32 Junho Park : An Effective Threat Evaluation Algorithm for Multiple Ground Targets in Multi-target and Multi-

weapon Environments
https://doi.org/10.5392/IJoC.2019.15.1.032

An Effective Threat Evaluation Algorithm for Multiple Ground Targets

in Multi-target and Multi-weapon Environments

Moonhyung Yoon
Agency for Defense Development, Daejeon, 34186, South Korea

Junho Park
Agency for Defense Development, Daejeon, 34186, South Korea

Jeonghoon Yi
Agency for Defense Development, Daejeon, 34186, South Korea

ABSTRACT

In an environment where a large number of weapons are operated compared to a large number of ground targets, it is important to
monitor and manage the targets to set up a fire plan, and through their multilateral analysis, to equip them with a priority order
process for targets having a high threat level through the quantitative calculation of the threat level. Existing studies consider the
anti-aircraft and anti-ship targets only, hence, it is impossible to apply the existing algorithm to ground weapon system development.
Therefore, we proposed an effective threat evaluation algorithm for multiple ground targets in multi-target and multi-weapon
environments. Our algorithm optimizes to multiple ground targets by use of unique ground target features such as proximity degree,
sorts of weapons and protected assets, target types, relative importance of the weapons and protected assets, etc. Therefore, it is
possible to maximize an engagement effect by deducing an effective threat evaluation model by considering the characteristics of
ground targets comprehensively. We carried out performance evaluation and verification through simulations and visualizations,
and confirmed high utility and effect of our algorithm.

Key words: Threat Evaluation, Threat Level, Fire Plan, Multiple Ground Target and Ground Weapon System.

1. INTRODUCTION targeting anti-aircraft and anti-ship targets, and due to the

failure to present a threat evaluation method in the light of the
In the environment where a large number of weapons are characteristics of ground targets, especially plural ground
operated against a large number of ground targets, it’s specially targets, it’s impossible to apply the existing method to ground
important to set up a fire plan for effectively suppress a large weapon system development. Particularly, in the existing
number of targets just in time, and apply it to military evaluation method targeting anti-aircraft targets, a threat
operations. In addition, it’s essential to surveil and manage evaluation has been performed on the basis of object variables
targets to set up a fire plan, and through the multilateral such as target location, moving speed of a target, attack
analysis of them, to be equipped with the process of giving a probability of a target deduced on the basis of the azimuth,
priority order to the targets having a high threat level by distance between a target and assets, and properties of enemy
calculating the threat level quantitatively. Also, it is important air vehicles, etc.
to maximize an engagement effect by setting up an effective In addition, in the threat evaluation techniques targeting
fire plan, which makes it possible to rapidly suppress the the existing anti-ship target, it has relied on object variables
targets with a high deduced priority order. such as target location, moving speed of a target, the distance to
As a part of the research on a fire plan for an effective the shortest proximity point between a target and own ship, and
target shooting, the research on a threat evaluation technique is arrival time, etc., and the existing techniques like this have
actively in progress [1]-[17]. In the existing a threat evaluation been specialized in anti-aircraft & anti-ship areas, thus making
techniques, there exists only the threat evaluation method it difficult to apply them to the threat evaluation of the ground
targets. Unlike the anti-aircraft/anti-ship areas which think
much of the moving speed and arrival time of a target, there is
* Corresponding author, Email: [email protected] a need for a threat evaluation method optimized to ground
Manuscript received Aug. 20, 2018; revised Oct. 18, 2018; targets in the light of unique features like proximity degree of a
accepted Oct. 22, 2018 target, sorts of targets, importance of targets, and threat forms

International Journal of Contents, Vol.15, No.1, Mar. 2019

 Junho Park : An Effective Threat Evaluation Algorithm for Multiple Ground Targets in Multi-target and Multi- 33
weapon Environments

of targets, etc. for a proper evaluation of the threat level of degree of a target [5]-[7], [10]. The strike capability of a target
ground targets. is the ability to inflict damage on assets, and the intention of a
This paper proposes an effective threat evaluation target means a will, or determination to inflict such damage [5]-
algorithm for multiple ground targets in multi-target and multi- [7]. The strike capability of a target is represented using
weapon environments. Concretely, this paper proposes an variables such as a kind and speed of a target while the
effective threat evaluation algorithm in the light of unique intention of a target is represented using motor mechanics,
features of ground targets such as proximity degree, sorts of conduct of operation status, speed and advanced information of
weapons and protected assets, target types, and relative a target. The proximity degree of a target is represented using
importance of weapons and protected assets, etc. in the mostly the variables such as CPA(Closest Point of Approach),
proposed algorithm. This paper proposes the threat evaluation TCPA(Time to CPA), and TBH(Time before Hit), etc. [10].
algorithm for multiple ground targets with the aim of deducing The representative techniques related to a threat level
a threat level in a quantitative numerical value by reflecting evaluation includes artificial neural network-based technique
characteristics of plural objects like targets, weapons and [8], [9], Bayesian inference-based technique [10]-[12], and
protected assets, and the object variables specialized in ground Fuzzy logic-based technique [13]-[16], etc. Bayesian inference-
system development environment as base data for a fire plan based threat evaluation technique calculates the final threat
calculation for the purpose of effectively suppressing a large level by combining conditional probability using the
number of ground targets in a short time in formula modeling. occurrence probability of each threat evaluation element based
The proposed algorithm calculates a threat level of a target in on conditional probability. This technique has a merit of
the light of target type by setting up weighted value consequent comparatively higher accuracy, but it has the critical point that
on the importance of weapons and protected assets after a thorough verification process is required when defining
carrying out proximity degree operations by taking into account conditional probability between elements. Fussy logic-based
the sorts of targets and protected assets. This paper carries out a threat evaluation technique is advantageous to the expression of
threat evaluation of all targets by performing a threat level a change in a value consequent on weighted value and
calculation process like this for all targets. associative relation of each variable, and it calculates a threat
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In level by considering the influencing degree on a threat level
section II, this paper explains the limitations of the existing consequent on the condition of required variables for
researches, and the objective of this research. In section III, this calculation. This technique has a merit of low complexity and
paper presents the system model considered in this paper, and easy implementation, but it has the critical point that its
in section IV, this paper describes the proposed threat accuracy is lower than Bayesian inference-based threat
evaluation algorithm. In section V, this paper shows excellence evaluation technique.
of the proposed technique through the performance evaluation, However, the previously presented threat evaluation
and lastly, in section VI, this paper presents its conclusion, and algorithm is a threat evaluation method targeting anti-aircraft
the follow-up research direction. and anti-ship targets. Particularly, the aforementioned threat
evaluation methods carry out a threat evaluation based on
object variables such as probability of attacks, imminent arrival
2. RELATED WORKS degree, and flight path of the target which was deduced based
on moving speed and approach angle of a target, and
The general process of the fire plan algorithm in the characteristic of enemy air vehicles, etc., so it is difficult to
existing research is roughly comprised of two stages [1]-[3]. apply such threat evaluation techniques to the threat level
The first is the threat evaluation stage for targets, in which a analysis of multiple ground targets, in which an approach angle,
threat is evaluated based on diverse characteristics in order to imminent arrival degree, and flight path, etc. cannot be defined.
protect friendly forces assets from the threat of attacks of As mentioned above, the existing threat evaluation techniques
enemy forces assets, and a quantified threat, from which a are targeting anti-aircraft and anti-ship targets, so there is a
quantified threat level is deduced in figures. The second stage limit in applying these techniques to a ground weapon system
is the one for carrying out weapon assignment with the aim of development. Conclusively, these evaluation techniques are not
maximizing enemy forces damage by hitting enemy forces’ fit enough to effectively suppress multiple ground targets; in
assets through the minimum friendly forces weapon, and this context, this paper is conducting the research on the threat
assignment between target and weapon is deduced on the basis evaluation algorithm for multiple ground targets.
of the previously deduced threat level.
As a part of a fire plan research for effective firing at a
target, the research on a threat level evaluation technique [4]- 3. SYSTEM MODEL
[17] and weapon assignment technique(this paper leaves it out
of the question) is actively in progress. The threat level This paper is based on the following system model
evaluation is the first important stage of a fire plan as the (battlefield environment). In the earth centered earth fixed
process of evaluating the threat level of a target. Therefore, an coordinate system (ECEF; Earth Centered Earth Fixed), the
inappropriate evaluation of a threat level comes to designate a location of the entire targets can be represented as the matrix
misguided priority order in firing, weakening threat T shown in Eq. (1) when the number of the entire targets is
responsiveness [1]-[4]. Generally, a threat is evaluated by the TNm .
combination of a strike capability, intention and proximity

