IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v96y2024ics0038012124002660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defensive resource allocation in terrorism conflict management based on graph model with relative preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Yi
  • Chen, Xia
  • Zhuang, Jun
  • Dong, Yucheng

Abstract

In real-world counterterrorism activities, it is usually difficult for the defender and the attacker to accurately know the private information of the each other such as valuations of targets. Instead, players may only know the relative preference on the target valuations from the adversary. In the conflict analysis, graph model is a powerful tool for dealing with relative preferences. This paper studies the defensive resource allocation in terrorism conflict management with incomplete information by establishing a graph model. To solve the model, we divide the conflict states into two types and discuss the conditions under which these two types of states are at equilibrium. Furthermore, we study how the defender should optimally allocate the resource to achieve two goals: (i) achieving a certain Nash equilibrium state desired by the defender; and (ii) minimizing the total loss from an attack in equilibrium. Subsequently, we conduct several numerical analyses: (i) analyzing the effects of both players' investment effectiveness on the optimal defense loss; (ii) comparing our model's results with those obtained using three classical decision methods, revealing that the defense loss in our model is lower; and (iii) presenting a case study to illustrate the applicability of the proposed model. This paper provides novel insights on how to efficiently allocate defensive resource when the defender and attacker know only the relative preference of the adversary on target valuations.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Yi & Chen, Xia & Zhuang, Jun & Dong, Yucheng, 2024. "Defensive resource allocation in terrorism conflict management based on graph model with relative preferences," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:96:y:2024:i:c:s0038012124002660
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2024.102067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012124002660
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102067?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liangyan Tao & Xuebi Su & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2021. "Inverse Preference Optimization in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution based on the Genetic Algorithm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1085-1112, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Dogucan Mazicioglu & Jason R. W. Merrick, 2018. "Behavioral Modeling of Adversaries with Multiple Objectives in Counterterrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 962-977, May.
    4. Shinan Zhao & Haiyan Xu, 2019. "A Novel Preference Elicitation Technique Based on a Graph Model and Its Application to a Brownfield Redevelopment Conflict in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    6. Stergios Skaperdas, 1996. "Contest success functions (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 283-290.
    7. Jun Zhuang & Vicki M. Bier, 2007. "Balancing Terrorism and Natural Disasters---Defensive Strategy with Endogenous Attacker Effort," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 976-991, October.
    8. Vicki M. Bier & Shi‐Woei Lin, 2013. "Should the Model for Risk‐Informed Regulation be Game Theory Rather than Decision Theory?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 281-291, February.
    9. William L. McGill & Bilal M. Ayyub & Mark Kaminskiy, 2007. "Risk Analysis for Critical Asset Protection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1265-1281, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Peiqiu Guan & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling Resources Allocation in Attacker‐Defender Games with “Warm Up” CSF," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 776-791, April.
    12. Gerald Brown & Matthew Carlyle & Javier Salmerón & Kevin Wood, 2006. "Defending Critical Infrastructure," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 530-544, December.
    13. Konrad, Renata A., 2019. "Designing awareness campaigns to counter human trafficking: An analytic approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 86-93.
    14. Rêgo, Leandro Chaves & Silva, Hugo Victor & Rodrigues, Carlos Diego, 2021. "Optimizing the cost of preference manipulation in the graph model for conflict resolution," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 392(C).
    15. Yi Xiao & Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang, 2015. "Strategic Investigation of the Jackpine Mine Expansion Dispute in the Alberta Oil Sands," International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), IGI Global, vol. 7(1), pages 50-62, January.
    16. Chen Wang & Vicki M. Bier, 2011. "Target-Hardening Decisions Based on Uncertain Multiattribute Terrorist Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 286-302, December.
    17. Vicki M. Bier & Naraphorn Haphuriwat & Jaime Menoyo & Rae Zimmerman & Alison M. Culpen, 2008. "Optimal Resource Allocation for Defense of Targets Based on Differing Measures of Attractiveness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 763-770, June.
    18. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Paul, Jomon A., 2018. "Youth unemployment and terrorism in the MENAP (Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) region," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 9-20.
    19. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2002. "Fusion of Intelligence Information: A Bayesian Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 445-454, June.
    20. Zhiheng Xu & Jun Zhuang, 2019. "A Study on a Sequential One‐Defender‐N‐Attacker Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1414-1432, June.
    21. Peiqiu Guan & Meilin He & Jun Zhuang & Stephen C. Hora, 2017. "Modeling a Multitarget Attacker–Defender Game with Budget Constraints," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 87-107, June.
    22. Eiselt, H.A. & Marianov, Vladimir, 2020. "Maximizing political vote in multiple districts," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    23. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2021. "Technology adoption for airport security: Modeling public disclosure and secrecy in an attacker-defender game," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    24. Mengjie Yang & Kai Yang & Yue Che & Shiqiang Lu & Fengyun Sun & Ying Chen & Mengting Li, 2021. "Resolving Transboundary Water Conflicts: Dynamic Evolutionary Analysis Using an Improved GMCR Model," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(10), pages 3321-3338, August.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. Shan, Xiaojun & Zhuang, Jun, 2018. "Modeling cumulative defensive resource allocation against a strategic attacker in a multi-period multi-target sequential game," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 12-26.
    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. Hunt, Kyle & Zhuang, Jun, 2024. "A review of attacker-defender games: Current state and paths forward," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(2), pages 401-417.
    2. Abdolmajid Yolmeh & Melike Baykal-Gürsoy, 2019. "Two-Stage Invest–Defend Game: Balancing Strategic and Operational Decisions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 46-66, March.
    3. Qingqing Zhai & Rui Peng & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Defender–Attacker Games with Asymmetric Player Utilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 408-420, February.
    4. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "On the adoption of new technology to enhance counterterrorism measures: An attacker–defender game with risk preferences," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PB).
    5. 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.
    6. Zhang, Jing & Zhuang, Jun, 2019. "Modeling a multi-target attacker-defender game with multiple attack types," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 465-475.
    7. Xiaojun Shan & Jun Zhuang, 2013. "Cost of Equity in Homeland Security Resource Allocation in the Face of a Strategic Attacker," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1083-1099, June.
    8. Hausken, Kjell, 2024. "Fifty Years of Operations Research in Defense," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 318(2), pages 355-368.
    9. 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.
    10. Ridwan Al Aziz & Meilin He & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "An Attacker–defender Resource Allocation Game with Substitution and Complementary Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1481-1506, July.
    11. Shan, Xiaojun & Zhuang, Jun, 2018. "Modeling cumulative defensive resource allocation against a strategic attacker in a multi-period multi-target sequential game," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 12-26.
    12. 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.
    13. Zhiheng Xu & Jun Zhuang, 2019. "A Study on a Sequential One‐Defender‐N‐Attacker Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1414-1432, June.
    14. Peiqiu Guan & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling Resources Allocation in Attacker‐Defender Games with “Warm Up” CSF," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 776-791, April.
    15. 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.
    16. 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).
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:soceps:v:96:y:2024:i:c:s0038012124002660. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    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.