IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v19y2016i6p549-566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Probabilistic Game‐Theoretic Method to Assess Deterrence and Defense Benefits of Security Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Edouard Kujawski

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security identifies deterrence as a key strategic priority. Nevertheless, no adequate method exists to quantify the deterrent effects of counterterrorism security systems (CTSSs). Game‐theoretic analyses of terrorism risk typically limit solutions to expected payoffs (EPs). This restricts the defender's ability to consider the full scope of outcomes and renders her vulnerable to the flaw of averages. The probabilistic game‐theoretic method (PGTM) is developed as an extension of game theory (GT) to explicitly account for uncertainties and remove the limitations of traditional decision‐making based solely on EPs. The problem of selecting robust optimal CTSSs under uncertainty is modeled as a Bayesian sequential defender–attacker game pictured in the form a hybrid decision‐game tree. The analysis uses Monte Carlo simulation and the results are reported as risk curves. The deterrent effects of CTSSs are endogenously determined. PGTM is applied to the problem of selecting an optimal CTSS for a small boat attack. The results demonstrate that PGTM can result in superior strategies than traditional GT that consider solely EPs and traditional probabilistic risk analyses of terrorism risk that do not account for deterrent effects because they do not endogenously model defender–attacker interactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Edouard Kujawski, 2016. "A Probabilistic Game‐Theoretic Method to Assess Deterrence and Defense Benefits of Security Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 549-566, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:19:y:2016:i:6:p:549-566
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21376
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21376?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausken, Kjell & Bier, Vicki M., 2011. "Defending against multiple different attackers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 370-384, June.
    2. Edouard Kujawski, 2002. "Selection of technical risk responses for efficient contingencies," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 194-212.
    3. Edouard Kujawski & Gregory A. Miller, 2007. "Quantitative risk‐based analysis for military counterterrorism systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 273-289, December.
    4. Barry Charles Ezell & Steven P. Bennett & Detlof Von Winterfeldt & John Sokolowski & Andrew J. Collins, 2010. "Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 575-589, April.
    5. Golany, Boaz & Kaplan, Edward H. & Marmur, Abraham & Rothblum, Uriel G., 2009. "Nature plays with dice - terrorists do not: Allocating resources to counter strategic versus probabilistic risks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 198-208, January.
    6. Gregory S. Parnell & Christopher M. Smith & Frederick I. Moxley, 2010. "Intelligent Adversary Risk Analysis: A Bioterrorism Risk Management Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 32-48, January.
    7. Barry M. Horowitz & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2003. "Risk‐based methodology for scenario tracking, intelligence gathering, and analysis for countering terrorism," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 152-169.
    8. Jun Zhuang & Vicki Bier & Seth Guikema, 2016. "Introductions to Adversary Behavior: Validating the Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 650-652, April.
    9. Jason Merrick & Gregory S. Parnell, 2011. "A Comparative Analysis of PRA and Intelligent Adversary Methods for Counterterrorism Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1488-1510, September.
    10. Enders,Walter & Sandler,Todd, 2012. "The Political Economy of Terrorism," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521181006.
    11. Juan Carlos Sevillano & David Rios Insua & Jesus Rios, 2012. "Adversarial Risk Analysis: The Somali Pirates Case," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 86-95, June.
    12. Edouard Kujawski, 2010. "Unintended consequences of performance specifications for the reliability of military weapon systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 405-412, December.
    13. Thomas V. Huynh & Andrew Kessler & Joseph Oravec & Shaunnah Wark & Jennifer Davis, 2007. "Orthogonal array experiment for architecting a system of systems responding to small boat attacks," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 241-259, September.
    14. Jenelius, Erik & Westin, Jonas & Holmgren, Åke J., 2010. "Critical infrastructure protection under imperfect attacker perception," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 16-26.
    15. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    16. Powell, Robert, 2007. "Defending against Terrorist Attacks with Limited Resources," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 527-541, August.
    17. Chen Wang & Vicki M. Bier, 2016. "Quantifying Adversary Capabilities to Inform Defensive Resource Allocation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 756-775, April.
    18. Edieal J. Pinker, 2007. "An Analysis of Short-Term Responses to Threats of Terrorism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(6), pages 865-880, June.
    19. Edouard Kujawski, 2015. "Accounting for Terrorist Behavior in Allocating Defensive Counterterrorism Resources," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 365-376, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Jun Zhuang, 2012. "Robust Allocation of a Defensive Budget Considering an Attacker's Private Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 930-943, May.
    2. Edouard Kujawski, 2015. "Accounting for Terrorist Behavior in Allocating Defensive Counterterrorism Resources," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 365-376, July.
    3. Han, Lin & Zhao, Xudong & Chen, Zhilong & Wu, Yipeng & Su, Xiaochao & Zhang, Ning, 2021. "Optimal allocation of defensive resources to defend urban power networks against different types of attackers," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    4. David Rios Insua & David Banks & Jesus Rios, 2016. "Modeling Opponents in Adversarial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 742-755, April.
    5. González-Ortega, Jorge & Ríos Insua, David & Cano, Javier, 2019. "Adversarial risk analysis for bi-agent influence diagrams: An algorithmic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1085-1096.
    6. 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.
    7. Sumitra Sri Bhashyam & Gilberto Montibeller, 2016. "In the Opponent's Shoes: Increasing the Behavioral Validity of Attackers’ Judgments in Counterterrorism Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 666-680, April.
    8. Nikoofal, Mohammad E. & Zhuang, Jun, 2015. "On the value of exposure and secrecy of defense system: First-mover advantage vs. robustness," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 320-330.
    9. Mohsen Golalikhani & Jun Zhuang, 2011. "Modeling Arbitrary Layers of Continuous‐Level Defenses in Facing with Strategic Attackers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 533-547, April.
    10. Peter Egger & Martin Gassebner, 2015. "International terrorism as a trade impediment?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 42-62.
    11. 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.
    12. Ulrich Hendel, 2016. "‘Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under’t’: mimicking behaviour of growth-oriented terrorist organizations," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(5), pages 665-687, September.
    13. 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.
    14. B. Golany & N. Goldberg & U. Rothblum, 2015. "Allocating multiple defensive resources in a zero-sum game setting," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 91-109, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Corine M. Laan & Ana Isabel Barros & Richard J. Boucherie & Herman Monsuur & Judith Timmer, 2019. "Solving partially observable agent‐intruder games with an application to border security problems," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(2), pages 174-190, March.
    17. Han, Lin & Zhao, Xudong & Chen, Zhilong & Gong, Huadong & Hou, Benwei, 2021. "Assessing resilience of urban lifeline networks to intentional attacks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    18. Insua, Insua Rios & Rios, Jesus & Banks, David, 2009. "Adversarial Risk Analysis," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 104(486), pages 841-854.
    19. Hendel, Ulrich, 2012. ""Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under't": Mimicking behaviour of growth-oriented terrorist organizations," Discussion Papers in Economics 13998, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:syseng:v:19:y:2016:i:6:p:549-566. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    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.