Methodological Advances in Sensitivity Analysis and Validation for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods: A Comprehensive Review with Advancements, Applications, and Future Directions

Sushil Kumar Sahoo; Dwarikanath  Choudhury; Prasant Ranjan Dhal; Supriya  Sahu; Sudhakar Majhi; Ipsita Dhar

doi:10.67334/cds31202645

Authors

Sushil Kumar Sahoo 1) Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang, Dhenkanal, Odisha, 759146, India; 2) Biju Patnaik University of Technology Rourkela 769015 Odisha, India Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8551-7353
Dwarikanath Choudhury Great Lakes Institute of Management, Gurgaon Campus, Delhi NCR, 122413, Haryana, India Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0977-5155
Prasant Ranjan Dhal 1) Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang, Dhenkanal, Odisha, 759146, India; 2) Biju Patnaik University of Technology Rourkela 769015 Odisha, India Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7402-2187
Supriya Sahu 1) Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang, Dhenkanal, Odisha, 759146, India; 2) Biju Patnaik University of Technology Rourkela 769015 Odisha, India Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1823-9568
Sudhakar Majhi 1) Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang, Dhenkanal, Odisha, 759146, India; 2) Biju Patnaik University of Technology Rourkela 769015 Odisha, India Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2213-8791
Ipsita Dhar 1) Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang, Dhenkanal, Odisha, 759146, India; 2) Biju Patnaik University of Technology Rourkela 769015 Odisha, India Author https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4086-8137

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.67334/cds31202645

Keywords:

Multi-Criteria Decision-Making, MCDM, MCDA, Sensitivity Analysis, Robustness Analysis, Ranking Stability, Validation, Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive review of methodological advances in sensitivity analysis and validation of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines was conducted using the Scopus database, covering the period from 2000 to 2026. A total of 743 records were identified using the defined Scopus search string. Publication trends, citation patterns, leading authors, journals, institutions, countries, and keyword structures were examined through bibliometric analysis, while sensitivity analysis and validation approaches were systematically classified and examined using thematic analysis. The findings reveal a broad range of sensitivity analysis approaches, including deterministic, probabilistic, simulation-based, fuzzy, interval-based, and hybrid techniques. Validation approaches were classified into internal, comparative, statistical, expert-based, and external validation techniques. The bibliometric results show that India was the most productive country, with 167 published papers, while Pamučar recorded the highest number of citations among the analysed authors, with 1,004 citations. The review also highlights the increasing methodological diversity of sensitivity and validation procedures used to evaluate the robustness and reliability of MCDM results. Based on the identified methodological patterns, the study proposes an integrated framework linking uncertainty, sensitivity analysis, robustness assessment, ranking stability, and validation. The proposed framework provides a structured basis for evaluating the reliability of MCDM results and contributes to improving the credibility, transparency, reproducibility, and methodological rigor of MCDM-based decision-making.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Sałabun, W., Wątróbski, J., & Shekhovtsov, A. (2020). Are MCDA methods benchmarkable? a comparative study of topsis, vikor, copras, and promethee ii methods. Symmetry, 12(9), 1549. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091549 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091549

Ullah, K., Rehman, N., & Ali, A. (2026). Business-oriented stock market decision analysis using circular complex picture fuzzy sets and advanced MCDM based on the CRITIC–WASPAS method. Journal of Contemporary Decision Science, 2(1), 1-54. https://doi.org/10.67334/cds2120268 DOI: https://doi.org/10.67334/cds2120268

Boz, E., Çalık, A., Alshalfan, A., & Tirkolaee, E. B. (2026). Advancements of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approaches Integrated with Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Decision Making Advances, 4(1), 257-289. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma412026189 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/dma412026189

Katrancı, A., Kundakcı, N., & Arman, K. (2026). Fuzzy SIWEC and Fuzzy RAWEC methods for sustainable waste disposal technology selection. Spectrum of Operational Research, 3(1), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202633 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202633

Sarkar, A., & Goswami, S. S. (2027). A comprehensive review: The novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). Spectrum of Operational Research, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor202781 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sor202781

Guliyev, J., & Deveci, M. (2026). A Stochastic Approach to Criterion Weighting in Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Entropy-Based Monte Carlo Modeling. Measurement: Digitalization, 7, 100043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meadig.2026.100043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meadig.2026.100043

Yalçın, G. C., Özyürek, H., & Dişçi, C. (2026). Benchmarking the Financial Performance of the Corporate Governance Index under Borsa Istanbul Companies Using SITDE and MABAC Framework. Journal of Contemporary Decision Science, 2(1), 169-193. https://doi.org/10.67334/cds21202614 DOI: https://doi.org/10.67334/cds21202614

Sarkar, A., Goswami, S. S., & Gupta, K. K. (2027). Sensitivity Analysis and Validation in MCDM Methods: A Comprehensive Review with Advancements, Applications, and Future Directions. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap41202769 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap41202769

Tahir, M., & Shahid, M. I. (2026). An intelligent industry 5.0 logistics decision system: circular supply chain management with fermatean neutrosophic hypersoft sets and machine learning. Journal of Contemporary Decision Science, 2(1), 260-286. https://doi.org/10.67334/cds21202618 DOI: https://doi.org/10.67334/cds21202618

Khan, H. U., & Ali, Y. (2026). Assessment framework for authentication algorithms in IoT-driven transportation systems and vehicle road corporation systems using hybrid MCDM methodology. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 101955. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cstp.2026.101955 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2026.101955

Lin, M., & Mi, G. (2026). A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Method for Interactive Interface Layouts in Smart Digital Museums Based on RANCOM–LOPCOW–TOPSIS. Applied Sciences, 16(15), 7747. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16157747 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app16157747

Sahoo, S. K., Choudhury, B. B., Dhal, P. R., & Hanspal, M. S. (2025). A comprehensive review of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) toward sustainable renewable energy development. Spectrum of Operational Research, 2(1), 309-325. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor21202527 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sor21202527

Jameel, T., Yasin, Y., & Riaz, M. (2026). An integrated hybrid MCDM framework for renewable energy prioritization in sustainable development. Spectrum of decision making and applications, 3(1), 124-150. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap31202640 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap31202640

Saaty, T. L. (1994). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS publications.

Triantaphyllou, E., & Sánchez, A. (1997). A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi‐criteria decision‐making methods. Decision sciences, 28(1), 151-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x

Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. John Wiley & Sons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118644898

Więckowski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2023). Sensitivity analysis approaches in multi-criteria decision analysis: A systematic review. Applied Soft Computing, 148, 110915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110915 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110915

Demir, G., Chatterjee, P., & Pamucar, D. (2024). Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis. Expert systems with applications, 237, 121660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121660 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121660

Sahoo, S. K., & Goswami, S. S. (2023). A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision making advances, 1(1), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma1120237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/dma1120237

Markatos, D. N., Malefaki, S., & Pantelakis, S. G. (2023). Sensitivity analysis of a hybrid MCDM model for sustainability assessment—an example from the aviation industry. Aerospace, 10(4), 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10040385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10040385

Wolters, W. T. M., & Mareschal, B. (1995). Novel types of sensitivity analysis for additive MCDM methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 81(2), 281-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)E0343-V DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)E0343-V

Yazdani, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Ignatius, J., & Abad, M. D. (2016). Sensitivity analysis in MADM methods: Application of material selection. Engineering Economics, 27(4), 382-391. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.27.4.14005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.27.4.14005

Boukrouh, I., Tayalati, F., & Azmani, A. (2024). A comprehensive framework for supplier selection: using subjective, objective, and hybrid multi-criteria decision-making techniques with sensitivity analysis. IEEE Access, 12, 145550-145569. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3462348 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3462348

Ayyildiz, E. (2023). Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-based green supply chain resilience evaluation methodology in post COVID-19 era. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(15), 42476-42494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16972-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16972-y

Więckowski, J., Wątróbski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2024). Inaccuracies in expert judgment: Comparative analysis of RANCOM and AHP methods in housing location selection problem. IEEE Access, 12, 142083-142100. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3443451. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3443451 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3443451

Brunelli, M., Canal, L., & Fedrizzi, M. (2013). Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: a numerical study. Annals of Operations Research, 211(1), 493-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1329-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1329-0

Ramírez-Olivares, E., Robles, J. A., & Miranda, T. B. (2026). Prioritization of Critical Sustainability Factors in Medium-Scale Mining: The Coquimbo Region Case. Sustainability, 18(14), 7314. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18147314 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su18147314

Memis, S., & Yildiz, R. O. (2026). Green human resource management: a hybrid soft decision-making approach. Management Decision, 1-58. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2025-1700 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2025-1700

Sahoo, S. K., Choudhury, B. B., Dhal, P. R., Sahu, S., Majhi, S., & Dhar, I. (2026). Artificial Intelligence in Open Innovation and Project Management: A Systematic Literature Review of Technologies, Applications, and Future Research Directions. Applied Research Advances, 2(1), 199-224. https://doi.org/10.65069/ara21202629 DOI: https://doi.org/10.65069/ara21202629

Kim, A. H., Feingold, C. L., Kotlier, J. L., Lin, E. H., Fathi, A., Agarwalla, A., & Liu, J. N. (2026). Appraisal of the Presence of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Regarding Free Bone Block Procedures for Glenohumeral Instability. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(1), 199-207. https://doi.org/10.1177/036354652513380 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465251338079

Lyu, P., Liu, X., & Yao, T. (2026). A bibliometric analysis of literature on bibliometrics in recent half-century. Journal of Information Science, 52(2), 324-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231191233 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231191233

Özdemir, Ö. (2026). The evolution, intellectual structure, and developmental trends of global mental health nursing research: A bibliometric analysis (2015–2025). Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 152055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2026.152055 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2026.152055

Özekenci, E. K., Onat, K. T., & Pamucar, D. (2026). A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of objective weighting methods in multi-criterion decision-making. Management Science Advances, 3(1), 246-265. https://doi.org/10.31181/msa31202645 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/msa31202645

Bhattacharjee, S. (2026). A Novel Multi Criteria Decision Framework for Modeling Trust and Loyalty in Social Media Marketing Ecosystems. Applied Decision Analytics, 2(1), 352-370. https://doi.org/10.66972/ada21202629 DOI: https://doi.org/10.66972/ada21202629

Wang, T., He, J., Yan, W., Chen, K., Zhang, X., Zhang, N., & Liang, W. (2026). Artificial intelligence in primary health care: A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2015 to 2024. Digital Health, 12, 20552076251411631. https://doi.org/10.1177/205520762514116 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251411631

Ivezić, I., Hrustek, N. Ž., & Su, Y. (2026). Analytical DEA-MACBETH-OPA Approach for Selecting the Location of a Student Apartment. Applied Decision Analytics, 2(1), 371-389. https://doi.org/10.66972/ada21202630 DOI: https://doi.org/10.66972/ada21202630

Ravichandran, K. S. (2025). Variance Measure in Decision-Making Process: An Interpretation. Management Science Advances, 2(1), 282-287. https://doi.org/10.31181/msa21202519 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/msa21202519

Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, R., Sallam, K., & Elhoseny, M. (2020). A novel decision-making model for sustainable supply chain finance under uncertainty environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269, 122324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122324 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122324

Kitila, L. G., Duc, E., Durieux, S., & Taddese, G. A. (2026). An integrated fuzzy AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS approach for multi-criteria decision-making framework in sustainable manufacturing process selection. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 142(1-2), 559-583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-025-16881-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-025-16881-1

Ranjgar, B., Niccolai, A., & Leva, S. (2026). Solar PV site selection using GIS-MCDM: A comprehensive approach with spatially explicit collinearity and sensitivity analyses. Renewable Energy, 270, 125873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2026.125873 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2026.125873

Anu, P. S., & Arulselvam, A. (2026). An Enhanced Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model Using Prospect Theory Under Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Quadri-Partitioned Neutrosophic Soft Set Environment. Journal of the Indonesian Mathematical Society, 32(2), 2226-2226. https://doi.org/10.22342/jims.v32i2.2226 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22342/jims.v32i2.2226

Mukhametzyanov, I. (2021). Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), 76-105. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402076i DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402076i

O’Shea, R., Deeney, P., Triantaphyllou, E., Diaz-Balteiro, L., & Tarim, S. A. (2026). Weight stability intervals for multi-criteria decision analysis using the weighted sum model. Expert Systems with Applications, 296, 128460 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128460 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128460

Mazurek, J., & Strzałka, D. (2022). On the Monte Carlo weights in multiple criteria decision analysis. PLoS One, 17(10), e0268950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268950 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268950

Cajot, S., Schüler, N., Peter, M., Koch, A., & Maréchal, F. (2019). Interactive optimization with parallel coordinates: exploring multidimensional spaces for decision support. Frontiers in ICT, 5, 32. https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2018.00032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2018.00032

Abbasi, S. (2026). A robust multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable recycling of NCM lithium-ion battery cathodes under uncertainty and policy scenarios. Results in Engineering, 30, 110015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2026.110015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2026.110015

Maden, A. (2025). Low-Carbon Supplier Selection Using a Scenario-Based Integrated FCM-EDAS Approach: A Textile Company Case Study: A. Maden: Low-Carbon Supplier Selection Using a Scenario-Based Integrated FCM-EDAS Approach. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 28(5), 1816-1835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-025-02049-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-025-02049-2

Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231

Bhattacharya, R. K., Chatterjee, N. D., & Das, K. (2020). Sub-basin prioritization for assessment of soil erosion susceptibility in Kangsabati, a plateau basin: a comparison between MCDM and SWAT models. Science of the Total Environment, 734, 139474. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139474 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139474

Mohammadi, M., & Rezaei, J. (2020). Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model. Omega, 96, 102075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.06.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.06.001

Kala, Z. (2020). Sensitivity analysis in probabilistic structural design: A comparison of selected techniques. Sustainability, 12(11), 4788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114788 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114788

Sun, C., Li, S., & Deng, Y. (2020). Determining weights in multi-criteria decision making based on negation of probability distribution under uncertain environment. Mathematics, 8(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8020191 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math8020191

Feizizadeh, B., & Blaschke, T. (2014). An uncertainty and sensitivity analysis approach for GIS-based multicriteria landslide susceptibility mapping. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 28(3), 610-638. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2013.869821 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2013.869821

Mukhametzyanov, I., & Pamucar, D. (2018). A sensitivity analysis in MCDM problems: A statistical approach. Decision making: applications in management and engineering, 1(2), 51-80. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1802050m DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1802050m

Gaona, À., Guisasola, A., & Baeza, J. A. (2025). An integrated TOPSIS framework with full-range weight sensitivity analysis for robust decision analysis. Decision Analytics Journal, 17, 100642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2025.100642 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2025.100642

Fengmin, L., Dengfeng, W., Ying, X., Zihao, M., & Jing, C. (2025). Classification, selection of MCDM methods and robust decision-making in multidisciplinary design optimization of automotive structures. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 68(11), 232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-025-04150-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-025-04150-4

Pala, O. (2026). A Framework to Select Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods for Either Ranking or Choosing Problem. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622026500471 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622026500471

Nazarov, A. (2025). Development of a decision support methodology for optimizing ROI in project management. Technology audit and production reserves, 2(2(82)), 58-65. https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2025.326385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2025.326385

Paradowski, B. (2025). Towards robust objective decision-making: sensitivity analysis and comparative evaluation of the EORS approach. Procedia Computer Science, 270, 6223-6232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.10.092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.10.092

Paradowski, B., Więckowski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2024). PySensMCDA: A novel tool for sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria problems. SoftwareX, 27, 101746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2024.101746 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2024.101746

Hassan, I., Alhamrouni, I., & Azhan, N. H. (2023). A CRITIC–TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making approach for optimum site selection for solar PV farm. Energies, 16(10), 4245. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104245 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104245

Ali, J., Popa, I. L., & Al-Kenani, A. N. (2026). Entropy-Based Multi-attribute Decision Analysis with Hamacher Operators for Water Resource Management Challenges. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-026-02265-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-026-02265-4

Mosadeghi, R., Warnken, J., Tomlinson, R., & Mirfenderesk, H. (2013). Uncertainty analysis in the application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in Australian strategic environmental decisions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(8), 1097-1124. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.717886 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.717886

Liu, X., & Liu, Y. (2024). Sensitivity analysis of the parameters for preference functions and rank reversal analysis in the PROMETHEE II method. Omega, 128, 103116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2024.103116 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2024.103116

Nabavi, S. R., Wang, Z., & Rangaiah, G. P. (2023). Sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for engineering applications. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 62(17), 6707-6722. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c04270 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c04270

Li, Y., He, X., Martinez, L., Zhang, J., Wang, D., & Liu, X. A. (2024). Comparative analysis of three categories of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 238, 121824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121824 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121824

Więckowski, J., Białoń, P., & Sałabun, W. (2024). Comparative sensitivity analysis of single and multiple modifications in multi-criteria decision analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 246, 91-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.231

Bonakdari, H., Khazaei, M., Gholian-Jouybari, F., & Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. (2025). Sustainable wastewater-to-hydrogen systems in Canada: A scenario-based decision support analysis. Renewable Energy, 256, 124308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.124308 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.124308

Azzini, I., & Munda, G. (2025). Sensitivity and Robustness Analyses in Social Multi‐Criteria Evaluation of Public Policies. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 32(1), e70006. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.70006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.70006

Purwanto, C., Ats-Tsauri, M. I., Syahliantina, A., Azizah, G. F., & Pratiwi, C. D. (2026). A Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Automated Storage System Selection in the Warehousing Industry Using AHP-TOPSIS. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary, 6(1), 48-65. https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v6i1.1929 DOI: https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v6i1.1929

Özkurt, P. (2026). A scenario-robust intuitionistic fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS model for sustainable healthcare waste treatment selection: Evidence from Türkiye. Sustainability, 18(3), 1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18031167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su18031167

Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Nemati, A. (2026). An Assessment of Indifference Threshold Values to Achieve Full Objective Indifference Threshold-Based Attribute Ratio Analysis. Mathematics, 14(2), 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/math14020235 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math14020235

Maliene, V., Dixon-Gough, R., & Malys, N. (2018). Dispersion of relative importance values contributes to the ranking uncertainty: Sensitivity analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision-Making methods. Applied Soft Computing, 67, 286-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.03.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.03.003

Więckowski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2025). Comparative sensitivity analysis in composite material selection: Evaluating OAT and COMSAM methods in multi-criteria decision-making. Spectrum of mechanical engineering and operational research, 2(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor21202524 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor21202524

Kassara, W. A., Hasan, B. F., & Zahi, B. R. (2026). A hybrid MCDM perspective on model selection for X-ray image classification: comparative insights from TOPSIS, VIKOR, and EDAS. OPSEARCH, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-026-01189-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-026-01189-9

Şengül, D., & Karahan, F. K. (2026). A Proportional Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP–EDAS Framework for Symmetric Risk Assessment in Automotive Assembly Lines: A 12-Failure-Mode PFMEA Study. Symmetry, 18(7), 1115. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym18071115 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym18071115

Guan, L., Abbasi, A., & Ryan, M. J. (2021). A simulation-based risk interdependency network model for project risk assessment. Decision Support Systems, 148, 113602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113602 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113602

Da Silva, L. B. L., Alencar, M. H., & de Almeida, A. T. (2022). Exploring global sensitivity analysis on a risk-based MCDM/A model to support urban adaptation policies against floods. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 73, 102898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102898 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102898

Dunke, F., & Nickel, S. (2026). Simulation-based multi-criteria decision making: an interactive method with a case study on infectious disease epidemics. Annals of Operations Research, 360(1), 67-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04321-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04321-8

Baležentis, T., & Streimikiene, D. (2017). Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation. Applied energy, 185, 862-871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.085 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.085

Ab Rahman, M. H., Mahmud, J., Jumaidin, R., & Rahman, S. M. A. (2025). Integrated CRITIC-TOPSIS and Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for optimal various natural fibre selection in sustainable building insulation composites to support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). ASEAN Journal of Science and Engineering, 5(2), 231-260. https://doi.org/10.17509/ajse.v5i2.85614 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/ajse.v5i2.85614

Valenzuela, U. M. (2026). An Evaluation of Production Plans Under Uncertainty in the Automotive Industry Using EDAS and Monte Carlo Simulation. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 16(2), 34517-34524. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.17868 DOI: https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.17868

Alvarez, D. A. (2009). Reduction of uncertainty using sensitivity analysis methods for infinite random sets of indexable type. International journal of approximate reasoning, 50(5), 750-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2009.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2009.02.002

Kaspar, K., & Kaliyaperumal, P. (2026). Single-valued neutrosophic sets for enhanced evaluation of IT roadmaps: a hybrid neutrosophic multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model for the IT industry. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 17(1), 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-025-02969-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-025-02969-0

Lebepe, P., & Mathaba, T. N. (2025). Enhancing energy resilience in enterprises: a multi-criteria approach. Sustainable Energy Research, 12(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-025-00148-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-025-00148-0

Ibrahim, S., Boukari, S., & Alaramma, K. S. (2026). An Improved Fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS Framework for Functional Requirements Selection and Rank-Reversal Mitigation. FUDMA Journal of Sciences, 10(15), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.33003/fjs-2026-1015-5617 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33003/fjs-2026-1015-5617

Ayyildiz, E., ERDOĞAN, M., & Gul, M. (2025). An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy framework for emergency response center location planning in industrial areas. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 52, 100813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2025.100813 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2025.100813

Wu, J. Z., & Tiao, P. J. (2018). A validation scheme for intelligent and effective multiple criteria decision-making. Applied Soft Computing, 68, 866-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.04.054 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.04.054

Baydaş, M., & Pamučar, D. (2022). Determining objective characteristics of MCDM methods under uncertainty: an exploration study with financial data. Mathematics, 10(7), 1115. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10071115 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math10071115

Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48(1), 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I

Cinelli, M., Kadziński, M., Gonzalez, M., & Słowiński, R. (2020). How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega, 96, 102261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102261 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102261

Ganji, A., Maier, H. R., & Dandy, G. C. (2016). A modified Sobol′ sensitivity analysis method for decision-making in environmental problems. Environmental Modelling & Software, 75, 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.10.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.10.001

Więckowski, J., Kizielewicz, B., Paradowski, B., & Sałabun, W. (2025). A robust framework for benchmarking MCDA methods: Sensitivity, stability, and method selection decision support. Applied Soft Computing, 187, 114335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.114335 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.114335

Duško, T., & Bozanic, D. (2023). Optimizing military decision-making: Application of the FUCOM–EWAA–COPRAS-G MCDM model. Acadlore Trans. Appl Math. Stat, 1(3), 148-160. https: //doi.org/10.56578/atams010303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56578/atams010303

Belton, V., & Stewart, T. (2012). Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4

Baydaş, M., Eren, T., Stević, Ž., Starčević, V., & Parlakkaya, R. (2023). Proposal for an objective binary benchmarking framework that validates each other for comparing MCDM methods through data analytics. PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1350. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1350 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1350

Spearman, C. (1987). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American journal of psychology, 100(3/4), 441-471. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422689 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1422689

Kendall, M. G. (1938). A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika, 30(1-2), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81

Emerson, R. W. (2015). Causation and Pearson's correlation coefficient. Journal of visual impairment & blindness, 109(3), 242-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X151090031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1510900311

Osmond, R., Mollahoseini, Z., Singh, J., Gautam, A., Seethaler, R., Golovin, K., & Milani, A. S. (2021). A group multicriteria decision making with ANOVA to select optimum parameters of drilling flax fibre composites: a case study. Composites Part C: Open Access, 5, 100156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2021.100156 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2021.100156

Neyman, J. (1937). Outline of a theory of statistical estimation based on the classical theory of probability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 236(767), 333-380. https://www.jstor.org/stable/91337 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1937.0005

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

Mombeni, S., Darestani, S. A., & Shemami, N. H. (2023). Evaluation of the effective factors of unloading and loading goods in ports and the impact on the environment using the MCDM method. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(6), 14873-14883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23219-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23219-x

Elangovan, N., & Sundaravel, E. (2021). Method of preparing a document for survey instrument validation by experts. MethodsX, 8, 101326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101326 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101326

Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management science, 9(3), 458-467. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458

Toufighi, S. P., Tafazoli, R., Habibi, S., & Vang, J. (2026). A Delphi-informed fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for prioritizing sustainable development goals in industrial strategy: An application to the paint and coatings sector. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 51, 101091. https://doi.org/101091. 10.1016/j.jii.2026.101091 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2026.101091

Vinogradova, I., Podvezko, V., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2018). The recalculation of the weights of criteria in MCDM methods using the Bayes approach. Symmetry, 10(6), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10060205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10060205

Pevcin, P., & Debelak, K. (2026). Validating an AHP-based decision-support framework for AI adoption in public administration. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 24(2), 387-406. https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2026.27100 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2026.27100

Héberger, K. (2023). Selection of optimal validation methods for quantitative structure–activity relationships and applicability domain. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research, 34(5), 415-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2023.2214871 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2023.2214871

Singh, B., Grover, S., & Singh, V. (2017). An empirical study of benchmarking evaluation using MCDM in service industries. Managerial Auditing Journal, 32(2), 111-147. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2015-1274 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2015-1274

Alsalem, M. A., Zaidan, A. A., Zaidan, B. B., Albahri, O. S., Alamoodi, A. H., Albahri, A. S., Mohsin A. S., & Mohammed, K. I. (2019). Multiclass benchmarking framework for automated acute Leukaemia detection and classification based on BWM and group-VIKOR. Journal of medical systems, 43(7), 212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-019-1338-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-019-1338-x

Zaidan, B. B., Zaidan, A. A., Karim, H. A., & Ahmad, N. N. (2017). A new digital watermarking evaluation and benchmarking methodology using an external group of evaluators and multi‐criteria analysis based on ‘large‐scale data’. Software: Practice and Experience, 47(10), 1365-1392. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2465 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2465

Tomar, S., Jaiswal, A., Jaiswal, A. K., & Singh, L. K. (2026). Design and implementation of a benchmark-driven MCDM framework for eliminating rank reversal in decision-making. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-026-03411-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-026-03411-9

Goswami, M., Daultani, Y., Chan, F. T., & Pratap, S. (2022). Assessing the impact of supplier benchmarking in manufacturing value chains: an Intelligent decision support system for original equipment manufacturers. International Journal of Production Research, 60(24), 7411-7435. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2075811 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2075811

Kumar, P., Choudhary, M. P., & Mathur, A. K. (2026). Systematic review of conceptual and methodological frameworks for sustainable landfill site selection using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Waste Management & Research, 0734242X261435305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X261435305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X261435305

Eloudi, H., Reddad, H., Hssaisoune, M., Estrany, J., Krimissa, S., Elaloui, A., Namous, M, Ouatiki, H, Aboutaib, F, Ouayah, M, Jadoud, M, Edahbi, M, & Bouchaou, L. (2022). Assessing the performance of MCDM, statistical and machine learning ensemble models for gully sensitivity mapping in a semi-arid context. Geocarto International, 37(27), 17435-17464. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2129818 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2129818

Raheja, S., Obaidat, M. S., Kumar, M., Sadoun, B., & Bhushan, S. (2022). A hybrid MCDM framework and simulation analysis for the assessment of worst polluted cities. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 118, 102540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2022.102540 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2022.102540

Kalantar, B., Ueda, N., Idrees, M. O., Janizadeh, S., Ahmadi, K., & Shabani, F. (2020). Forest fire susceptibility prediction based on machine learning models with resampling algorithms on remote sensing data. Remote Sensing, 12(22), 3682. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223682 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223682