SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1

Cybersecurity assessment in BRICS countries using the LOPCOW–MARCOS approach

LOPCOW-MARCOS yaklaşımıyla BRICS ülkelerinde siber güvenlik değerlendirmesi

Tayfun Öztaş
Pages
21–37
Publication Date
2026-06-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings confirm that the proposed approach provides reliable results by showing that it has a very strong correlation with the TOPSIS method (ρ=0.9876) and fully consistent with other methods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:There has been a dramatic increase in the volume of data shared in virtual environment as a result of digitalization.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore, cybersecurity-related activities must be carried out at the national level with a strategic and holistic approach.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings confirm that the proposed approach provides reliable results by showing that it has a very strong correlation with the TOPSIS method (ρ=0.9876) and fully consistent with other methods.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dijitalleşme · Siber güvenlik · ÇKKV

Abstract

There has been a dramatic increase in the volume of data shared in virtual environment as a result of digitalization. However, cybersecurity risks such as personal data breaches, ransomware, phishing attacks, and system vulnerabilities may lead to incidents with economic, legal, service outage, and loss of reputation consequences. Therefore, cybersecurity-related activities must be carried out at the national level with a strategic and holistic approach. As a strategic planning issue, cybersecurity is a prominent field of research at the international level.In this study, the cybersecurity performance of BRICS countries is analyzed using data from the International Telecommunication Union’s Global Cybersecurity Index through the LOPCOW and MARCOS methods. The analysis identified “Cooperation measures” as the most significant criterion, with the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, and Egypt emerging as the top-performing countries. A sensitivity analysis conducted using five different scenarios to test the proposed LOPCOW-MARCOS approach revealed that the method yields consistent results despite variations in criterion weights. The reliability of the proposed methodology has been tested through comparative analysis including TOPSIS, MABAC, MAIRCA, ARAS and CoCoSo methods. The findings confirm that the proposed approach provides reliable results by showing that it has a very strong correlation with the TOPSIS method (ρ=0.9876) and fully consistent with other methods.

Özet

Dijitalleşmenin bir sonucu olarak sanal ortamda paylaşılan veri miktarında büyük bir artış yaşanmaktadır. Ancak kişisel verilerin çalınması, fidye yazılımı saldırıları, kimlik avı saldırıları, sistem açıkları gibi siber güvenlik riskleri; ekonomik, yasal, hizmet kesintileri ve itibar kaybı gibi sonuçlar doğuran olaylara yol açabilmektedir. Bu nedenle, siber güvenlik ile ilgili faaliyetler ulusal düzeyde, stratejik ve bütüncül bir yaklaşımla yürütülmek zorundadır. Stratejik bir planlama konusu olarak siber güvenlik, uluslararası düzeyde ilgi gören bir araştırma alanıdır. Bu çalışmada BRICS ülkelerinin siber güvenlik performanslarını karşılaştırmak için Uluslararası Telekomünikasyon Birliği’nin (International Telecommunication Union) Küresel Siber Güvenlik Endeksi (Global Cybersecurity Index) verilerinden faydalanılarak, LOPCOW ve MARCOS yöntemleriyle bir analiz yapılmıştır. Yapılan hesaplamalarda en önemli kriterin “İş birliği ölçümleri” olduğu belirlenirken; Birleşik Arap Emirlikleri, Endonezya ve Mısır’ın en iyi performans gösteren ülkeler olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Önerilen LOPCOW-MARCOS yaklaşımının kriter ağırlıklarındaki değişimlere karşı hassasiyetini ölçmek için beş farklı senaryo ile yürütülen duyarlılık analizinde yöntemin tutarlı sonuçlar ürettiği görülmüştür. Ayrıca önerilen yaklaşımın sonuçlarının güvenirliği TOPSIS, MABAC, MAIRCA, ARAS ve CoCoSo yöntemleriyle karşılaştırmalı analiz yapılarak test edilmiştir. Bulgular, önerilen yaklaşımın TOPSIS yöntemiyle çok güçlü bir ilişkiye (ρ=0,9876), diğer yöntemler ile tam uyuma sahip olduğunu göstererek güvenilir sonuçlar verdiğini doğrulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Öztaş, T. (2026). Cybersecurity assessment in BRICS countries using the LOPCOW–MARCOS approach. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1670493