International Journal of Contents, Vol.15, No.1, Mar. 2019

 34 Junho Park : An Effective Threat Evaluation Algorithm for Multiple Ground Targets in Multi-target and Multi-
weapon Environments

 t1x t1 y t1z  protected asset, aky means y coordinate of the k th protected

t t2 y t2 z 
 2x  asset, and akz means z coordinate of the k th protected asset.
    
T  (1) Accordingly, the location of the k th protected asset can be
 tix tiy tiz 
   represented as uk   akx , aky , akz  which is the k th row vector
 
 
of total protected assets location matrix A .
tTNm x tTNm y tTNm z 
The distance between the i th target and the j th weapon,
d ti , l j , can be represented as in Eq. (4).
Here, the matrix T of the locations of the entire targets has
the size of  TNm  3 , and tix represents x coordinate of the i th
dti ,l j  v i  w j (4)
target, tiy represents y coordinate of the i th target, and tiz
represents z coordinate of the i th target. Therefore, the location
The distance dti , ak between the i th target and the k th
of the i th target can be represented as v i  tix , tiy , tiz  , which is
protected asset can be represented as Eq. (5).
the i th row vector of the matrix T of the locations of the entire
targets. d ti , ak  v i  uk (5)
When the number of the entire weapon groups is BNm and if
the number of available weapons in the b th weapon group gb
is L gb , the number of the entire available weapons is 4. PROPOSED ALGORITHM
B Nm
This section proposes the threat evaluation algorithm for
L
b 1
gb  L Nm , and the location of the entire weapons can be
multiple ground targets in multi-target and multi-weapon
represented as the matrix L shown in Eq. (2). environments. The existing threat evaluation techniques have
been involved in the threat evaluation method targeting anti-
 l1x l1 y l1z  aircraft and anti-ship targets, so there is a limit in applying
l l2 y l2 z  these techniques to ground weapon system development. This
 2x  paper proposes the threat evaluation algorithm for multiple
    
L  (2) ground targets with the aim of deducing the threat level in
 l jx l jy l jz  quantitative figures by reflecting the characteristics of plural
     objects like targets, weapons and protected assets, and object
 
lLNm x lLNm y lLNm z  variables specialized in the ground system development
environment in formula modeling as base data for calculating a
fire plan for the purpose of effectively suppressing a large
Here, the matrix L of the locations of the entire targets
number of ground targets in a short time.
has the size  L Nm  3 with l jx representing x coordinate of Fig. 1 shows the proposed threat evaluation algorithm
the j th weapon, l jy representing y coordinate of the j th flow chart. The proximity degree operations between target i in
weapon, and l jz representing z coordinate of the j th weapon. the light of sorts of weapons and all weapons, and the
proximity degree operations between target i in the light of
Therefore, the location of the j th weapon can be represented sorts of protected assets and all protected assets are carried out.
by w j  l jx , l jy , l jz  , which is the j th row vector of matrix L Afterwards, weighted value consequent on the importance of
weapons and protected assets is set up, and the threat level of
of locations of the entire weapons.
target i in the light of the weighted value consequent on target
When the number of total protected assets is ANm , the
type is calculated. The threat evaluation of all targets is
location of total protected assets can be represented in matrix completed by carrying out such a threat level calculation
A equal to Eq. (3). process for all targets.
Fig. 2 shows an example of the proposed algorithm. Fig.
 a1x a1 y a1z  2(a) gives an explanation by supposing the battlefield situation
 a a2 y a2 z  where there are 14 targets, 7 weapons. Fig. 2(b) shows that it’s
 2x
     possible to find the priority order of 14 targets on the basis of
A  (3) the calculated threat value after carrying out the threat
 akx aky akz 
evaluation in the light of unique features of a large number of
    
  ground targets, such as the proximity degree, sorts of targets,
 aA Nm x aA Nm y aA Nm z  relative importance of weapons and protected assets, and threat
forms of targets, etc.
Here, location matrix A of total protected assets has
 A Nm  3 size, and akx means x coordinate of the k th

International Journal of Contents, Vol.15, No.1, Mar. 2019

 Junho Park : An Effective Threat Evaluation Algorithm for Multiple Ground Targets in Multi-target and Multi- 35
weapon Environments

1 ANm 1 d ti , ak
Dti , a  
ANm k 1 wak d maxt ,a
(8)
i

This means the distance dti , ak between the i th target and

the k th protected asset is in proximity, and the bigger the
weighted value wak consequent on the sort of the k th protected
asset, the smaller figures Dti , a comes to get. The maximum
distance d max t ,a between the i th target and all protected assets
i

can be represented as Eq. (9).

d max t ,a  max d ti , ak
i 1 k  ANm
  (9)

There is a need to consider both the proximity degree

between targets consequent on the sort of weapons and weapon
and the proximity degree between targets consequent on the
sort of protected assets and protected assets. In case the
Fig. 1. Flow chart of the proposed algorithm weighted value representing the importance of weapon is
wp  0  wp  1 , the importance of protected assets can be

represented as 1  wp  . Accordingly, the proximity degree

representing the relative importance of weapon and protected
assets as the weighted value sum is as in Eq. (10).

Dti  wp Dti , l  1  wp  Dti , a

1 LNm 1 dti ,l j 1 ANm 1 dti , ak (10)
Fig. 2. An example of the proposed algorithm  wp   1  wp  
LNm j 1 wl j d maxt ,l ANm k 1 wak d maxt ,a
i i

The proximity degree Dti , l between the i th target and

In case the weighted value of weapon is 1( wp  1 ) in Eq.
weapons in the light of weighted value 
wl j 0  wl j  1  (10), it is the same as Eq. (11), belonging to the case of
consequent on the sort of the j th weapon can be represented minimization of survival probability of a target, and such a
as Eq. (6). formula representation is used in case of no need for
consideration of protected assets.
1 LNm 1 dti ,l j
Dti ,l  
LNm j 1 wl j d maxt ,l
(6) Dti  w p Dti ,l
1 LNm 1 d ti ,l j
i
(11)
 wp 
LNm j 1 wl j d max t ,l
This means that the distance d ti , l j between the i th target i

and the j th weapon is in proximity, and the bigger the

In case the weighted value of protected assets is 1( wp  0 )
weighted value wl j consequent on the sort of the j th weapon,
in Eq. (10), it is the same as Eq. (12), belonging to the case of
the smaller figures the Dti , l comes to get. The maximum consideration of survival probability of protected assets by top
distance d maxt ,l between the i th target and all weapons is as in priority, and such a formula is used in case of no need for
i
consideration of weapon survival.
Eq. (7).
Dti  Dti , a
d maxt ,l  max dti ,l j
1 j  LNm
  (7)
1 ANm 1 d ti , ak (12)

i


ANm k 1 wak d maxt ,a
i
The proximity degree Dti , a between the i th target and
protected assets in the light of the weighted value The target weighted value consequent on a threat form is
 
wak 0  wak  1 consequent on the sort of the k th protected determined by the target striking distance, and sorts of targets,
etc., and in case the target weighted value consequent on the
asset is as in Eq. (8).

International Journal of Contents, Vol.15, No.1, Mar. 2019

 36 Junho Park : An Effective Threat Evaluation Algorithm for Multiple Ground Targets in Multi-target and Multi-
weapon Environments

threat form of the i th target is wti , the threat level Eti of the i
  LAT , LON  ~  LAT , LON  
1 1 2 2
th target is as in Eq. (13).
Weighted value representing the
wti
importance of weapons and protected 0  wp  1
Eti  assets w p
Dti
wt Distribution form of targets, weapon
 Uniform distribution
 1  w p  Dti , a
groups and protected assets
w p Dti ,l (13)
wt
 Fig. 3 represents the distribution of high-threat targets
1 LNm 1 d ti ,l j 1 ANm 1 d ti , ak
wp   1  wp   consequent on the location and weighted value of weapons and
LNm j 1 wl j d max t ,l ANm k 1 wak d max t ,a protected assets. Targets, weapon group and protected assets
i i

follow uniform distribution, and Fig. 3 is the case aiming at

It means that the smaller the proximity degree Dti value maximizing survival probability of protected assets,
representing the weighted value of protected assets as
in the light of the relative importance of weapons and protected
1( w p  0 ).
assets, and the bigger the weighted value wti of the i th target,
(a) is the case where location creation scope of weapons
the bigger the value the threat level Eti of the i th target comes and protected assets are not overlapped(weapon creation scope:
to have. (0.0, 0.0) ∽ (0.2, 0.7), protected assets creation scope: (0.0, 0.7)
The threat level operations is repeatedly performed ∽ (0.2, 1.4)), and it’s possible to identify that the distribution
through Eq. (6) ~ Eq. (13) of all targets( 1  i  TNm ), and threat of high-threat targets of the top 30% threat level becomes
levels of total targets are calculated. different according to the weighted value w p representing the
Accordingly, it’s possible to calculate the threat level for importance of weapons and protected assets. In (a), the
multiple ground targets through comprehensive consideration distribution of weapons leans toward the left while the
of the characteristics of ground targets by improving the limit distribution of protected assets leans towards the right, so it’s
in applying ground weapon system development of the existing possible to identify that when the weighted value( wp  0 ) of
threat evaluation techniques through the threat evaluation
algorithm for multiple ground targets as above. protected assets is 1, high-threat targets are widely distributed
on the right in contiguity with protected assets, whereas in case
the weighted value of weapons is 1( w p  1 ), high-threat targets
5. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION are widely distributed on the left in contiguity with weapons.
(b) is the case where the location creation scope of
In this section, performance evaluation and validation weapons and protected assets are overlapped only in
have been performed for the proposed algorithm through part(weapon creation scope: (0.0, 0.0) ∽ (0.2, 0.7), protected
simulations and visualizations to prove the excellence of the assets creation scope: (0.0, 0.0) ∽(0.2, 1.4)), it has a
proposed algorithm. The simulation has been performed by characteristic that the location creation scope of protected
constructing virtual battle field environment as shown in Table assets is much wider than the location creation scope of
1 based on Matlab R2016a [18]. weapons. In this case, it’s possible to identify that when the
weighted value of protected assets is 1( wp  0 ), high-threat
Table 1. Simulation Parameters
targets are evenly distributed on the whole, whereas in case the
Parameters Values weighted value of weapons is 1( wp  1 ), high-threat targets are
Number of targets TNm ( EA) 10000 widely distributed on the left in proximity to weapons.
(c) is the case where the location creation scopes of
Scope of target generation (0.4, 0.0) ∽ weapons and protected assets are overlapped(weapon creation
  LAT , LON  ~  LAT , LON  
1 1 2 2 (1.2, 1.4) scope: (0.0, 0.0) ∽ (0.2, 0.7), protected assets creation scope:
(0.0, 0.0) ∽ (0.2, 0.7)), the location creation scopes of weapons
Number of weapon groups BNm ( EA) 100 and protected assets have the same characteristic. In other word,
Scope of weapon group generation it’s possible to identify that high-threat target distribution is the
(0.0, 0.0) ∽
same when the weighted value of protected assets is 1( wp  0 ),
  LAT , LON  ~  LAT , LON  
1 1 2 2 (0.2, 0.7)
and when the weighted value of weapons is 1( w p  1 ).
Number of available weapons per
TNm / BNm Through the analysis of the results of (a)~(c), it’s possible
weapon group Lgb (EA)
to identify that the threat evaluation was effectively performed
Number of protected assets ANm ( EA) 100 according to the weighted value w p representing the

(0.0, 0.0) ∽ importance of weapons and protected assets in the environment

Scope of protected asset generation where the location of weapons and protected assets is diverse.
(0.2, 1.4)

International Journal of Contents, Vol.15, No.1, Mar. 2019

 Junho Park : An Effective Threat Evaluation Algorithm for Multiple Ground Targets in Multi-target and Multi- 37
weapon Environments

(a) The case where location creation scope of

weapons and protected assets are not overlapped
Fig. 4. Threat value consequent on the proximity degree and
weighted value of targets

6. CONCLUSIONS

This paper proposed the threat evaluation algorithm for

multiple ground targets in multi-target and multi-weapon
environments. In case of the existing threat evaluation
techniques, they are involved in the threat level evaluation
method targeting anti-aircraft and anti-ship targets only, so
there is a limit in applying them to ground weapon system
(b) The case where location creation scope of development. Accordingly, this paper proposed the novel threat
weapons and protected assets are overlapped only evaluation method optimized to multiple ground targets in the
in part light of unique features of ground targets such as proximity
degree, sorts of weapons and protected assets, target types, and
relative importance of weapons and protected assets, etc. This
way, it is possible to maximize an engagement effect by
deducing an effective threat evaluation by taking into account
the characteristics of ground targets comprehensively through
the proposed algorithm. The proposed algorithm carried out
performance evaluation and verification through simulations
and visualization, and confirmed high utility and effects. The
purpose of the follow-up research is to confirm the utility and
excellence through the actual application to weapon devices.

(c) The case where location creation scopes of

weapons and protected assets are overlapped REFERENCES

Fig. 3. Distribution of high-threat targets consequent on the [1] S. Paradis, A. Benaskeur, M. Oxenham, and P. Cutler,
location and weighted value of weapons and protected assets “Threat Evaluation and Weapons Allocation in Network-
Centric Warfare,” Proc. of the International Conference on
Fig. 4 represents the threat value consequent on the Information Fusion, vol. 2, 2005, pp. 1078-1085.
proximity degree and weighted value of targets. The proposed [2] J. N. Roux and J. H. Vuuren, “Threat Evaluation and Weapon
algorithm can identify that the smaller the proximity degree of Assignment Decision Support: A Review of the State of the
targets, and the bigger the target weighted value wt , the bigger Art,” ORiON, vol. 23, no. 2, Mar. 2007, pp. 151-187.
[3] M. Azak and A. E. Bayrak, “A New Approach for Threat
the threat level Et of targets, which aspects are analyzed to be Evaluation and Weapon Assignment Problem, Hybrid
attributable to the fact that the more adjacent to weapons or Learning with Multi-Agent Coordination,” Proc. of the
protected assets the targets are, the higher the weighted value International Symposium on Computer and Information
according to target type, the higher the threat level. This paper Sciences, 2008, pp. 1-6.
proves that the proposed algorithm carries out threat evaluation [4] A. N. Steinberg, “An Approach to Threat Assessment,”
for multiple ground targets specialized in the ground weapon Proc. of the International Conference on Information
system development environment by considering the Fusion, vol. 2, 2005, pp. 1256-1263.
characteristics of ground targets.

International Journal of Contents, Vol.15, No.1, Mar. 2019

 38 Junho Park : An Effective Threat Evaluation Algorithm for Multiple Ground Targets in Multi-target and Multi-
weapon Environments

[5] X. T. Nguyen, “Threat Assessment in Tactical Airborne Junho Park

Environments,” Proc. of the International Conference on He received the B.S., M.S, and Ph.D.
Information Fusion, vol. 2, 2002, pp. 1300-1307. degrees in department of information and
[6] E. Waltz, Multisensor Data Fusion, Artech House, 1990. communication engineering from
[7] J. Roy, S. Paradis, and M. Allouche, “Threat Evaluation Chungbuk national university, Korea in
for Impact Assessment in Situation Analysis Systems,” 2008, 2010 and 2014. He is now a senior
Proc. of the Signal Processing, Sensor Fusion, and Target researcher in Agency for Defense
Recognition XI, vol. 4729, 2002, pp. 329-341. Development(ADD), Daejeon, Korea.
[8] T. Jan, “Neural Network Based Threat Assessment for His main research interests include defense system, ICT
Automated Visual Surveillance,” Proc. of the International emerging system, real-time embedded system, database system
Joint Conference on Neural Network, 2004, pp. 1309-1312. and wireless sensor network.
[9] G. Wang, L. Guo, and H. Duan, “Wavelet Neural Network
using Multiple Wavelet Functions in Target Threat Jeonghoon Yi
Assessment,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2013, He received the B.S. in electronic
Article ID. 632437, Jan. 2013, pp. 1-7. engineering and M.S in multimedia
[10] F. Johansson and G. Falkman, “A Bayesian Network engineering from Inha university, Korea
Approach to Threat Evaluation with Application to an Air in 1999, 2002. He is now a senior
Defense Scenario,” Proc. of the International Conference researcher in Agency for Defense
on Information Fusion, 2008, pp. 1-7. Development(ADD), Daejeon, Korea.
[11] N. Okello and G. Thoms, “Threat Assessment using His main research interests include
Bayesian Networks,” Proc. of the International defense system, real-time embedded system and image
Conference on Information Fusion, 2003, pp. 1102-1109. processing.
[12] Y. Hou, W. Guo, and Z. Zhu, “Threat Assessment based
on Variable Parameter Dynamic Bayesian Network,” Proc.
of the Chinese Control Conference, 2010, pp. 1230-1235.
[13] Y. Liang, “A Fuzzy Knowledge based System in Situation
and Threat Assessment,” Journal of Systems Science &
Information, vol. 4, no. 4, 2006, pp. 791-802.
[14] E. Azimirad and J. Haddadnia, “Target Threat Assessment
using Fuzzy Sets Theory,” International Journal of
Advances in Intelligent Informatics, vol. 1, no. 2, May.
2015, pp. 57-74.
[15] E. Azimirad and J. Haddadnia, “A New Data Fusion
Instrument for Threat Evaluation Using of Fuzzy Sets
Theory,” International Journal of Computer Science and
Information Security, vol. 13, no. 4, Apr. 2015, pp. 19-32.
[16] E. Azimirad and J. Haddadnia, “A Modified Model for
Threat Assessment by Fuzzy Logic Approach,”
International Journal of Computer Science and
Information Security, vol. 13, no. 4, Apr. 2015, pp. 12-18.
[17] M. Riveiro, T. Helldin, M. Lebram, and G. Falkman,
“Towards Future Threat Evaluation Systems: User Study,
Proposal and Precepts for Design,” Proc. of the
International Conference on Fusion, 2013, pp. 1863-1870.
[18] http://www.mathworks.com

Moonhyung Yoon
She received the B.S. in department of
electronic and electrical engineering
from Ewha womans university, Korea
in 2012 and also received M.S. in
department of electrical and computer
engineering from Seoul national
university, Korea in 2014. She is now a
researcher in Agency for Defense Development(ADD),
Daejeon, Korea. Her main research interests include defense
system, real-time embedded system, wireless sensor network
and resource scheduling.

International Journal of Contents, Vol.15, No.1, Mar. 2019