CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 4Multi-Criteria Decision MakingDecision Support System ApplicationsStrategic Planning and Analysis

Enhancing multi-criteria decision analysis with AI: Integrating analytic hierarchy process and GPT-4 for automated decision support

Open access
Svoboda, Igor, Lande, Dmytro·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2402.07404arXiv 2402.07404
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Our study presents a new framework that incorporates the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) large language model (LLM), bringing novel approaches to cybersecurity Multiple-criteria Decision Making (MCDA). By utilizing the capabilities of GPT-4 autonomous agents as virtual experts, we automate the decision-making process, enhancing both efficiency and reliability. This new approach focuses on leveraging LLMs for sophisticated decision analysis, highlighting the synergy between traditional decision-making models and cutting-edge AI technologies. Our innovative methodology demonstrates significant advancements in using AI-driven agents for complex decision-making scenarios, highlighting the importance of AI in strategic cybersecurity applications. The findings reveal the transformative potential of combining AHP and LLMs, establishing a new paradigm for intelligent decision support systems in cybersecurity and beyond.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.07404

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MCDM-based applications have not been applied with a primary focus on systematically assessing the trustworthiness of LLMs.

    “However, they have not been applied with a primary focus on systematically assessing the trustworthiness of LLMs.”

    From Trustworthiness Evaluation of Large Language Models Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies a different research gap: limited work integrating AHP with LLMs for decision support. The Abstract (page unavailable) describes a cybersecurity MCDA application, but the copy does not address whether MCDM-based applications have systematically assessed LLM trustworthiness. Searches for trustworthiness and LLM reliability assessment found no passage establishing that broader claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. M. Köksalan, J. Wallenius, and S. Zionts, Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century. World Scientific, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1142/8042 · DOI
  2. S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, and J. R. Figueira, Eds., Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, 2nd ed., vol. XXXIII. New York, NY: Springer, 2016, pp. 1-1347. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4 · DOI
  3. T. L. Saaty, "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 9-26, 1990. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I · DOI · Paper page
  4. S. Sipahi and M. Timor, "The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: An overview of applications," Management Decision, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 775-808, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011043920 · DOI
  5. Y. Lee and K. A. Kozar, "Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success: An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach," Decision Support Systems, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1383- 1401, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.11.005 · DOI
  6. M.-C. Lin, C.-C. Wang, M.-S. Chen, and C. A. Chang, "Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process," Computers in Industry, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 17-31, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.013 · DOI
  7. G. Büyüközkan, G. Çifçi, and S. Güleryüz, "Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality using fuzzy AHP methodology," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 9407-9424, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.103 · DOI
  8. L. Suganthi, S. Iniyan, and A. A. Samuel, "Applications of fuzzy logic in renewable energy systems -A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 48, pp. 585-607, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.037 · DOI
  9. S. French and D.-L. Xu, "Comparison study of multi-attribute decision analytic software," Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 13, no. 2-3, pp. 65-80, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.372 · DOI
  10. M. Sallam, "ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns," Healthcare (Switzerland), vol. 11, no. 6, Article 887, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887 · DOI · Paper page
  11. C. Hendriksen, "Artificial intelligence for supply chain management: Disruptive innovation or innovative disruption?" Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 65-76, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12304 · DOI
  12. S. S. Biswas, "Role of Chat GPT in Public Health," Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 868-869, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03172-7 · DOI · Paper page
  13. M. Loya, D. Sinha, and R. Futrell, "Exploring the Sensitivity of LLMs' Decision-Making Capabilities: Insights from Prompt Variation and Hyperparameters," in Proc. of the Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, Dec. 2023, pp. 3711-3716. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.241. DOI: 10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.241. · DOI · Paper page
  14. L. Tang et al., "Evaluating large language models on medical evidence summarization," npj Digital Medicine, vol. 6, no. 1, Article 158, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023- 00896-7 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Y. Tian et al., "VistaGPT: Generative Parallel Transformers for Vehicles With Intelligent Systems for Transport Automation," IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 4198- 4207, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIV.2023.3307012 · DOI
  16. J. Achiam et al., "GPT-4 Technical Report (Version 4) [Preprint]," 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 · DOI · Paper page
  17. W. Ossadnik, S. Schinke, and R. H. Kaspar, "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 421-457, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9448-4 · DOI
  18. I. Ghafir, V. Prenosil, A. Alhejailan, and M. Hammoudeh, "Social engineering attack strategies and defence approaches," in Proc. -2016 IEEE 4th Int. Conf. on Future Internet of Things and Cloud, FiCloud 2016, pp. 145-149. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/FiCloud.2016.28 · DOI · Paper page
  19. D. Lande, L. Strashnoy, and O. Driamov, "Analytic Hierarchy Process in the Field of Cybersecurity Using Generative AI," SSRN, Nov. 2, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4621732. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4621732. · DOI
  20. P. Lee, S. Bubeck, and J. Petro, "Benefits, Limits, and Risks of GPT-4 as an AI Chatbot for Medicine," New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 388, no. 13, pp. 1233-1239, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr2214184 · DOI · Paper page
  21. S. I. Gass and A. A. Assad, An Annotated Timeline of Operations Research: An Informal History. 1st ed., vol. 121, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag US, 2005. Background: With a military background and experience in corporate physical security, he understands the importance of securing physical access to sensitive areas. Personality/Preferences: His practical and no-nonsense approach will ground the discussion in realistic, enforceable physical security measures. Vendor Management Specialist, Laura García: Background: Laura specializes in managing relationships with third-party vendors and has a keen understanding of the security risks associated with external entities. Personality/Preferences: Her collaborative and communicative style is effective in discussions about managing external risks and integrating vendor-related security considerations into the overall strategy.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Svoboda, I., & Lande, D.
ORCID
Svoboda, Igor
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2402.07404
arXiv
2402.07404
OpenAlex
W6903881428
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Decision Support System Applications
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Strategic Planning and Analysis
Keywords
multi-criteria decision making, analytic hierarchy process, GPT-4, large language models, automated decision support, AI-assisted decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review