Decision-Deck UMCDA-ML-2.0 Application
Rubis Best Choice Recommendation
XMCDA 2.0 encoding
Comment: produced by stringIO()
Author: digraphs Module (RB)
Version: saved from Python session
Content
Method data
Comment: Rubis best choice recommendation in XMCDA format.
Version: 1.0
Parameter |
Value |
Comment |
variant |
Rubis
|
|
valuationType |
bipolar
|
|
vetoType |
normal
|
|
List of Alternatives
Potential decision actions.
# |
Identifyer |
Name |
Comment |
1 |
a01 |
alternative 1 |
Once through |
2 |
a02 |
alternative 2 |
After cooling tower with natutal air flow |
3 |
a03 |
alternative 3 |
Half-closed cycle with fixed concentration factor and forced air flow |
4 |
a04 |
alternative 4 |
Half-closed cycle with fixed concentration factor and hybrid air flow |
5 |
a05 |
alternative 5 |
Half-closed cycle with fixed concentration factor and natural air flow |
6 |
a06 |
alternative 6 |
Half-closed cycle with variable concentration factor and natural air flow |
7 |
a07 |
alternative 7 |
Air condenser with forced air flow |
Rubis family of criteria.
# |
Identifyer |
Name |
Comment |
Weight |
Scale |
Thresholds |
direction |
min |
max |
indifference |
weak preference |
preference |
weak veto |
veto |
1 |
bi |
biological impact |
impact of the local ecosystem |
2.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
2 |
cost |
total costs |
Investment, running, maintenance and dismantling costs |
8.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
3 |
cs |
chemical spill |
release of traced of chemicals used for cleaning the system in the environment |
2.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
4 |
hi |
heat input |
impact of the heat release locally |
2.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
5 |
hp |
health of personnel |
health risks faced by the workers on the site |
1.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
6 |
hr |
health of residents |
health risks faced by residents living in the neighborhood of the site |
1.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
7 |
im |
im |
image of the site as perceved by the public |
1.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
8 |
no |
noise |
noise generated by the functioning of the cooling system |
1.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
9 |
sp |
safety of personnel |
risk of accidents at work faced by the personnel |
1.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
5.00
|
|
6.00
|
10 |
sr |
safety of residents |
risk of accidents faced by the residents and other persons in the neighborhood of the site |
1.00 |
max |
0.00 |
100.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
11 |
tm |
intake |
intake of matter from the environment which is not entirely restored to the environment in its initial state |
2.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
12 |
vi |
view |
harmonious visual integration in the landscape |
1.00 |
max |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.50
|
|
1.00
|
|
6.00
|
Rubis Performance Table
alternative |
bi |
cost |
cs |
hi |
hp |
hr |
im |
no |
sp |
sr |
tm |
vi |
a01 |
2.82 |
3.45 |
4.64 |
1.82 |
7.36 |
7.64 |
6.55 |
8.91 |
7.82 |
8.00 |
2.27 |
8.18 |
a02 |
4.00 |
0.47 |
4.64 |
4.09 |
5.09 |
6.45 |
3.09 |
5.73 |
5.64 |
6.45 |
2.64 |
3.36 |
a03 |
4.82 |
3.22 |
4.64 |
5.27 |
4.18 |
5.27 |
4.27 |
3.18 |
5.27 |
6.55 |
4.55 |
3.91 |
a04 |
5.00 |
1.52 |
4.64 |
5.18 |
4.55 |
5.73 |
4.91 |
3.45 |
5.36 |
6.45 |
5.09 |
4.27 |
a05 |
4.73 |
2.01 |
4.09 |
4.91 |
4.82 |
6.18 |
4.09 |
5.36 |
5.55 |
6.45 |
4.55 |
3.36 |
a06 |
4.45 |
2.00 |
5.36 |
4.64 |
3.91 |
5.45 |
4.27 |
3.27 |
5.18 |
6.55 |
4.64 |
3.82 |
a07 |
9.00 |
0.00 |
9.36 |
8.55 |
7.91 |
8.81 |
8.18 |
3.45 |
6.55 |
8.00 |
9.18 |
6.09 |
Ordinal Criteria Correlation Index
Comment: Generalisation of Kendall's τ to nested homogeneous semiorders.
