Relax. For the Default game setting, using SA compared to SA_Relax even regularly leads to a doubled utility for Blue. While this is a strong argument for using SA, SA’s downside is its higher computational cost, needing over $7$ hours to solve instances with $75$ targets.

Finally, we observe that both methods clearly outperform the Random baseline, with SA consistently preserving an average of approximately 20 more targets for the larger instances. This highlights that the solution quality of the target ordering clearly increases throughout the simulated annealing. Considering Random2, we find that repeatedly sampling orders (instead of only once) leads to a noticeable utility increase. However, on the larger instances, Random2 performs even worse than SA_Relax while running as long as SA, thereby combining the disadvantages of SA and SA_Relax. Overall, our experiments highlight that Blue benefits from ordering the targets strategically instead of randomly.

ESGs assume that the different sensors are controlled by a central authority that computes the sensing plan. We now investigate the situation where these sensors are non-coordinated and each one acts independently based on a natural greedy algorithm. This happens when sensors cannot easily exchange information and coordinate with each other. Another motivation is when sensors are controlled by different adversaries, each serving only their own interests and being unlikely to coordinate their actions and share their reward. Both of these scenarios can occur in our motivating domain of piracy at large open seas, as coordination between different groups is likely to be challenging. Different pirate groups might even refuse to coordinate at all and instead directly compete with each other.

We model these situations by assuming that sensors have a predefined ordering as $s_{1},\dots,s_{k}$ (as induced by fixed locations of the sensors); for each sensor $s\in S$, as soon as a not previously sensed target that $s$ can sense passes $s$ (i.e., $s$ has the capabilities and is currently not recharging), $s$ senses it, thereby greedily maximizing its number of sensed targets.

Formally, given a target ordering $\sigma$, we construct a sensing plan $\psi_{\sigma}$ sequentially as follows. For each step $\ell\in[n+k-1]$, if target $t_{i}$ passes sensor $s_{j}$ in step $\ell$, then we add $t_{i}$ to $\psi_{\sigma}(s_{j})$ if the resulting sensing plan remains valid with respect to $\sigma$ (formally, for $i\in[n]$ and $j\in[k]$ target $\sigma^{-1}(i)$ passes sensor $s_{j}$ in step $i+j-1$). As the strategy of Red is fixed, the problem Best Blue Response Blue faces is to pick a target ordering $\sigma$ so that $v(\psi_{\sigma})$ gets maximized. In the following, we study the computational complexity of this problem and solve it in computational experiments. By comparing the answer of Best Blue Response to the value of the Stackelberg equilibrium in the corresponding ESG we can ultimately answer how much Red gains from being able to centrally control its sensors.