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (70)

  1. KAYNAKÇA Abacıoğlu, S., Ayan, B. ve Pamucar, D. (2025). The race to sustainability: Decoding green university rankings through a comparative analysis (2018–2022). Innovative Higher Education, 50(1), 241-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-024-09734-4
  2. Abas, M., Habib, T., Noor, S., Zimon, D. ve Woźniak, J. (2023). Application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the selection of additive manufacturing materials for solid ankle foot orthoses. Journal of Engineering Design, 34(8), 616-643. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2023.2247859
  3. AbdelMouty, A. M. ve Abdel-Monem, A. (2023). Neutrosophic MCDM methodology for assessment risks of cyber security in power management. Neutrosophic Systems with Applications, 3, 53-61. https://doi.org/10.61356/j.nswa.2023.18
  4. Abushark, Y. B., Khan, A. I., Alsolami, F., Almalawi, A., Alam, M. M., Agrawal, A., Kumar, R. ve Khan, R. A. (2022). Cyber security analysis and evaluation for intrusion detection systems. Computers, Materials & Continua, 72(1), 1765-1783. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2022.025604
  5. Ahasan, M. A. Al, Hu, M. ve Shahriar, N. (2023). OFMCDM/IRF: A phishing website detection model based on optimized fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making and improved random forest. 2023 Silicon Valley Cybersecurity Conference (SVCC), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/SVCC56964.2023.10165344
  6. Alamri, B., Richardson, I. ve Crowley, K. (2024). Cybersecuriy risk management and evaluation framework of blockchain identity management systems in HIoT: Experts evaluation. IEEE Access, 12, 144652-144683. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3468379
  7. AlDaajeh, S. ve Alrabaee, S. (2024). Strategic cybersecurity. Computers & Security, 141, 103845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2024.103845
  8. Alhakami, W. (2024). Enhancing cybersecurity competency in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a fuzzy decision-making approach. Computers, Materials & Continua, 79(2), 3211-3237. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2023.043935
  9. Alharbi, A., Seh, A. H., Alosaimi, W., Alyami, H., Agrawal, A., Kumar, R. ve Khan, R. A. (2021). analyzing the impact of cyber security related attributes for intrusion detection systems. Sustainability, 13(22), 12337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212337
  10. Almeida, F. (2025). Comparative analysis of EU-based cybersecurity skills frameworks. Computers & Security, 151, 104329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2025.104329
  11. Altıntaş, F. F. (2022). G7 Ülkelerinin siber güvenlik performanslarının analizi: Entropi tabanlı MABAC yöntemi ile bir uygulama. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1), 263-286. https://doi.org/10.28956/gbd.1109776
  12. Andrade, R., Ortiz, I., Cazares, M., Navas, G. ve Sánchez-Pazmiño, M. I. (2022). Defining cyber risk scenarios to evaluate IoT systems. Games, 14(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/g14010001
  13. Ansari, M. T. J., Al-Zahrani, F. A., Pandey, D. ve Agrawal, A. (2020). A fuzzy TOPSIS based analysis toward selection of effective security requirements engineering approach for trustworthy healthcare software development. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 20(1), 236. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01209-8
  14. Aycın, E., Cercı, M. ve Sonugelen, E. (2024). An evaluation of women’s human development level using multi criteria decision-making methods: a case study of OECD countries. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 58(4/2024), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/58.4.24.07
  15. Bodin, L. D., Gordon, L. A., Loeb, M. P. ve Wang, A. (2018). Cybersecurity insurance and risk-sharing. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 37(6), 527-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.10.004
  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcp3040031 BRICS portal. The BRICS chairmanship.18 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://infobrics.org/ adresinden edinilmiştir.
  17. Bruggemann, R., Koppatz, P., Scholl, M. ve Schuktomow, R. (2022). Global cybersecurity index (GCI) and the role of its 5 pillars. Social Indicators Research, 159(1), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02739-y
  18. Candan, G. ve Toklu, M. C. (2022). Evaluating security performances of EU countries in the context of sustainable development using fuzzy SMART and ARAS approaches. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(1), 1645-1671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02779-5
  19. Catota, F. E., Morgan, M. G. ve Sicker, D. C. (2019). Cybersecurity education in a developing nation: the Ecuadorian environment. Journal of Cybersecurity, 5(1), tyz001. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyz001
  20. Cisco. (2024). 2024 Cisco cybersecurity readiness index. 07 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://newsroom.cisco.com/c/r/newsroom/en/us/a/y2024/m03/cybersecurity-readiness-index-2024.html#methodology adresinden edinilmiştir.
  21. Craigen, D., Diakun-Thibault, N. ve Purse, R. (2014). Defining cybersecurity. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(10), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/835
  22. Çelebi Demirarslan, P., Sönmez Çakır, F. ve Akansel, I. (2024). Ranking the quality of life indexes by years in Asian countries using multi-criteria decision-making methods. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 8(3), 911-942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-024-00350-w
  23. Ecer, F. ve Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
  24. Ecer, F., Tanrıverdi, G., Yaşar, M. ve Görçün, Ö. F. (2025). Sustainable aviation fuel supplier evaluation for airlines through LOPCOW and MARCOS approaches with interval-valued fuzzy neutrosophic information. Journal of Air Transport Management, 123, 102705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2024.102705
  25. e-Governance Academy Foundation. (2025). National cyber security index-NCSI. 07 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://ncsi.ega.ee/ adresinden edinilmiştir.
  26. ENISA. (2024). ENISA threat landscape 2024. 07 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisa-threat-landscape-2024 adresinden edinilmiştir.
  27. Ersoy, N. (2023). BIST perakende ticaret sektöründe LOPCOW-RSMVC modeli ile performans ölçümü. Sosyoekonomi, 31(57), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2023.03.20
  28. Ghoushchi, S. J., Ab Rahman, M. N. A., Soltanzadeh, M., Rafique, M. Z., Hernadewita, H., Marangalo, F. Y. ve Ismail, A. R. (2023). Assessing sustainable passenger transportation systems to address climate change based on MCDM methods in an uncertain environment. Sustainability, 15(4), 3558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043558
  29. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M., Demir, G., Puska, A. ve Pamucar, D. (2025). A hybrid framework for assessing Pakistani commercial bank performance using multi-criteria decision-making. Financial Innovation, 11(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00728-x
  30. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M. ve Moslem, S. (2024). A hybrid MCDM framework for assessing urban competitiveness: A case study of European cities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 96, 102109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102109
  31. ITU. (2024a). Global cybersecurity index - ITU. 07 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://www.itu.int/hub/publication/d-hdb-gci-01-2024/ adresinden edinilmiştir.
  32. ITU. (2024b). Global cybersecurity index 2024 5th Edition. 06 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://www.itu.int/epublications/publication/global-cybersecurity-index-2024 adresinden edinilmiştir.
  33. Jamili, A., Imani Shamloo, J. ve Dargahi, F. (2024). Spatial analysis and integrated multi-criteria decision making methods; a model to evaluate justice in the distribution ff urban services in Tehran. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2024.2438184
  34. Ji, L., Zhang, D., Wang, Z., Liu, M., Sun, M., Zhang, H., Kraiem, N. ve Anjum, M. (2025). Paradigm shift in implementing smart technologies for machinery optimisation in manufacturing using decision support system. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 114, 526-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2024.11.106
  35. Jiang, M. ve Belli, L. (2025). Introduction: Contesting digital sovereignty: Untangling a complex and multifaceted concept. In M. Jiang ve L. Belli (Ed.), Digital Sovereignty in the BRICS Countries: How the Global South and Emerging Power Alliances Are Reshaping Digital Governance (ss. 1-38). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009531085.002
  36. Karbassi Yazdi, A., Tan, Y., Spulbar, C., Birau, R. ve Alfaro, J. (2022). An approach for supply chain management contract selection in the oil and gas industry: combination of uncertainty and multi-criteria decision-making methods. Mathematics, 10(18), 3230. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10183230
