Protection Model of Security Systems Based on Neyman-Person Criterion


In this paper security systems deployed over an area are regarded abstractly as a diagram of security network. We propose the Neyman-Pearson protection model for security systems, which can be used to determine the protection probability of a security system and find the weakest breach path of a security network. We present the weakest breach path problem formulation, which is defined by the breach protection probability of an unauthorized target passing through a guard field, and provide a solution for this problem by using the Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm. Finally we study the variation of the breach protection probability with the change of the parameters of the model.

Share and Cite:

Lv, H. , Hu, R. , Chen, J. and He, Z. (2013) Protection Model of Security Systems Based on Neyman-Person Criterion. Communications and Network, 5, 578-583. doi: 10.4236/cn.2013.53B2104.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] H. A. Bennett and M. T. Olascoaga, “Evaluation Methodology for Fixed-Site Physical Protection Systems,” Nuclear Materials Management, Vol. 9, 1980, pp. 403-410.
[2] J. L. Darby, B. E. Simpkins and B. R. Key, “A Microcomputer Code for Evaluating Physical Security Effectiveness Using Adversary Sequence Diagrams,” Nuclear Materials Management, Vol. 15, 1986, pp. 242-245.
[3] L. R. Doyon, “Stochastic Modeling of Facility Security-Systems for Analytical Solutions,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1981, pp. 127-138.
[4] J. E. Kobza and S. H. Jacobson, “Probability Models for Access Security System Architectures,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 48, 1997, pp. 255-263.
[5] M. J. Hicks, M. S. Snell, J. S. Sandoval and C. S. Potter, “Physical Protection Systems Cost and Performance Analysis: A Case Study,” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1999, pp. 9-13.
[6] E. H. Robert Fischer and D. Walters, “Introduction to Security,” 9th Edition, Elsevier, 2012, p. 544.
[7] Z. Chen, “The Research and Practice on the Evalation of Effectiveness on Security System. China Security, 2007.
[8] M. L. Garcia, “The Design and Evaluation of Physical Protection Systems,” Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 2001.
[9] J. Pollet and J. Cummins, “All Hazards Approach for Assessing Readiness of Critical Infrastructure,” IEEE Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security, Boston, 11- 12 May 2009, pp. 366-372.
[10] P. Xu, X. Su, J. Wu, X. Sun, Y. Zhang, Y. Deng, “Risk Analysis of Physical Protection System Based on Evidence Theory,” Journal of Information and Computational Science, Vol. 7, 2010, pp. 2871-2878.
[11] M. E. Nikoofal and J. Zhuang, “Robust Allocation of a Defensive Budget Considering an Attacker’s Private Information,” Risk Analysis, Vol. 32, 2012, pp. 930-943.
[12] K. Hausken and J. Zhuang, “The Timing and Deterrence of Terrorist Attacks Due to Exogenous Dynamics,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 63, 2012, pp. 726-735.
[13] M. Golalikhani and J. Zhuang, “Modeling Arbitrary Layers of Continuous-Level Defenses in Facing with Strategic Attackers,” Risk Analysis, Vol. 31, 2011, pp. 533- 547.
[14] J. Zhuang, V. M. Bier and O. Alagoz, “Modeling Secrecy and Deception in a Multiple-Period Attacker-Defender Signaling Game,” European Journal of Operational Re- search, Vol. 203, 2010, pp. 409-418.
[15] J. Zhuang and V. M. Bier, “Balancing Terrorism and Natural Disasters-Defensive Strategy with Endogenous Attacker Effort,” Operations Research, Vol. 55, 2007, pp. 976-991.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.