Received 08.01.2025, Revised 19.03.2025, Accepted 24.04.2025

Adjustment of the analytic hierarchy process indicators using AI tools

Mykhailo Klymenko, Pavlo Fedorka

This study aimed to enhance the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) by integrating artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for the automatic adjustment of its indicators, thereby improving the method’s accuracy, consistency, and adaptability. A conceptual analysis of both the traditional and AI-oriented approaches was conducted. The research methodology included a systematic literature review, identification of the key limitations of the classical method, and testing of AI capabilities to improve the consistency and precision of weighting coefficients. The findings demonstrate that the integration of AI into AHP significantly reduces the subjectivity of expert evaluations, lowers the need for manual adjustment of pairwise comparison matrices, and enhances the consistency of decision-making. Specifically, optimisation algorithms automatically identify conflicting judgements and correct them without human intervention, thus reducing decision-making time. The use of clustering methods facilitates the automatic grouping of criteria and alternatives based on similar characteristics, thereby reducing the number of required pairwise comparisons. The application of machine learning-based algorithms for predicting weighting coefficients enables the AHP to adapt to dynamic changes in data, enhancing the stability and reproducibility of results. Furthermore, the incorporation of Explainable AI methods improves the transparency of the decision-making process by allowing the influence of each criterion on the final outcome to be clearly explained. The analysis also demonstrated that the application of AI in multi-criteria analysis significantly reduces the cognitive load on experts, minimises the impact of human factors, and increases the accuracy of calculations. However, despite these substantial advantages, the integration of AI into AHP requires careful model configuration, as the effectiveness of such systems depends on the quality of the input data and the explainability of the outcomes. The practical significance of these findings lies in the potential to apply the proposed approaches to optimise decision-making processes in business, public administration, and the technical sciences, thereby contributing to the improved efficiency of analytical systems

decision support system; recommender system; information models; artificial intelligence; data analysis; information technology
103-114
Klymenko, M., & Fedorka, P. (2025). Adjustment of the analytic hierarchy process indicators using AI tools. Information Technologies and Computer Engineering, 22(1), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.63341/vitce/1.2025.103

References

[1] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, R., & Chang, V. (2024). A multi-criteria decision-making framework to evaluate the impact of Industry 5.0 technologies: Case study, lessons learned, challenges and future directions. Information Systems Frontiers. doi: 10.1007/s10796-024-10472-3.

[2] Akbar, M.A., Khan, A.A., & Huang, Z. (2023). Multicriteria decision making taxonomy of code recommendation system challenges: A fuzzy-AHP analysis. Information Technology and Management, 24(2), 115-131. doi: 10.1007/s10799-02100355-3.

[3] Ali, R., Hussain, A., Nazir, S., Khan, S., & Khan, H.U. (2023). Intelligent decision support systems – an analysis of machine learning and multicriteria decision-making methods. Applied Sciences, 13(22), article number 12426. doi: 10.3390/app132212426.

[4] Alves, M.A., Meneghini, I.R., Gaspar-Cunha, A., & Guimarães, F.G. (2023). Machine learning-driven approach for large scale decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematics, 11(3), article number 627. doi: 10.3390/ math11030627

[5] Andriichuk, O., Kadenko, S., & Tsyganok, V. (2024). Significance of the order of pair‐wise comparisons in Analytic Hierarchy Process: An experimental study. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 31(3-4), article number e1830. doi: 10.1002/mcda.1830.

[6] Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., & De Vreese, C.H. (2020). In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 35(3), 611-623. doi: 10.1007/s00146-019-00931-w.

[7] Bouramdane, A.-A. (2023). Cyberattacks in smart grids: Challenges and solving the multi-criteria decision-making for cybersecurity options, including ones that incorporate artificial intelligence, using an analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, 3(4), 662-705. doi: 10.3390/jcp3040031.

[8] Ding, R.X., Palomares, I., Wang, X., Yang, G.R., Liu, B., Dong, Y., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2020). Large-Scale decision-making: Characterization, taxonomy, challenges and future directions from an Artificial Intelligence and applications perspective. Information Fusion, 59, 84-102. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2020.01.006.

[9] Dos Santos, V.R., Fávero, L.P., Moreira, M.Â., dos Santos, M., de Oliveira, L.D., de Araújo Costa, I.P., de Oliveira Capela, G.P., & Kojima, E.H. (2023). Development of a computational tool in the Python language for the application of the AHP-Gaussian method. Procedia Computer Science, 221, 354-361. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2023.07.048.

[10] Dźwigoł, H. (2023). Multi-criteria decision analysis in quantitative research. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization & Management, 184, 96-114. doi: 10.29119/1641-3466.2023.184.6.

[11] Fedorov, E., & Utkina, T. (2022). Method of clusterization of quasiperiodic signal based on clonal selection algorithm. Bulletin of Cherkasy State Technological University, 27(2), 11-21. https://doi.org/10.24025/2306-4412.2.2022.253905

[12] Goepel, K.D. (2018). Implementation of an online software tool for the analytic hierarchy process (AHP-OS). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 10(3), 469-487. doi: 10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.590.

[13] Gupta, S., Modgil, S., Bhattacharyya, S., & Bose, I. (2022). Artificial intelligence for decision support systems in the field of operations research: Review and future scope of research. Annals of Operations Research, 308(1), 215-274. doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03856-6.

[14] Kim, K., & Kim, B. (2022). Decision-making model for reinforcing digital transformation strategies based on artificial intelligence technology. Information, 13(5), article number 253. doi: 10.3390/info13050253.

