Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Tale of Two Mechanisms: Incentivizing Investments in Security Games

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1503.07377 v1 pith:PUAVI425 submitted 2015-03-25 cs.GT

classification cs.GT
keywords securityexternalitymechanismusersmechanismspivotalbudgetparticipation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In a system of interdependent users, the security of an entity is affected not only by that user's investment in security measures, but also by the positive externality of the security decisions of (some of) the other users. The provision of security in such system is therefore modeled as a public good provision problem, and is referred to as a security game. In this paper, we compare two well-known incentive mechanisms in this context for incentivizing optimal security investments among users, namely the Pivotal and the Externality mechanisms. The taxes in a Pivotal mechanism are designed to ensure users' voluntary participation, while those in an Externality mechanism are devised to maintain a balanced budget. We first show the more general result that, due to the non-excludable nature of security, no mechanism can incentivize the socially optimal investment profile, while at the same time ensuring voluntary participation and maintaining a balanced budget for all instances of security games. To further illustrate, we apply the Pivotal and Externality mechanisms to the special case of weighted total effort interdependence models, and identify some of the effects of varying interdependency between users on the budget deficit in the Pivotal mechanism, as well as on the participation incentives in the Externality mechanism.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AI-Native Insurance for Agentic AI: Pricing, Underwriting, and End-to-End Automation

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A formal contract-design framework maps agentic-AI deployment characteristics to insurance premiums, deductibles, limits, and governance requirements, with insurability characterized as a region in risk-state space.

Pith tools