  37. Kaur, H., Gupta, M. ve Singh, S. P. (2024). Integrated model to optimize supplier selection and investments for cyber resilience in digital supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics, 275, 109338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109338
  38. Kostelić, K. (2025). TOPSIS-based framework for evaluating employee cybersecurity risk. Croatian operational research review, 16(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.17535/crorr.2025.0003
  39. Kumar, S., Arzaghi, E., Baalisampang, T., Abaei, M. M., Garaniya, V. ve Abbassi, R. (2024). A risk-based multi-criteria decision-making framework for offshore green hydrogen system developments: Pathways for utilizing existing and new infrastructure. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 46, 655-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.03.020
  40. Küpeli, M. ve Söğüt, E. (2024). Assessment of the cybersecurity efficiency of G20 countries using data envelopment analysis. 2024 17th International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology (ISCTürkiye), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCTrkiye64784.2024.10779233
  41. Mohammed Abdelkader, E., Zayed, T., El Fathali, H., Alfalah, G., Al-Sakkaf, A. ve Moselhi, O. (2023). An integrated multi-criteria decision making model for the assessment of public private partnerships in transportation projects. Mathematics, 11(16), 3559. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11163559
  42. Nelson, A. ve Wang, S. (2024). The importance of cybersecurity disclosures in customer relationships. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 35(3), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22695
  43. Noor, U., Anwar, Z., Altmann, J. ve Rashid, Z. (2020). Customer-oriented ranking of cyber threat intelligence service providers. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 41, 100976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100976
  44. Öztaş, T. ve Öztaş, G. Z. (2024). Innovation performance analysis of G20 countries: A novel integrated LOPCOW-MAIRCA MCDM approach including the covid-19 period. Verimlilik Dergisi, Productivity for Innovation (SI), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1320794
  45. Panigrahi, G. R., Sethy, P. K., Behera, S. K., Gupta, M., Alenizi, F. A., Suanpang, P. ve Nanthaamornphong, A. (2024). Analytical validation and integration of cic-bell-dns-exf-2021 dataset on security information and event management. IEEE Access, 12, 83043-83056. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3409413
  46. Polireddi, N. S. A. ve Sekhar, K. R. (2023). Improved fuzzy-based MCDM–TOPSIS model to find and prevent the financial system vulnerability and hazards in real time. Soft Computing, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08318-2
  47. Pourmadadkar, M., Lezzi, M. ve Ardebili, A. A. (2024). Investigating cyber risks in a surgical process for healthcare cyber resilience. 2024 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience (CSR), 575-580. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSR61664.2024.10679428
  48. Priyadarshini, I., Kumar, R., Sharma, R., Singh, P. K. ve Satapathy, S. C. (2021). Identifying cyber insecurities in trustworthy space and energy sector for smart grids. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 93, 107204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107204
  49. Proudfoot, J. G., Cram, W. A. ve Madnick, S. (2024). Weathering the storm: examining how organisations navigate the sea of cybersecurity regulations. European Journal of Information Systems, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2024.2345867
  50. Radulescu, C. Z., Radulescu, M., Vevera, A. V. ve Boncea, R. (2024). Extended group TOPSIS method with application for cybersecurity. 2024 10th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT), 1768-1773. https://doi.org/10.1109/CoDIT62066.2024.10708191
  51. Roshanravan, B., Kreuzer, O. P. ve Buckingham, A. (2025). BWM-MARCOS: A new hybrid MCDM approach for mineral potential modelling. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 269, 107639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2024.107639
  52. Shaikh, F. A. ve Siponen, M. (2024). Organizational learning from cybersecurity performance: effects on cybersecurity investment decisions. Information Systems Frontiers, 26(3), 1109-1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-023-10404-7
  53. Simic, V., Dabic-Miletic, S., Tirkolaee, E. B., Stević, Ž., Ala, A. ve Amirteimoori, A. (2023). Neutrosophic LOPCOW-ARAS model for prioritizing industry 4.0-based material handling technologies in smart and sustainable warehouse management systems. Applied Soft Computing, 143, 110400. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2023.110400
  54. Song, J. M., Wang, T., Yen, J.-C. ve Chen, Y.-H. (2024). Does cybersecurity maturity level assurance improve cybersecurity risk management in supply chains? International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 54, 100695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2024.100695
  55. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A. ve Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
  56. Sukumar, A., Mahdiraji, H. A. ve Jafari‐Sadeghi, V. (2023). Cyber risk assessment in small and medium‐sized enterprises: A multilevel decision‐making approach for small e‐tailors. Risk Analysis, 43(10), 2082-2098. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14092
  57. Tanaji, B. A. ve Roychowdhury, S. (2024). BWM integrated VIKOR method using Neutrosophic fuzzy sets for cybersecurity risk assessment of connected and autonomous vehicles. Applied Soft Computing, 159, 111628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111628
  58. Tayebi, A., Abbasianjahromi, H. ve Aghakarimi, M. (2025). Using a hybrid method to assess the consequence of hazards on the project success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2023-0806
  59. T.C. Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı. (2024). Ulusal siber güvenlik stratejisi ve eylem planı (2024-2028) yayımlandı. 07 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://hgm.uab.gov.tr/duyurular/ulusal-siber-guvenlik-stratejisi-ve-eylem-plani-2024-2028-yayimlandi adresinden edinilmiştir.
  60. Torbacki, W. (2021). A hybrid MCDM model combining DANP and PROMETHEE II methods for the assessment of cybersecurity in industry 4.0. Sustainability, 13(16), 8833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168833
  61. Torkayesh, A. E. ve Torkayesh, S. E. (2021). Evaluation of information and communication technology development in G7 countries: An integrated MCDM approach. Technology in Society, 66, 101670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101670
  62. Tusher, H. M., Munim, Z. H., Notteboom, T. E., Kim, T. E. ve Nazir, S. (2022). Cyber Security Risk Assessment in Autonomous Shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 24(2), 208-227. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00214-0
  63. Türk Dil Kurumu (TDK). Güncel Türkçe sözlük. 07 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://sozluk.gov.tr/ adresinden edinilmiştir.
  64. Ulutaş, A., Balo, F. ve Topal, A. (2023). Identifying the most efficient natural fibre for common commercial building insulation materials with an integrated PSI, MEREC, LOPCOW and MCRAT model. Polymers, 15(6), 1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15061500
  65. Ulutaş, A., Topal, A., Görçün, Ö. F. ve Ecer, F. (2024). Evaluation of third-party logistics service providers for car manufacturing firms using a novel integrated grey LOPCOW-PSI-MACONT model. Expert Systems with Applications, 241, 122680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122680
  66. World Economic Forum. (2024). The global risks report 2024, 19th Edition. 07 Mart 2025 tarihinde www.weforum.org adresinden edinilmiştir.
  67. Yavuz, İ. (2024). Analysis of the financial performance of airline companies in star alliance in the period 2018-2022 using LOPCOW-TOPSIS methods. Ege Akademik Bakis (Ege Academic Review), 24(4), 531-562. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.20240404
  68. Yusif, S. ve Hafeez-Baig, A. (2021). A conceptual model for cybersecurity governance. Journal of Applied Security Research, 16(4), 490-513. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2021.1918995
  69. Zhang, D. (2025). Applying multi-criteria decision-making to text analysis for optimizing engineering knowledge management. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 117, 648-661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2025.01.028
  70. Zhang, P., Wei, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhu, Y. ve Zhang, H. (2024). Security evaluation of power communication coupling system for new power system. 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Power Systems (AIPS), 491-496. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIPS64124.2024.00107