IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v11y2018i5p1281-d146931.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Active Defense Model with Low Power Consumption and Deviation for Wireless Sensor Networks Utilizing Evolutionary Game Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed Ahmed Ahmed Al-Jaoufi

    (School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China)

  • Yun Liu

    (School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China)

  • Zhenjiang Zhang

    (School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China)

Abstract

In wireless sensors networks, nodes may be easily captured and act non-cooperatively, for example by not defending forwarding packets in response to their own limited resources. If most of these nodes are obtained by attackers, and an attack by an internal malicious node occurs, the entire network will be paralyzed and not be able to provide normal service. Low power consumption indicates that the rational sensor nodes tend to be very close to the mean; high power consumption indicates that the rational sensor nodes are spread out over a large range of values. This paper offers an active defense model for wireless sensor networks based on evolutionary game theory. We use evolutionary game theory to analyze the reliability and stability of a wireless sensor network with malicious nodes. Adding a defense model into the strategy space of the rational nodes and establishing a preventive mechanism forces the malicious node to abandon the attack and even switch to cooperative strategies. Thus, this paper argues that the stability and reliability of wireless sensor networks can be improved. Numerical experiments were conducted to evaluate the proposed defense model, and these results verified our conclusions based on a theoretical analysis that showed that, compared with the existing algorithms, our approach has lower energy consumption, lower deviation, and a higher probability to quickly switch each node to cooperative strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed Ahmed Ahmed Al-Jaoufi & Yun Liu & Zhenjiang Zhang, 2018. "An Active Defense Model with Low Power Consumption and Deviation for Wireless Sensor Networks Utilizing Evolutionary Game Theory," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-16, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:5:p:1281-:d:146931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/5/1281/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/5/1281/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhuang, Jun & Bier, Vicki M. & Alagoz, Oguzhan, 2010. "Modeling secrecy and deception in a multiple-period attacker-defender signaling game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(2), pages 409-418, June.
    2. P. Taylor & L. Jonker, 2010. "Evolutionarily Stable Strategies and Game Dynamics," Levine's Working Paper Archive 457, David K. Levine.
    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. Wen Jiang & Zeyu Ma & Xinyang Deng, 2019. "An attack-defense game based reliability analysis approach for wireless sensor networks," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, , vol. 15(4), pages 15501477198, April.
    2. Zi-Jia Wang & Zhi-Hui Zhan & Jun Zhang, 2018. "Solving the Energy Efficient Coverage Problem in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Distributed Genetic Algorithm Approach with Hierarchical Fitness Evaluation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Yang Li & Leyi Shi & Haijie Feng, 2019. "A Game-Theoretic Analysis for Distributed Honeypots," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.

    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. Zhang, Chi & Ramirez-Marquez, José Emmanuel & Wang, Jianhui, 2015. "Critical infrastructure protection using secrecy – A discrete simultaneous game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 212-221.
    2. Xiaojun (Gene) Shan & Jun Zhuang, 2014. "Modeling Credible Retaliation Threats in Deterring the Smuggling of Nuclear Weapons Using Partial Inspection---A Three-Stage Game," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 43-62, March.
    3. Sakai, Kazuki & Hohzaki, Ryusuke & Fukuda, Emiko & Sakuma, Yutaka, 2018. "Risk evaluation and games in mine warfare considering shipcounter effects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(1), pages 300-313.
    4. Thanh Hong Nguyen & Amulya Yadav, 2022. "A Complete Analysis on the Risk of Using Quantal Response: When Attacker Maliciously Changes Behavior under Uncertainty," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-24, December.
    5. Deck, Cary & Sheremeta, Roman M., 2019. "The tug-of-war in the laboratory," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    6. Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang, 2011. "Governments' and Terrorists' Defense and Attack in a T -Period Game," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 46-70, March.
    7. Shan, Xiaojun & Zhuang, Jun, 2013. "Hybrid defensive resource allocations in the face of partially strategic attackers in a sequential defender–attacker game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 262-272.
    8. Liang, Liang & Chen, Jingxian & Siqueira, Kevin, 2020. "Revenge or continued attack and defense in defender–attacker conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1180-1190.
    9. Gallice, Andrea, 2017. "An approximate solution to rent-seeking contests with private information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(2), pages 673-684.
    10. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Mehmet Gümüs, 2015. "On the value of terrorist’s private information in a government’s defensive resource allocation problem," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(6), pages 533-555, June.
    11. Yanling Chang & Alan Erera & Chelsea White, 2015. "Value of information for a leader–follower partially observed Markov game," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 129-153, December.
    12. Dong, Yukun & Xu, Hedong & Fan, Suohai, 2019. "Memory-based stag hunt game on regular lattices," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 519(C), pages 247-255.
    13. Hofbauer, Josef & Sandholm, William H., 2009. "Stable games and their dynamics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1665-1693.4, July.
    14. Jiang, J. & Liu, X., 2018. "Multi-objective Stackelberg game model for water supply networks against interdictions with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(3), pages 920-933.
    15. Chi Zhang & Jose Ramirez-Marquez, 2013. "Protecting critical infrastructures against intentional attacks: a two-stage game with incomplete information," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 244-258.
    16. Andrew Samuel & Seth D. Guikema, 2012. "Resource Allocation for Homeland Defense: Dealing with the Team Effect," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 238-252, September.
    17. Bertrand Crettez & Naila Hayek, 2014. "Terrorists’ Eradication Versus Perpetual Terror War," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 679-702, February.
    18. Borgers, Tilman & Sarin, Rajiv, 1997. "Learning Through Reinforcement and Replicator Dynamics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 1-14, November.
    19. Shahi, Chander & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "An evolutionary game-theoretic approach to the strategies of community members under Joint Forest Management regime," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 763-775, April.
    20. Song, Cen & Zhuang, Jun, 2017. "N-stage security screening strategies in the face of strategic applicants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 292-301.

    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:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:5:p:1281-:d:146931. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.