[15] Krenicky, T., Hrebenyk, L., & Chernobrovchenko, V. (2022). Application of concepts of the analytic hierarchy process in decision-making. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 30(4), 304-310. doi: 10.2478/mspe-2022-0039.

[16] Kumar, R. (2025). A comprehensive review of MCDM methods, applications, and emerging trends. Decision Making Advances, 3(1), 185-199. doi: 10.31181/dma31202569.

[17] Kuraś, P., Strzałka, D., Kowal, B., Organiściak, P., Demidowski, K., & Vanivska, V. (2024). REDUCE – a tool supporting inconsistencies reduction in the decision-making process. Applied Sciences, 14(23), article number 11465. doi: 10.3390/ app142311465.

[18] Lande, D., Strashnoy, L., & Driamov, O. (2023). Analytic hierarchy process in the field of cybersecurity using generative AI. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4621732.

[19] Mai, W. (2024). Developing an ethical framework for artificial intelligence in investment decision-making: A fuzzy analytic hierarchy analysis. In Proceedings of the 5th management science informatization and economic innovation development conference. Guangzhou: MSIEID. doi: 10.4108/eai.8-12-2023.2344816.

[20] Marín Díaz, G., Gómez Medina, R., & Aijón Jiménez, J.A. (2025). A methodological framework for business decisions with explainable AI and the analytic hierarchical process. Processes, 13(1), article number 102. doi: 10.3390/ pr13010102.

[21] Merhi, M.I., & Harfouche, A. (2024). Enablers of artificial intelligence adoption and implementation in production systems. International Journal of Production Research, 62(15), 5457-5471. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2023.2167014.

[22] Moslem, S. (2024). A novel parsimonious spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for sustainable urban transport solutions. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 128, article number 107447. doi: 10.1016/j. engappai.2023.107447.

[23] Nazim, M., Mohammad, C.W., & Sadiq, M. (2022). A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to software requirements selection. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 61(12), 10851-10870. doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2022.04.005.

[24] Nguyen, T.M., Nguyen, V.P., & Nguyen, D.T. (2024). A new hybrid Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and COCOSO MCDM based approach by adopting artificial intelligence technologies. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 36(7), 1279-1305. doi: 10.1080/0952813X.2022.2143908.

[25] Pidchenko, S., Kucheruk, O., Drach, І., & Pyvovar, O. (2024). Multi-criteria model for selection of optical linear terminals based on FUZZY TOPSIS method. Radioelectronic and Computer Systems, 2024(1), 65-75. doi: 10.32620/ reks.2024.1.06.

[26] Potomkin, M.M., Semenenko, O.M., Kliat, Y.O., & Sedliar, A.A. (2024). Comparing the results of alternative ranking obtained by several variants of the analytic hierarchy process. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, 60(6), 970-977. doi: 10.1007/s10559-024-00733-z.

[27] Prasetyaningrum, I., Fathoni, K., & Priyantoro, T.T. (2020). Application of recommendation system with AHP method and sentiment analysis. Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control, 18(3), 1343-1353. doi: 10.12928/ telkomnika.v18i3.14778.

[28] Ren, Z., Xu, Z., & Wang, H. (2019). The strategy selection problem on artificial intelligence with an integrated VIKOR and AHP method under probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy information. IEEE Access, 7, 103979-103999. doi: 10.1109/ ACCESS.2019.2931405.

[29] Salomon, V.A., & Gomes, L.F. (2024). Consistency improvement in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematics, 12(6), article number 828. doi: 10.3390/math12060828.

[30] Solaimani, S., Dabestani, R., Harrison-Prentice, T., Ellis, E., Kerr, M., Choudhury, A., & Bakhshi, N. (2024). Exploration and prioritisation of critical success factors in adoption of artificial intelligence: A mixed-methods study. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 45(4), 429-453. doi: 10.1504/IJBIS.2024.138052.

[31] Soori, M., Jough, F.K., Dastres, R., & Arezoo, B. (2024). AI-based decision support systems in Industry 4.0, a review. Journal of Economy and Technology. doi: 10.1016/j.ject.2024.08.005.

[32] Svoboda, I., & Lande, D. (2024). AI agents in multi-criteria decision analysis: Automating the analytic hierarchy process with large language models. SSRN. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5069656.

[33] Tymchenko, O., Khamula, O., Vasiuta, S., Sosnovska, O., & Mlynko, O. (2022). A comparison of methods for identifying the priority hierarchy of influencing factors. In IntelITSIS – 3d international workshop on intelligent information technologies and systems of information security (pp. 228-237). Khmelnytskyi: CEUR.

[34] Wang, K., Ying, Z., Goswami, S.S., Yin, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Investigating the role of artificial intelligence technologies in the construction industry using a Delphi-ANP-TOPSIS hybrid MCDM concept under a fuzzy environment. Sustainability, 15(15), article number 11848. doi: 10.3390/su151511848.

[35] Wongvilaisakul, W., Netinant, P., & Rukhiran, M. (2023). Dynamic multi-criteria decision making of graduate admission recommender system: AHP and fuzzy AHP approaches. Sustainability, 15(12), article number 9758. doi: 10.3390/su15129758.

[36] Zhou, D., Xue, X., Lu, X., Guo, Y., Ji, P., Lv, H., Ye, W., Hu, Y., Li, Q., & Cui, L. (2024). A hierarchical model for complex adaptive system: From adaptive agent to AI society. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems. doi: 10.1145/3686802.