Aggregating Centrality Rankings: A Novel Approach to Detect Critical Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11777)


Assessing critical infrastructure vulnerabilities is paramount to arrange efficient plans for their protection. Critical infrastructures are network-based systems hence, they are composed of nodes and edges. The literature shows that node criticality, which is the focus of this paper, can be addressed from different metric-based perspectives (e.g., degree, maximal flow, shortest path). However, each metric provides a specific insight while neglecting others. This paper attempts to overcome this pitfall through a methodology based on ranking aggregation. Specifically, we consider several numerical topological descriptors of the nodes’ importance (e.g., degree, betweenness, closeness, etc.) and we convert such descriptors into ratio matrices; then, we extend the Analytic Hierarchy Process problem to the case of multiple ratio matrices and we resort to a Logarithmic Least Squares formulation to identify an aggregated metric that represents a good tradeoff among the different topological descriptors. The procedure is validated considering the Central London Tube network as a case study.


Critical infrastructures Criticality analysis Ranking aggregation Analytic Hierarchy Process Least squares optimization 



This work was supported by INAIL via the European Saf€ra project “Integrated Management of Safety and Security Synergies in Seveso Plants” (4STER).


  1. 1.
    Anderson, C.W., Santos, J.R., Haimes, Y.Y.: A risk-based input-output methodology for measuring the effects of the August 2003 northeast blackout. Econ. Syst. Res. 19(2), 183–204 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Popova, O.P., et al.: Chelyabinsk airburst, damage assessment, meteorite recovery, and characterization. Science 342(6162), 1069–1073 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Setola, R., Sforza, A., Vittorini, V., Pragliola, C. (eds.): Railway Infrastructure Security. TSRRQ, vol. 27. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Setola, R.: How to measure the degree of interdependencies among critical infrastructures. Int. J. Syst. Syst. Eng. 2(1), 38–59 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faramondi, L., et al.: Network structural vulnerability: a multiobjective attacker perspective. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. (99), 1–14 (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stergiopoulos, G., Kotzanikolaou, P., Theocharidou, M., Gritzalis, D.: Risk mitigation strategies for critical infrastructures based on graph centrality analysis. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 10, 34–44 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, X.: Critical nodes identification in complex systems. Complex Intell. Syst. 1(1–4), 37–56 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lü, L., Chen, D., Ren, X.-L., Zhang, Q.-M., Zhang, Y.-C., Zhou, T.: Vital nodes identification in complex networks. Phys. Rep. 650, 1–63 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rueda, D.F., Calle, F., Marzo, J.L.: Robustness comparison of 15 real telecommunication networks: structural and centrality measurements. J. Netw. Syst. Manag. 25(2), 269–289 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Starita, S., Esposito Amideo, A., Scaparra, M.P.: Assessing urban rail transit systems vulnerability: metrics vs. interdiction models. In: D’Agostino, G., Scala, A. (eds.) CRITIS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10707, pp. 144–155. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saaty, T.L.: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15(3), 234–281 (1977)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crawford, G.B.: The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgement matrix. Math. Model. 9(3–5), 327–334 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barzilai, J., Cook, W.D., Golany, B.: Consistent weights for judgements matrices of the relative importance of alternatives. Oper. Res. Lett. 6(3), 131–134 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bozóki, S., Fülöp, J., Rónyai, L.: On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Math. Comput. Model. 52(1–2), 318–333 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oliva, G., Setola, R., Scala, A.: Sparse and distributed analytic hierarchy process. Automatica 85, 211–220 (2017)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bozóki, S., Tsyganok, V.: The (logarithmic) least squares optimality of the arithmetic (geometric) mean of weight vectors calculated from all spanning trees for incomplete additive (multiplicative) pairwise comparison matrices. Int. J. Gen. Syst. (2019, to appear)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fagin, R., Kumar, R., Mahdian, M., Sivakumar, D., Vee, E.: Comparing and aggregating rankings with ties. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 47–58. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dopazo, E., Martínez-Céspedes, M.L.: Rank aggregation methods dealing with ordinal uncertain preferences. Expert Syst. Appl. 78, 103–109 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aledo, J.A., Gámez, J.A., Rosete, A.: Utopia in the solution of the bucket order problem. Decis. Support Syst. 97, 69–80 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Godsil, C., Royle, G.: Algebraic Graph Theory. Graduate Text in Mathematics. Springer, New York (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olfati-Saber, R., Alex Fax, J., Murray, R.M.: Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems. Proc. IEEE 95(1), 215–233 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Borodin, A., Roberts, G.O., Rosenthal, J.S., Tsaparas, P.: Link analysis ranking: algorithms, theory, and experiments. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. (TOIT) 5(1), 231–297 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kendall, M.G.: A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30(1/2), 81–93 (1938)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oliva, G., Bozóki, S.: Incomplete analytic hierarchy process with minimum ordinal violations. arXiv preprint: arXiv:1904.04701 (2019)

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Campus Biomedico of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Centre for Logistics and Heuristic Optimisation (CLHO), Kent Business SchoolUniversity of KentCanterburyEngland
  3. 3.Sasin School of ManagementChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  4. 4.University College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations