skip to main content
10.1145/3350546.3352551acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Not a Target. A Deep Learning Approach for a Warning and Decision Support System to Improve Safety and Security of Humanitarian Aid Workers

Published:14 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Humanitarian aid workers who try to provide aid to the most vulnerable populations in the Middle East or Africa are risking their own lives and safety to help others. The current lack of a collaborative real-time information system to predict threats prevents responders and local partners from developing a shared understanding of potentially threatening situations, causing increased response times and leading to inadequate protection. To solve this problem, this paper presents a threat detection and decision support system that combines knowledge and information from a network of responders with automated and modular threat detection. The system consists of three parts. It first collects textual information, ranging from social media, and online news reports to reports and text messages from a decentralized network of humanitarian staff. Second, the system uses deep neural network techniques to automatically detects a threat or incident and provide information including location, threat category, and casualties. Third, given the type of threat and the information extracted by the NER, a feedforward network proposes a mitigation plan based on humanitarian standard operating procedures. The classified information is rapidly redistributed to potentially affected humanitarian workers at any level. The system testing results show a high precision of 0.91 and 0.98 as well as an F-measure of 0.87 and 0.88 in detecting the threats and decision support respectively. We thus combine the collaborative intelligence of a decentralized network of aid workers with the power of deep neural networks.

References

  1. Nezih Altay and Melissa Labonte. 2014. Challenges in humanitarian information management and exchange: evidence from Haiti. Disasters 38, s1 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Zahra Ashktorab, Christopher Brown, Manojit Nandi, and Aron Culotta. 2014. Tweedr: Mining twitter to inform disaster response. Proc. of ISCRAM (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Adam L Berger, Vincent J Della Pietra, and Stephen A Della Pietra. 1996. A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing. Computational linguistics 22, 1 (1996), 39–71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Michele Berlingerio, Francesco Calabrese, Giusy Di Lorenzo, Xiaowen Dong, Yiannis Gkoufas, and Dimitrios Mavroeidis. 2013. SaferCity: a system for detecting and analyzing incidents from social media. In Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Tina Comes. 2016. Cognitive biases in humanitarian sensemaking and decision-making lessons from field research. In 2016 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA). IEEE, 56–62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Tina Comes, Olga Vybornova, and Bartel Van de Walle. 2015. Bringing structure to the disaster data typhoon: an analysis of decision-makers’ information needs in the response to Haiyan. In 2015 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Tina Comes, Niek Wijngaards, and Bartel Van de Walle. 2015. Exploring the future: Runtime scenario selection for complex and time-bound decisions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 97 (2015), 29–46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Muhammad Imran, Carlos Castillo, Fernando Diaz, and Sarah Vieweg. 2015. Processing social media messages in mass emergency: a survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 47, 4 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Muhammad Imran, Carlos Castillo, Ji Lucas, Patrick Meier, and Sarah Vieweg. 2014. Aidr: Artificial intelligence for disaster response. In Proceedings of the companion publication of the 23rd international conference on World wide web companion.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kirill Kireyev, Leysia Palen, and Kenneth Anderson. 2009. Applications of topics models to analysis of disaster-related twitter data. In NIPS Workshop on Applications for Topic Models: Text and Beyond, Vol. 1. Canada: Whistler.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mehdi Ben Lazreg and Morten Goodwin. 2018. Combining a Context Aware Neural Network with a Denoising Autoencoder for Measuring String Similarities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06414(2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Aibek Musaev, De Wang, and Calton Pu. 2014. LITMUS: Landslide detection by integrating multiple sources. In 11th International Conference Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jakob Rogstadius, Maja Vukovic, CA Teixeira, Vassilis Kostakos, Evangelos Karapanos, and Jim Alain Laredo. 2013. CrisisTracker: Crowdsourced social media curation for disaster awareness. IBM Journal of Research and Development 57, 5 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Takeshi Sakaki, Makoto Okazaki, and Yutaka Matsuo. 2010. Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Red Cross Societies 2013. World disaster report. Geneva: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (http://www. ifrc. org) (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Bartel Van de Walle, Bert Brugghemans, and Tina Comes. 2016. Improving situation awareness in crisis response teams: An experimental analysis of enriched information and centralized coordination. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 95 (2016), 66–79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Bartel Van de Walle and Tina Comes. 2015. On the nature of information management in complex and natural disasters. Procedia Engineering 107(2015), 403–411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Jie Yin, Andrew Lampert, Mark Cameron, Bella Robinson, and Robert Power. 2012. Using social media to enhance emergency situation awareness. IEEE Intelligent Systems 27, 6 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Not a Target. A Deep Learning Approach for a Warning and Decision Support System to Improve Safety and Security of Humanitarian Aid Workers
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          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
            WI '19: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence
            October 2019
            507 pages

            Copyright © 2019 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: 14 October 2019

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • short-paper
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate118of178submissions,66%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format