## 4 Results
### FAHP Procedure for Evaluating MLPs
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**C\({}_{1}\)** & **C\({}_{2}\)** & **C\({}_{3}\)** \\ \hline C\({}_{1}\) & (1, 1, 1) & (0.1432, 3.7143, 7) & (0.1253, 2.4422, 7) \\ C\({}_{2}\) & (0.1432, 2.4641, 7) & (1, 1, 1) & (0.1253, 0.1372, 0.1432) \\ C\({}_{3}\) & (0.1432, 4.3813, 8) & (7, 7.3333, 8) & (1, 1, 1) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Sum of rows and columns. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Linguistic Variables** & **Scale** & **Reciprocal Scale** & **Triangular Fuzzy Scale** & **Triangular Fuzzy** \\ \hline Equally Preferred & 1 & 1 & (1,1,1) & (1/1,1/1,1/1) \\ Equally to Moderately Preferred & 2 & 12 & 12,3 & (1/3,1/2,1) \\ Moderately Preferred & 3 & 1/3 & (2,3,4) & (1/4,1/3,1/2) \\ Moderately to Strongly Preferred & 4 & 14 & (3,4,5) & (1/5,1/4,1/3) \\ Strongly Preferred & 5 & 1/5 & (4,5,6) & (1/6,1/5,1/4) \\ Strongly to Very Strongly Preferred & 6 & 1/6 & (5,6,7) & (1/7,1/6,1/5) \\ Very strongly preferred & 7 & 1/7 & (6,7,8) & (1/8,1/7,1/6) \\ Very strong to Extremely preferred & 8 & 1/8 & (7,8,9) & (1/9,1/8,1/7) \\ Extremely preferred & 9 & 1/9 & (8,9,9) & (1/9,1/9,1/8) \\ Strongly to Very Strongly Preferred & 6 & 1/6 & (5,6,7) & (1/7,1/6,1/5) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Linguistic variables and scales. C1, C2, and C3 are the criteria selected based on occurrence, detection, and severity, respectively, and the matrices are evaluated using Equation (5). Equation (5) is used to sample the opinions of all three decision-makers to produce a single pairwise comparison matrix shown in Table 6. The pairwise comparison matrix takes into consideration the opinion of all three decision-makers depicted in Table 7.  
Equation (12) is used to obtain the synthetic extent value given in Table 8 that resulted from Tables 9-11; the calculation involved is shown below:  
\[\text{SC}_{1}=(1.2684,\,7.2562,\,15)\,\,\otimes\,\,\left\{\frac{1}{40.1231} \left|\frac{1}{23.4172}\left|\frac{1}{20.6791}\right.\right\}\,\,=\,\,(0.0321, 0.3051,1.4142)\]  
\[\text{SC}_{2}=(1.2684,\,3.6012,\,8.1432)\,\,\otimes\,\,\left\{\frac{1}{40.1231} \left|\frac{1}{23.4172}\left|\frac{1}{20.6791}\right.\right\}\,\,=\,\,(0.0321, 0.1534,0.7622)\]  
\[\text{SC}_{3}=(8.1432,\,12.7141,\,17)\,\,\otimes\,\,\left\{\frac{1}{40.1231} \left|\frac{1}{23.4172}\left|\frac{1}{20.6791}\right.\right\}\,\,=\,\,(0.2032, 0.5021,1.5913)\] \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**EdX**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Khan Ac**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Doulingo**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Pluralsight**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Sololeam**} \\  & **S** & **O** & **D** & **R** & **S** & **O** & **D** & **R** & **S** & **O** & **D** & **R** & **S** & **O** & **D** & **R** & **S** & **O** & **D** & **R** & **S** & **O** & **D** & **R** \\ \hline Fault tolerance & 7 & 2 & 5 & 70 & 1 & 9 & 5 & 45 & 4 & 5 & 3 & 60 & 10 & 9 & 3 & 270 & 6 & 2 & 24 \\ Time behavior & 8 & 5 & 4 & 160 & 5 & 5 & 1 & 25 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 12 & 2 & 1 & 3 & 6 & 7 & 3 & 4 & 84 \\ Suitability & 3 & 2 & 4 & 24 & 2 & 4 & 2 & 16 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 6 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 4 & 5 & 2 & 5 & 50 \\ Understandability & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 6 & 3 & 2 & 5 & 30 & 4 & 2 & 9 & 72 \\ Learnability & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 24 & 3 & 1 & 4 & 12 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 6 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 6 \\ Operability & 2 & 2 & 3 & 12 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 6 & 1 & 7 & 10 & 70 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 \\ Attractiveness & 2 & 1 & 4 & 8 & 5 & 1 & 8 & 40 & 2 & 10 & 3 & 60 & 4 & 2 & 4 & 32 & 8 & 3 & 2 & 48 \\ Overall RPN & & 278 & & 158 & & & & 226 & & & 349 & & & & 286 & \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: S = severity, O = occurrence, D = Detection, R = Individual RPN per criteria and overall RPN is the RPN value of the MLP.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Synthetic extent value results for individual criteria.