Analysis of the terrorist network is a process to analyze or deriving Useful information from the available network data. Ranking The Terrorist nodes within a terrorist network in identifying the most influential node is essential for the elaboration of Covert network mining. The purpose of this paper is to implement an approach of two dimensional criteria weight determination along with logarithmic concept implementation for vital node investigation in term of their influential ability. Betweenness, Closeness, Eigenvector, Hub, In-degree, Inverse closeness, Out-degree and Total degree considered as criteria and terrorist involved in 9/11 terrorist attack considered as alternatives used to formulate a decision problem. Although an integrated approach of Fuzzy based subjective-Aggregation concept based objective criteria weight determination and Ranking alternatives by the implementation of the logarithmic concept is used to solve multi criteria decision problems in order to show the application of most centralized node identification process which can be obtained easily by classification and selection problem solution using multiple criteria and alternatives.
FoxW.P. and EvertonS.F., Using mathematical models in decision making methodologies to find key nodes in the Noordin dark network, American Journal of Operations Research04(04) (2014), 255–267. doi: 10.4236/ajor.2014.44025
2.
LiZ., SunD.-Y., GuoS.-Q. and LiB., Detecting key individuals in terrorist network based on FANP model, IEEE/ACMInternational Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2014). (2014), doi: 10.1109/asonam.2014.6921666
3.
FoxW.P., OrmondB. and WilliamsA., Ranking terrorist targets using a hybrid AHP–TOPSIS methodology, The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology13(1) (2015), 77–93. doi: 10.1177/1548512914563619
4.
MaheshwariS. and TiwariA., A novel genetic based framework for the detection and destabilization of influencing nodes in terrorist network. Computational intelligence in data mining – volume 1 smart innovation, Systems and Technologies (2014), 573–582. doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-2205-7_53
5.
ChoudharyP. and SinghU., Ranking Terrorist Nodes Of 9/11 Network Using Analytical Hierarchy Process With Social Network Analysis, 2016, doi: 10.13033/isahp.y2016.098
6.
FoxW.P., Applications and modelling using multi-attribute decision making to rank terrorist threats, Journal of Socialomics05(02) (2016), doi: 10.4172/2167-0358.1000162
7.
YarlagaddaR., FelmleeD., VermaD. and GartnerS., Implicit terrorist networks: A two-mode social network analysis of terrorism in india, Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling Lecture Notes in Computer Science (2018), 340–347. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-93372-6_37
8.
YangF., LiX., XuY., LiuX., WangJ., ZhangY. and YaoY., Ranking the spreading influence of nodes in complex networks: An extended weighted degree centrality based on a remaining minimum degree decomposition, Physics Letters A382(34) (2018), 2361–2371. doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2018.05.032
9.
RoyM. and PanI., Most influential node selection in social network using genetic algorithm, 2018 Fourth International Conference on Research in Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks (ICRCICN). (2018), doi: 10.1109/icrcicn.2018.8718693
10.
BulutT., A new multi criteria decision making method: Approach of logarithmic concept (APLOCO), International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications9(1) (2018), 15–33. doi: 10.5121/ijaia.2018.9102
11.
SinghS., VermaS. and TiwariA., An innovative approach for identification of pivotal node in terrorist network using promethee method (an anti-terrorism approach), International Journal of Engineering & Technology7(1) (2018), 95. doi: 10.14419/ijet.v7i1.8828
12.
PloskasN. and PapathanasiouJ., A decision support system for multiple criteria alternative ranking using TOPSIS and VIKOR in fuzzy and nonfuzzy environments, Fuzzy Sets and Systems377 (2019), 1–30. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2019.01.012
13.
YangY., YuL., ZhouZ., ChenY. and KouT., Node importance ranking in complex networks based on multicriteria decision making, Mathematical Problems in Engineering (2019), 1–12. doi: 10.1155/2019/9728742
14.
LiZ., RenT., MaX., LiuS., ZhangY. and ZhouT., Identifying influential spreaders by gravity model, Scientific Reports9(1) (2019), doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44930-9
15.
DewiR.K., HanggaraB.T. and PinanditoA., A comparison between AHP and hybrid AHP for mobile based culinary recommendation system, International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (IJIM)12(1) (2018), 133. doi: 10.3991/ijim.v12i1.7561.
16.
Hamdani and WardoyoR., The complexity calculation for group decision making using TOPSIS algorithm, 2016, doi: 10.1063/1.4958502
17.
CooperW., SeifordL. and ToneK., Data envelopment analysis. Kluwer Academic Press. London, UK (2000).
18.
FishburnP.C., Additive utilities with incomplete product set: Applications to priorities and assignments, Operations Research Society of America (ORSA)15 (1967), 537–542.
19.
SaatyT., The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, United States (1980), 161–176.
20.
HwangC.L. and YoonK., Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Springer-VerlagNew York, USA (1981).
21.
YoonK., A reconciliation among discrete compromise situations, Journal of Operational Research Society38 (1987), 277–286.
22.
HwangC.L., LaiY. and LiuT.Y., A new approach for multiple objective decision making, Computers and Operational Research20 (1993), 889–899.
23.
GaikwadRahi, Mumbai attackers made two earlier attempts: Headley, The Hindu, February 8, 2016.
24.
A report on Mumbai attack, Mumbai terrorist attack (Nov. 26–29, 2008), Govt. of India, 2009.
LiX., WangK., LiuL., XinJ., YangH. and GaoC., Application of the entropy weight and TOPSIS method in safety evaluation of coal mines, Procedia Engineering26 (2011), 2085–2091. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2410
27.
DiakoulakiD., MavrotasG. and PapayannakisL., Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method, Computers Ops Res22(7) (1995), 763–770.
28.
AzadfallahM., The extraction of expert weights from pair wise comparisons in delphi method, Journal of Applied Information Science3(1) (2015), doi: 10.21863/jais/2015.3.1.001.
29.
PamuçarD., StevićZ̧. and SremacS., A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full consistency method (FUCOM), Symmetry10(9) (2018), 393. doi: 10.3390/sym10090393
30.
WangShasha, DuYuxian and DengYong, A new measure of identifying influential nodes: Efficiency centrality, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation47 (2017) 151–163, ISSN 1007-5704, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2016.11.008.
31.
FreemanLinton, A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness, Sociometry40(1) (1977), 35–41. doi: 10.2307/3033543.JSTOR3033543.
32.
FreemanL.C., Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification, Social Networks1(3) (1978), 215–239. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
33.
NewmanM., The mathematics of networks. In: Blume L, editor. SD, editors, The New Palgrave Encyclopedia of Economics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2nd edition (2008).
34.
LvL., ZhangK., ZhangT., BardouD., ZhangJ. and CaiY., PageRank centrality for temporal networks, Physics Letters A383(12) (2019), 1215–1222. doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2019.01.04148
35.
SinghS., VermaS. and TiwariA., An innovative approach for identification of pivotal node in terrorist network using promethee method (an anti-terrorism approach), International Journal of Engineering& Technology7(1) (2018), 95. doi: 10.14419/ijet.v7i1.8828
36.
CaldersT. and AsscheD.V., PROMETHEE is not quadratic: AnO(qnlog(n))algorithm, Omega76 (2018), 63–69. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2017.04.003
37.
WangY.-M., LuoY. and HuaZ., On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications, European Journal of Operational Research186(2) (2008), 735–747. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.050
38.
LiouT.-S. and WangM.-J.J., Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value, Fuzzy Sets and Systems50(3) (1992), 247–255. doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(92)90223-q
39.
thackerB.h., doeblingS.w., hemezF.m., AndersonM., PepinJ. and RodriguezE., Concepts of model verification and validation, 2004, doi: 10.2172/835920
40.
GolbeckJ., Network structure and measures, Analyzing the Social Web (2013), 25–44. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-405531-5.00003-1
41.
KleinbergJ.M., Authorative sources in a hyperlinked environment, Journal of the ACM (1999).
42.
GolbeckJennifer, Chapter 8 – Building Networks, Analyzing the Social Web, Morgan Kaufmann, 2013, Pages 107–123, ISBN 9780124055315, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405531-5.00008-0.
43.
ChangD.-Y., Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research95(3) (1996), 649–655. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
44.
RoszkowskaE., Rank ordering criteria weighting methods – a comparative overview, Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne5(65) (2013), 14–33. doi: 10.15290/ose.2013.05.65.02
45.
MaJ., ZhangQ., ZhouD., FanZ.P., KongH. and TongK., A Subjective and Objective Integrated Approach to Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Preference Information on Alternatives (1999).
46.
LiouT.S. and ve WangM.J., Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value, Fuzzy Sets and Systems50 (1992), 247–255.
