Read Counter-Deception Decision Support text version

Counter-Deception

Decision Support

Dr. Frank Stech

703-983-5920 · [email protected]

Dr. Chris Elsaesser

703-983-6563 · [email protected]

MITRE Sponsored Research

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation

Problem

The

aim of deception is to

­ disrupt one's ability to "observe, orient, and decide" ­ induce inaccurate impressions about capabilities or intentions, causing the target to

apply intelligence assets inappropriately fail to employ capabilities to best advantage

Most

proposed counter-deception approaches

­ Take little account of the psychology of deception ­ Fail to offset biases due to faulty heuristic reasoning

Especially the tendency to reason from evidence to hypotheses

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation

Background

We

discovered components of a counterdeception theory existed. We integrated & reinforced them... Connecting the Dots

Heuer: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

Local & Global Deception Hypotheses support & sensitivity

Finding the Dots

Whaley & Busby: Congruity Theory & Ombudsman Method

Hypotheses generation

Characterizing the Dots

R. V. Jones: Theory of Spoof Unmasking

Seeing the Pictures

Johnson et al.: Cognitive Model of Fraud and Deception Detection

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation

Objective

Combine

­ psychological theories of: decision making errors and biases deception cognitive tasks involved in counterdeception

­ Course of action planning and belief management technology

Components of a counter-deception decision support system

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation

Activities

Year 1 Integrate: ­ Research on cognitive limits and biases ­ Deception taxonomy and models ­ Counter-deception cognitive models

Year 2 Computational infrastructure: ­ Belief management ­ Automated sensitivity analysis

Year 3 Counter-deception decision support system: ­ Refine theory and tools ­ Experimental verification ­ Outreach

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation

Highlight

Tactical counter-deception

­ Course of action planning ­ Sensitivity analysis

Strategic counter-deception

­ Expert elicitation ­ Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivities: FALSE­ 8, 3, 5, 2, 4

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation

Demonstration

Bayesian

Belief Network for Iran Nuclear Weapons

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation

Impacts

Application:

­ SOCOM: OIF CENTCOM & J39 PACOM support ­ Analysis of terror attack denial & deception ­ IRS-Treasury potential:

"TurboFraud" detection

Outreach: Lectures and presentations

­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Sherman Kent School Foreign Denial & Deception Committee Naval Post-graduate School Consortium for the Study of Intelligence Military Operations Research Society

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation

Future Plans

Outreach

Intelligence community schools Forensic auditing & accounting Identify known deceptions Recognize new deceptions

Experimentation

Automated hypothesis generation

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation

Information

Counter-Deception Decision Support

9 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

141522