skip to main content
10.1145/3399715.3399826acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaviConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Counterterrorism for Cyber-Physical Spaces: A Computer Vision Approach

Published:02 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Simulating terrorist scenarios in cyber-physical spaces---that is, urban open or (semi-) closed spaces combined with cyber-physical systems counterparts---is challenging given the context and variables therein. This paper addresses the aforementioned issue with ALTer a framework featuring computer vision and Generative Adversarial Neural Networks (GANs) over terrorist scenarios. We obtained the data for the terrorist scenarios by creating a synthetic dataset, exploiting the Grand Theft Auto V (GTAV) videogame, and the Unreal Game Engine behind it, in combination with OpenStreetMap data. The results of the proposed approach show its feasibility to predict criminal activities in cyber-physical spaces. Moreover, the usage of our synthetic scenarios elicited from GTAV is promising in building datasets for cybersecurity and Cyber-Threat Intelligence (CTI) featuring simulated video gaming platforms. We learned that local authorities can simulate terrorist scenarios for their cities based on previous or related reference and this helps them in 3 ways: (1) better determine the necessary security measures; (2) better use the expertise of the authorities; (3) refine preparedness scenarios and drills for sensitive areas.

References

  1. Rameen Abdal, Yipeng Qin, and Peter Wonka. 2019. Image2StyleGAN: How to Embed Images Into the StyleGAN Latent Space? arXiv: cs.CV/1904.03189Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. David Bau, Jun-Yan Zhu, Hendrik Strobelt, Bolei Zhou, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, William T. Freeman, and Antonio Torralba. 2018. GAN Dissection: Visualizing and Understanding Generative Adversarial Networks. arXiv:cs.CV/1811.10597Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Daniel Birks, Michael Townsley, and Anna Stewart. 2012. Generative explanations of crime: Using simulation to test criminological theory. Criminology 50, 1 (2012), 221--254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Tibor Bosse and Charlotte Gerritsen. 2009. Comparing crime prevention strategies by agent-based simulation. In 2009 IEEE /WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, Vol. 2. IEEE, 491--496.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Andrew Brock, Jeff Donahue, and Karen Simonyan. 2018. Large Scale GAN Training for High Fidelity Natural Image Synthesis. arXiv:cs.LG/1809.11096Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerald G Brown and Louis Anthony Cox, Jr. 2011. How probabilistic risk assessment can mislead terrorism risk analysts. Risk Analysis: An International Journal 31, 2 (2011), 196--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Rosaria Conte, Rainer Hegselmann, and Pietro Terna. 2013. Simulating social phenomena. Vol. 456. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nelson Devia and Richard Weber. 2013. Generating crime data using agent-based simulation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 42 (2013), 26--41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.09.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Jeff Donahue, Philipp Krähenbühl, and Trevor Darrell. 2016. Adversarial feature learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.09782 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Vincent Dumoulin, Ishmael Belghazi, Ben Poole, Olivier Mastropietro, Alex Lamb, Martin Arjovsky, and Aaron Courville. 2016. Adversarially learned inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.00704 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Barry Charles Ezell, Steven P Bennett, Detlof Von Winterfeldt, John Sokolowski, and Andrew J Collins. 2010. Probabilistic risk analysis and terrorism risk. Risk Analysis: An International Journal 30, 4 (2010), 575--589.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Stanley Friedman. 1982. Contingency and disaster planning. Computers & Security 1, 1 (1982), 34--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Aviv Gabbay and Yedid Hoshen. 2019. Style Generator Inversion for Image Enhancement and Animation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11880 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Leon A. Gatys, Alexander S. Ecker, and Matthias Bethge. 2015. A Neural Algorithm of Artistic Style. CoRR abs/1508.06576 (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06576Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Leon A Gatys, Alexander S Ecker, and Matthias Bethge. 2016. Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2414--2423.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative Adversarial Nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, and K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 2672--2680. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5423-generative-adversarial-nets.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative Adversarial Networks. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2661 cite arxiv:1406.2661.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, and H. Sarsa. 2014. Does Gamification Work? - A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 3025--3034. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mengmeng Hao, Dong Jiang, Fangyu Ding, Jingying Fu, and Shuai Chen. 2019. Simulating Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Terrorism Incidents on the Indochina Peninsula with GIS and the Random Forest Method. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 8, 3 (2019), 133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Isaias Hoyos, Bruno Esposito, and Miguel Núñez del Prado. 2018. DETECTOR: Automatic Detection System for Terrorist Attack Trajectories.. In SIMBig (Communications in Computer and Information Science), Juan Antonio Lossio-Ventura, Denisse Muñante, and Hugo Alatrista-Salas (Eds.), Vol. 898. Springer, 160--173.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Po-Han Huang, Kevin Matzen, Johannes Kopf, Narendra Ahuja, and Jia-Bin Huang. 2018. DeepMVS: Learning Multi-View Stereopsis. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. 2019. A Style-Based Generator Architecture for Generative Adversarial Networks. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). https://github.com/NVlabs/styleganGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. 2019. Analyzing and Improving the Image Quality of StyleGAN. CoRR abs/1912.04958 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jingyu Liu, Walter W Piegorsch, A Grant Schissler, and Susan L Cutter. 2018. Autologistic models for benchmark risk or vulnerability assessment of urban terrorism outcomes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 181, 3 (2018), 803--823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Junyu Luo, Yong Xu, Chenwei Tang, and Jiancheng Lv. 2017. Learning inverse mapping by autoencoder based generative adversarial nets. In International Conference on Neural Information Processing. Springer, 207--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Vivek Menon, Bharat Jayaraman, and Venu Govindaraju. 2011. The Three Rs of Cyberphysical Spaces. IEEE Computer 44, 9 (2011), 73--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Il-Chul Moon and Kathleen M. Carley. 2007. Modeling and Simulating Terrorist Networks in Social and Geospatial Dimensions. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22, 5 (2007), 40--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Shital Shah, Debadeepta Dey, Chris Lovett, and Ashish Kapoor. 2017. AirSim: High-Fidelity Visual and Physical Simulation for Autonomous Vehicles. In Field and Service Robotics. arXiv:arXiv:1705.05065 https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05065Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Yujun Shen, Jinjin Gu, Xiaoou Tang, and Bolei Zhou. 2019. Interpreting the latent space of gans for semantic face editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10786 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Dimitris Spiliotopoulos, Costas Vassilakis, and Dionisis Margaris. 2019. Data-driven country safety monitoring terrorist attack prediction.. In ASONAM, Francesca Spezzano, Wei Chen, and Xiaokui Xiao (Eds.). ACM, 1128--1135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Kayo Yin. 2019. How to Train StyleGAN to Generate Realistic Faces. https://bit.ly/2FQ0CU7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Counterterrorism for Cyber-Physical Spaces: A Computer Vision Approach

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      AVI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces
      September 2020
      613 pages
      ISBN:9781450375351
      DOI:10.1145/3399715

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 October 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      AVI '20 Paper Acceptance Rate36of123submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate128of490submissions,26%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader