IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

N-stage security screening strategies in the face of strategic applicants


  • Song, Cen
  • Zhuang, Jun


From one perspective, tighter security screening has the benefit of deterring adversary passengers and enhancing safety. However, this approach can also produce congestion problems for normal passengers. Adapting to screening policies, both adversary and normal passengers decide their application strategies to the security system to maximize their payoffs, which in turn affects the security agent's payoff. This paper integrates game theory and queueing theory to analyze an N-stage imperfect screening model that considers reject or pass decisions, in which applicants have the chance to be passed or rejected at each stage of the system. An imperfect three-stage screening model is numerically illustrated. Furthermore, the application probabilities, screening probabilities and approver's payoff as functions of the number of screening stages are analyzed. This paper provides some novel insights on screening policies and the optimal number of screening stages which would help security screening policy makers.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:165:y:2017:i:c:p:292-301
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.04.019

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Atin Basuchoudhary & Laura Razzolini, 2006. "Hiding in plain sight – using signals to detect terrorists," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 128(1), pages 245-255, July.
    2. Gkritza, Konstantina & Niemeier, Debbie & Mannering, Fred, 2006. "Airport security screening and changing passenger satisfaction: An exploratory assessment," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 213-219.
    3. Balachandran, K. R. & Schaefer, Mark E., 1980. "Public and private optimization at a service facility with approximate information on congestion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 195-202, March.
    4. repec:eee:reensy:v:92:y:2007:i:4:p:490-502 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Hausken, Kjell & Bier, Vicki M., 2011. "Defending against multiple different attackers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 370-384, June.
    6. repec:eee:reensy:v:160:y:2017:i:c:p:122-135 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Hausken, Kjell, 2008. "Strategic defense and attack for series and parallel reliability systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 856-881, April.
    8. Huseyin Cavusoglu & Young Kwark & Bin Mai & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2013. "Passenger Profiling and Screening for Aviation Security in the Presence of Strategic Attackers," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 63-81, March.
    9. repec:eee:reensy:v:95:y:2010:i:1:p:29-42 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. 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.
    11. Alexander G. Nikolaev & Sheldon H. Jacobson & Laura A. McLay, 2007. "A Sequential Stochastic Security System Design Problem for Aviation Security," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(2), pages 182-194, May.
    12. repec:eee:reensy:v:94:y:2009:i:5:p:973-981 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Zhe George Zhang, 2009. "Performance Analysis of a Queue with Congestion-Based Staffing Policy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(2), pages 240-251, February.
    14. Wang, Xiaofang & Zhuang, Jun, 2011. "Balancing congestion and security in the presence of strategic applicants with private information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 100-111, July.
    15. Gary Gaukler & Chenhua Li & Rory Cannaday & Sunil Chirayath & Yu Ding, 2011. "Detecting nuclear materials smuggling: using radiography to improve container inspection policies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 187(1), pages 65-87, July.
    16. repec:eee:reensy:v:160:y:2017:i:c:p:74-88 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Lazar Babu, Vellara L. & Batta, Rajan & Lin, Li, 2006. "Passenger grouping under constant threat probability in an airport security system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 168(2), pages 633-644, January.
    18. repec:eee:reensy:v:136:y:2015:i:c:p:35-46 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. repec:eee:reensy:v:112:y:2013:i:c:p:59-66 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Nitin Bakshi & Noah Gans, 2010. "Securing the Containerized Supply Chain: Analysis of Government Incentives for Private Investment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(2), pages 219-233, February.
    21. repec:eee:reensy:v:93:y:2008:i:11:p:1740-1750 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Jason R. W. Merrick & Laura A. McLay, 2010. "Is Screening Cargo Containers for Smuggled Nuclear Threats Worthwhile?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 155-171, June.
    23. Zhe George Zhang & Hsing Paul Luh & Chia-Hung Wang, 2011. "Modeling Security-Check Queues," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 1979-1995, November.
    24. 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.
    25. Lin, Lei & Wang, Qian & Sadek, Adel W., 2014. "Border crossing delay prediction using transient multi-server queueing models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 65-91.
    26. Aniruddha Bagchi & Jomon Aliyas Paul, 2014. "Optimal Allocation of Resources in Airport Security: Profiling vs. Screening," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(2), pages 219-233, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:eee:reensy:v:165:y:2017:i:c:p:292-301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.