Downloads provided by UsageCounts
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-31489-7_9 , 10.5281/zenodo.4543483 , 10.5281/zenodo.4543484 , 10.48550/arxiv.1908.06901
arXiv: 1908.06901
handle: 10261/346586
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-31489-7_9 , 10.5281/zenodo.4543483 , 10.5281/zenodo.4543484 , 10.48550/arxiv.1908.06901
arXiv: 1908.06901
handle: 10261/346586
Stackelberg Games are gaining importance in the last years due to the raise of Adversarial Machine Learning (AML). Within this context, a new paradigm must be faced: in classical game theory, inter- vening agents were humans whose decisions are generally discrete and low dimensional. In AML, decisions are made by algorithms and are usually continuous and high dimensional, e.g. choosing the weights of a neural network. As closed form solutions for Stackelberg games gener- ally do not exist, it is mandatory to have efficient algorithms to search for numerical solutions. We study two different procedures for solving this type of games using gradient methods. We study time and space scalability of both approaches and discuss in which situation it is more appropriate to use each of them. Finally, we illustrate their use in an adversarial prediction problem.
FOS: Computer and information sciences, game theory, Adjoint method, Automatic differentiation, Machine Learning (stat.ML), Adversarial machine learning, Statistics - Computation, adversarial machine learning, Computer Science - Computer Science and Game Theory, Statistics - Machine Learning, automatic defferentiation, adjoint method, Game theory, Computation (stat.CO), Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT)
FOS: Computer and information sciences, game theory, Adjoint method, Automatic differentiation, Machine Learning (stat.ML), Adversarial machine learning, Statistics - Computation, adversarial machine learning, Computer Science - Computer Science and Game Theory, Statistics - Machine Learning, automatic defferentiation, adjoint method, Game theory, Computation (stat.CO), Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT)
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 4 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 27 | |
| downloads | 46 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts