How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The evaluation of LLM-generated educational content can be formulated as a multi-criteria decision-making problem.
“Therefore, the evaluation of LLM-generated educational content can be formulated as a multi-criteria decision-making problem, where multiple criteria must be considered simultaneously [5][6][7].”
From An Integrated AHP–Fuzzy AHP Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Software Engineering Education (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 24 · Cited by 9,605
- Authors
- Saaty, T. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Saaty, Thomas L.
- ORCID
- Saaty, Thomas L.
- Venue
- European Journal of Operational Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1990-09
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-26
- ISSN
- 0377-2217 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2585206336
- Cited by
- 9,605
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 596 · 2025: 668 · 2024: 675 · 2023: 705 · 2022: 749 · 2021: 746 · 2020: 645 · 2019: 592 · 2018: 546 · 2017: 471 · 2016: 479 · 2015: 462 · 2014: 404 · 2013: 365 · 2012: 271
- FWCI
- 5.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Operational Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Strategic Planning and Analysis
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Decision Support System Applications
- Keywords
- analytic hierarchy process, multi-criteria decision making, hierarchy, pairwise comparison, measurement scales, decision theory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
