Mathematical modeling of the hierarchical ordering of the most significant cybersecurity threats in the public administration system: pairwise and comparative analysis

2025;
: pp. 1023–1031
Received: April 14, 2025
Revised: July 22, 2025
Accepted: September 28, 2025

Kryshtanovych M., Kryshtanovych S., Pachomova T., Bosak A., Hrodz N., Slobodzianyk R.  Mathematical modeling of the hierarchical ordering of the most significant cybersecurity threats in the public administration system: pairwise and comparative analysis.  Mathematical Modeling and Computing. Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 1023–1031 (2025)

1
Lviv Polytechnic National University
2
State University of Physical Culture named after Ivan Bobersky
3
National University "Odessa Polytechnic"
4
Lviv Polytechnic National University
5
Hetman Petro Sahaidachny National Army Academy
6
Lviv Polytechnic National University

In this work, an in-depth modeling of cybersecurity threats in state authorities was carried out, which includes the creation of a hierarchical structure, multiple expert evaluation (Delphi method) and the application of the hierarchical analysis method with pairwise comparisons.  Initially, a global goal was defined — to rank threats by their degree of criticality.  For this purpose, a set of criteria was formed, in particular, the scale of damage, the probability of implementation, the impact on critical resources, the complexity of countering attacks and legal consequences.  Then, the experts coordinated their own assessments in several iterations.  The resulting matrices of pairwise comparisons were checked for consistency and aggregated into a generalized matrix, from which the weight coefficients of the criteria and threats were calculated.  The mathematical modeling performed allowed to organize threats depending on their global importance, which made it possible to determine priority areas for protecting information systems.  This approach enhances the effectiveness of cybersecurity strategies, optimizes resource allocation and helps reduce the overall vulnerability of state infrastructure.

  1. Kryshtanovych M., Polovtsev O., Liubetska M., Lukashevska U., Dubin D.  Modeling the planning of the potential for sustainable development of the region in the system of public administration of social security. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning.  18 (3), 757–762 (2023).
  2. Kryshtanovych M., Kiyanka I., Ostapiak V., Kornat L., Kuchyk O.  Modeling effective interaction between society and public administration for sustainable development policy.  International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning.  18 (8), 2555–2561 (2023).
  3. Karpak B.  AHP/ANP is Well Represented in MCDM 2017, Ottawa.  International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.  9 (1), 148–149 (2017).
  4. De Felice F., Karpak B., Mu E., Pecchia L., Petrillo A., Saaty R., Vargas L.  Publishing AHP/ANP Papers.  International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.  5 (1), 116–174 (2013).
  5. Von Solms S.  Validity of the AHP/ANP: Comparing apples and oranges.  International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.  3 (1), 2–27 (2011).
  6. Soltani M., Aouag H., Mouss M. D.  A multiple criteria decision-making improvement strategy in complex manufacturing processes.  International Journal of Operational Research.  45 (2), 194–218 (2021).
  7. Franek J., Kresta A.  Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP.  Procedia Economics and Finance.  12, 164–173 (2014).
  8. Gunduz M., Alfar M.  Integration of innovation through analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in project management and planning.  Technological and Economic Development of Economy.  25 (2), 258–276 (2019).
  9. Ishizaka A., Labib A.  Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process.  Expert Systems with Application.  38 (11), 14336–14345 (2011).
  10. Karpak B.  Theory and applications of AHP/ANP at MCDM 2022.  International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.  14 (2), 1–8 (2022).
  11. Kou G., Yang P., Peng Y., Xiao F., Chen Y., Alsaadi F. E.  Evaluation of feature selection methods for text classification with small datasets using multiple criteria decision-making methods.  Applied Soft Computing.  86, 105836 (2020).
  12. Kumar A., Kumar M.  Implementation of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a decision-making tool for selection of materials for the robot arm.  International Journal of Applied Engineering Research.  14 (11), 2727–2733 (2019).
  13. Kumar R., Dubey R., Singh S., Singh S., Prakash C., Nirsanametla Y., KrпїЅlczyk G., Chudy R.  Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making and Sensitivity Analysis for Selection of Materials for Knee Implant Femoral Component.  Materials.  14 (8), 2084 (2021).
  14. Sangiorgio V., Di Pierro B., Roccotelli M., Silvestri B.  Card game analysis for fast multi-criteria decision making.  RAIRO – Operations Research.  55 (3), 1213–1229 (2021).
  15. Santos M., Costa I. P. A., Gomes C. F. S.  Multicriteria decisionmaking in the selection of warships: a new approach to the AHP method.  International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.  13 (1), 147–169 (2021).