Multi-Objectives Model to Process Security Risk Assessment Based on AHP-PSO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays the security risk assessment play a crucial role, which is applied to the entire life cycle of information systems and communication technologies but still so many models for security risk assessment are non practical, therefore, it should be measured and improved. In this paper, a novel approach, in which Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Particles Swarm Optimization (PSO) can be combined with some changes, is presented. The method consists of; firstly, the analytic hierarchy structure of the risk assessment is constructed and the method of PSO comprehensive judgment is improved according to the actual condition of the information security. Secondly, the risk degree put forward is PSO estimation of the risk probability, the risk impact severity and risk uncontrollability. Finally, it gives examples to prove that this method Multi Objectives Programming Methodology (MOPM) can be well applied to security risk assessment and provides reasonable data for constituting the risk control strategy of the information systems security. Based on the risk assessment results, the targeted safety measures are taken, and the risk is transferred and reduced, which is controlled within an acceptable range.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".