  There has been significant recent interest in game-theoretic approaches to
security, with much of the recent research focused on utilizing the
leader-follower Stackelberg game model. Among the major applications are the
ARMOR program deployed at LAX Airport and the IRIS program in use by the US
Federal Air Marshals (FAMS). The foundational assumption for using Stackelberg
games is that security forces (leaders), acting first, commit to a randomized
strategy; while their adversaries (followers) choose their best response after
surveillance of this randomized strategy. Yet, in many situations, a leader may
face uncertainty about the follower's surveillance capability. Previous work
fails to address how a leader should compute her strategy given such
uncertainty. We provide five contributions in the context of a general class of
security games. First, we show that the Nash equilibria in security games are
interchangeable, thus alleviating the equilibrium selection problem. Second,
under a natural restriction on security games, any Stackelberg strategy is also
a Nash equilibrium strategy; and furthermore, the solution is unique in a class
of security games of which ARMOR is a key exemplar. Third, when faced with a
follower that can attack multiple targets, many of these properties no longer
hold. Fourth, we show experimentally that in most (but not all) games where the
restriction does not hold, the Stackelberg strategy is still a Nash equilibrium
strategy, but this is no longer true when the attacker can attack multiple
targets. Finally, as a possible direction for future research, we propose an
extensive-form game model that makes the defender's uncertainty about the
attacker's ability to observe explicit.
