## 4 Simulation Results and Discussion
### Case 2: Sensitivity Analysis with Criterion Variation Within \(\pm 10\%\)
#### 4.3.5 Scores Variation  
Table 22 presents the obtained score values for the three scenarios under consideration. Figures 12-14 visually compares these obtained satellite scores across the three scenarios with those of the initial case, respectively, for SD-TOPSIS, Entropy-TOPSIS, and Importance-TOPSIS. We observe that as the number of varied parameters increases from Scenario 1 to Scenario 4, significant variations in the scores are observed at different rates for each scenario and each TOPSIS algorithm. This indicates that the sensitivity of these algorithms to parameter changes is not uniform, with some algorithms demonstrating greater stability across scenarios while others show more pronounced fluctuations.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Seenarios**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**TOPSIS Variants**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Satellites**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Scenario 1} & SD-TOPSIS & 0.45 & 0.32 & 0.32 & 0.50 & 0.76 & 0.51 & 0.51 & 0.43 & 0.53 & 0.44 \\  & Entropy-TOPSIS & 0.42 & 0.26 & 0.27 & 0.52 & 0.74 & 0.48 & 0.53 & 0.39 & 0.56 & 0.46 \\  & Importance-TOPSIS & 0.46 & 0.30 & 0.30 & 0.49 & 0.76 & 0.50 & 0.50 & 0.44 & 0.52 & 0.43 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Scenario 2} & SD-TOPSIS & 0.46 & 0.27 & 0.28 & 0.49 & 0.75 & 0.50 & 0.53 & 0.38 & 0.53 & 0.43 \\  & Entropy-TOPSIS & 0.42 & 0.21 & 0.24 & 0.51 & 0.74 & 0.47 & 0.55 & 0.36 & 0.56 & 0.46 \\  & Importance-TOPSIS & 0.47 & 0.26 & 0.26 & 0.48 & 0.76 & 0.50 & 0.51 & 0.40 & 0.51 & 0.42 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Scenario 3} & SD-TOPSIS & 0.56 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.41 & 0.77 & 0.48 & 0.55 & 0.24 & 0.46 & 0.37 \\  & Entropy-TOPSIS & 0.57 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 0.38 & 0.78 & 0.45 & 0.54 & 0.23 & 0.44 & 0.35 \\  & Importance-TOPSIS & 0.55 & 0.20 & 0.19 & 0.42 & 0.77 & 0.49 & 0.55 & 0.24 & 0.46 & 0.38 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Scenario 4} & SD-TOPSIS & 0.59 & 0.22 & 0.20 & 0.38 & 0.76 & 0.50 & 0.60 & 0.21 & 0.48 & 0.35 \\  & Entropy-TOPSIS & 0.60 & 0.19 & 0.18 & 0.36 & 0.77 & 0.47 & 0.58 & 0.21 & 0.46 & 0.33 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Importance-TOPSIS & 0.58 & 0.23 & 0.21 & 0.39 & 0.76 & 0.51 & 0.59 & 0.21 & 0.48 & 0.36 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 21: Decision matrix of Scenario 4, for criterion variation within \(\pm\)10%.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Satellite ID**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Upload Speed**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Download Speed**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Ping [ms]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Packet Loss**} \\  & & **[Mbps]** & & **[Mbps]** & & **[\%]** \\ \hline
1 & 11.49 & 207.84 & 44.55 & 0.009 \\ \hline
2 & 12.08 & 209.2 & 65.80 & 0.168 \\ \hline
3 & 12.56 & 200.44 & 66.08 & 3.0528 \\ \hline
4 & 15.88 & 219.18 & 64.80 & 19.65 \\ \hline
5 & 14.94 & 222.93 & 46.36 & 0.0098 \\ \hline
6 & 13.97 & 233.57 & 55.41 & 3.4744 \\ \hline
7 & 15.66 & 192.05 & 54.75 & 1.152 \\ \hline
8 & 12.05 & 203.59 & 58.51 & 14.61 \\ \hline
9 & 17.02 & 181.23 & 65.19 & 0.4752 \\ \hline
10 & 15.66 & 213.01 & 67.58 & 18.66 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 22: Summary of the scores of the ten satellites in all four scenarios, for criterion variation within \(\pm\)10%.  
Figure 14: Satellites scores for the initial case and the four scenarios using Importance-TOPSIS, for criterion variation within \(\pm 10\%\).  
Figure 12: Satellites scores for the initial case and the four scenarios using SD-TOPSIS, for criterion variation within \(\pm 10\%\).  
Figure 13: Satellites scores for the initial case and the four scenarios using Entropy-TOPSIS, for criterion variation within \(\pm 10\%\).