Exploitation of Ambiguous Cues to Infer Terrorist Activity

To aid intelligence analysts in processing ambiguous data regarding nuclear terrorism threats, we develop a methodology that captures and accounts for the uncertainty in new information and incorporates prior beliefs on likely nuclear terrorist activity. This methodology can guide the analyst when making difficult decisions regarding what data are most critical to examine and what threats require greater attention. Our methodology is based on a Bayesian statistical approach that incorporates ambiguous cues to update prior beliefs of adversary activity. We characterize the general process of a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States and describe, using a simplified example, how this can be represented by an event tree. We then define hypothetical cues for the example and give notional strengths to each cue. We also perform sensitivity analysis and show how cue strengths can affect inference. The method can be used to help support decisions regarding resource allocation and interdiction.

[1]  Kjell Hausken,et al.  Governments' and Terrorists' Defense and Attack in a T-Period Game , 2011, Decis. Anal..

[2]  L. Rabiner,et al.  An introduction to hidden Markov models , 1986, IEEE ASSP Magazine.

[3]  Lawrence R. Rabiner,et al.  A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition , 1989, Proc. IEEE.

[4]  V. Bier Choosing What to Protect , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  David Heckerman,et al.  A Tutorial on Learning with Bayesian Networks , 1999, Innovations in Bayesian Networks.

[6]  Lawrence M. Wein,et al.  Technical Note - Spatial Queueing Analysis of an Interdiction System to Protect Cities from a Nuclear Terrorist Attack , 2008, Oper. Res..

[7]  John P. Holdren,et al.  Controlling Nuclear Warheads and Materials: A Report Card and Action Plan , 2003 .

[8]  Brent L. Smith,et al.  Pre-Incident Indicators of Terrorist Incidents: The Identification of Behavioral, Geographic, and Temporal Patterns of Preparatory Conduct , 2006 .

[9]  Michael P. Atkinson,et al.  The Last Line of Defense: Designing Radiation Detection-Interdiction Systems to Protect Cities From a Nuclear Terrorist Attack , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[10]  Krishna R. Pattipati,et al.  The adaptive safety analysis and monitoring system , 2004, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[11]  S. Maurer WMD terrorism : science and policy choices , 2009 .

[12]  Jeffrey J. Krupka Overcoming Ambiguity at the Operational Level , 2006 .

[13]  Sundri K. Khalsa Forecasting Terrorism: Indicators and Proven Analytic Techniques , 2005, ISI.