Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Security Protection System Based on the Improved AHP-FE Method

Shengzhe Pan; Tao Zhang; Yulin Chen

doi:10.54097/znyb7n76

Authors

Shengzhe Pan
Tao Zhang
Yulin Chen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/znyb7n76

Keywords:

Fuzzy Evaluation (FE), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Security Protection System (SPS), Decision-making, Security Strategy.

Abstract

With the rapid development of information technology, security protection systems (SPS) have become vital for safeguarding data and resources. A significant decision-making challenge is presented to design an optimal security strategy amidst complex factors. This paper applies a combined approach of Fuzzy Evaluation (FE) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to enhance the design and evaluation of SPS. The methodology integrates FE for constructing an evaluation model to determine the appropriate weight of each index and AHP, paired with the Paired Majority Rule (PMR) and the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE), to hierarchically analyze security factors. This approach creates a decision model based on consistency checks to derive the optimal security strategy. The results show that the proposed methods can effectively quantify complex security factors and generate optimized solutions for security protection. Experimental case studies validate the method's accuracy and reliability, demonstrating the wide application potential of integrating big data technology into complex decision-making processes for security systems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] SHAVERDI M, SAFARI H, KHANMOHAMMADI O. Combining fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS with financial ratios to design a novel performance evaluation model [J]. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2016, 18: 248-262.

[2] MOHAMMED A, KHAN S, EL-GOHARY N. Evaluating Green and Resilient Supplier Performance: AHP-Fuzzy Topsis Decision-Making Approach [C] // ICORES. 2018: 209-216.

[3] Katarina, Dona, Aji Nurrohman, Arman Syah Putra. Decision support system for the best student selection recommendation using AHP (analytic hierarchy process) method [J]. International Journal of Educational Research & Social Sciences, 2021, 2 (5): 1210-1217.

[4] YUAN K, LI H, JIANG M. Research on AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and application [C] // Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing, 2020: 012045.

[5] Mishra, Arun Pratap, et al. Assessment of water quality index using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and GIS: a case study of a struggling Asan River[J]. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 2024, 104 (5): 1159-1171.

[6] PETROUTSATOU K, LADOPOULOS I, NALMPANTIS D. Hierarchizing the criteria of construction equipment procurement decision using the AHP method [J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2021, 70 (9).

[7] Suharsono, Teguh Nurhadi, Fazmah Arief Yulianto, Budi Rahardjo. Candidate recommendations for voting system using modified AHP [C] // 2020 14th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems, Services, and Applications (TSSA). IEEE, 2020.

[8] WEI R, WANG Y, ZHAO F, et al. An AHP-ME-Based Vehicle Crash Prediction Model considering Driver Intention and Real-Time Traffic/Road Condition [J]. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022, 2022 (1): 4371305.

[9] Chen, Chun-Ho. A novel multi-criteria decision-making model for building material supplier selection based on entropy-AHP weighted TOPSIS [J]. Entropy, 2020, 22 (2): 259.

[10] ZHOU J, HONG X, JIN P Q. Information fusion for multi-source material data: progress and challenges [J]. Applied Sciences, 2019, 9 (17): 3473.

[11] Liu, Yan, Claudia M. Eckert, Christopher Earl. A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2020, 161: 113738.

[12] DAĞDEVIREN M. Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE [J]. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2008, 19: 397-406.

[13] Budak, Ayşenur, et al. Real-time location systems selection by using a fuzzy MCDM approach: An application in humanitarian relief logistics [J]. Applied Soft Computing, 2020, 92: 106322.

[14] Vinogradova-Zinkevič, Irina, Valentinas Podvezko, Edmundas Kazimeras Zavadskas. Comparative assessment of the stability of AHP and FAHP methods [J]. Symmetry, 2021, 13 (3): 479.

[15] CUI L Y, ZHANG Y, LI M, et al. Safety evaluation of chemical production based on AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method [C] // IOP Conference Series: Earth. IOP Publishing, 2020: 012103.

[16] Haktanır, Elif, and Cengiz Kahraman. Integrated AHP & TOPSIS methodology using intuitionistic Z-numbers: An application on hydrogen storage technology selection [J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2024, 239: 122382.