  Stackelberg security game models and associated computational tools have seen
deployment in a number of high-consequence security settings, such as LAX
canine patrols and Federal Air Marshal Service. These models focus on isolated
systems with only one defender, despite being part of a more complex system
with multiple players. Furthermore, many real systems such as transportation
networks and the power grid exhibit interdependencies between targets and,
consequently, between decision makers jointly charged with protecting them. To
understand such multidefender strategic interactions present in security, we
investigate game theoretic models of security games with multiple defenders.
Unlike most prior analysis, we focus on the situations in which each defender
must protect multiple targets, so that even a single defender's best response
decision is, in general, highly non-trivial. We start with an analytical
investigation of multidefender security games with independent targets,
offering an equilibrium and price-of-anarchy analysis of three models with
increasing generality. In all models, we find that defenders have the incentive
to over-protect targets, at times significantly. Additionally, in the simpler
models, we find that the price of anarchy is unbounded, linearly increasing
both in the number of defenders and the number of targets per defender.
Considering interdependencies among targets, we develop a novel mixed-integer
linear programming formulation to compute a defender's best response, and make
use of this formulation in approximating Nash equilibria of the game. We apply
this approach towards computational strategic analysis of several models of
networks representing interdependencies, including real-world power networks.
Our analysis shows how network structure and the probability of failure spread
determine the propensity of defenders to over- or under-invest in security.