correlation
relation |
bi |
cost |
cs |
hi |
hp |
hr |
im |
no |
sp |
sr |
tm |
vi |
bi |
1.00 |
-0.71 |
-0.38 |
0.71 |
-0.14 |
-0.19 |
0.00 |
-0.81 |
-0.43 |
0.05 |
0.29 |
-0.05 |
cost |
-0.71 |
1.00 |
-0.90 |
-0.62 |
-0.52 |
-0.43 |
-0.14 |
-0.33 |
-0.71 |
-0.33 |
-0.43 |
-0.33 |
cs |
-0.38 |
-0.90 |
1.00 |
-0.29 |
-0.43 |
-0.33 |
-0.33 |
-0.90 |
-0.62 |
-0.24 |
-0.33 |
-0.24 |
hi |
0.71 |
-0.62 |
-0.29 |
1.00 |
-0.24 |
-0.29 |
0.00 |
-0.90 |
-0.62 |
-0.14 |
0.29 |
-0.33 |
hp |
-0.14 |
-0.52 |
-0.43 |
-0.24 |
1.00 |
0.71 |
0.14 |
-0.14 |
-0.62 |
0.33 |
-0.48 |
0.24 |
hr |
-0.19 |
-0.43 |
-0.33 |
-0.29 |
0.71 |
1.00 |
0.14 |
0.05 |
-0.52 |
0.43 |
-0.33 |
0.33 |
im |
0.00 |
-0.14 |
-0.33 |
0.00 |
0.14 |
0.14 |
1.00 |
-0.43 |
-0.71 |
0.24 |
0.33 |
0.24 |
no |
-0.81 |
-0.33 |
-0.90 |
-0.90 |
-0.14 |
0.05 |
-0.43 |
1.00 |
-0.62 |
-0.14 |
-0.81 |
-0.05 |
sp |
-0.43 |
-0.71 |
-0.62 |
-0.62 |
-0.62 |
-0.52 |
-0.71 |
-0.62 |
1.00 |
-0.05 |
-0.62 |
-0.43 |
sr |
0.05 |
-0.33 |
-0.24 |
-0.14 |
0.33 |
0.43 |
0.24 |
-0.14 |
-0.05 |
1.00 |
-0.19 |
0.52 |
tm |
0.29 |
-0.43 |
-0.33 |
0.29 |
-0.48 |
-0.33 |
0.33 |
-0.81 |
-0.62 |
-0.19 |
1.00 |
-0.19 |
vi |
-0.05 |
-0.33 |
-0.24 |
-0.33 |
0.24 |
0.33 |
0.24 |
-0.05 |
-0.43 |
0.52 |
-0.19 |
1.00 |
Principal component analysis of the criteria correlation index
( Black arrows indicate outranking situations supported by a criteria coalition
of positive significance, i.e. gathering more than 50% of the global criteria significance weights.
Empty arrow heads indicate an indeterminate outranking situation.)
Bipolar-valued Outranking Relation
Comment: Rubis Choice Recommendation Relation
Valuation Domain
Comment: Significance degrees
Maximum |
100 |
Median |
0 |
Minimum |
-100 |
Valued Adjacency Table
Comment: Pairwise outranking significance degrees in the range: -100.00 to 100.00
|
a01 |
a02 |
a03 |
a04 |
a05 |
a06 |
a07 |
a01 |
0.00 |
65.22 |
47.83 |
47.83 |
47.83 |
39.13 |
0.00 |
a02 |
-26.09 |
0.00 |
-26.09 |
-34.78 |
-13.04 |
-13.04 |
-100.00 |
a03 |
43.48 |
78.26 |
0.00 |
86.96 |
82.61 |
91.30 |
-17.39 |
a04 |
-26.09 |
82.61 |
30.43 |
0.00 |
91.30 |
91.30 |
-17.39 |
a05 |
-34.78 |
91.30 |
17.39 |
73.91 |
0.00 |
82.61 |
-17.39 |
a06 |
-26.09 |
73.91 |
21.74 |
73.91 |
82.61 |
0.00 |
-17.39 |
a07 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
30.43 |
30.43 |
21.74 |
30.43 |
0.00 |
Vetoes
Effective and potential veto situations
(The concordance degree of an outranking statement (an arc) results from the
difference between the significance (the sum of weights) of the coalition of criteria
in favour and the significance of the coalition of criteria in disfavour of this statement.)
- Veto against a02 outranks
a07 (
concordance degree:-17.39)
criterion |
performance difference |
status |
characteristic |
tm |
-6.54 |
potential veto |
1.00 |
- Veto against a01 outranks
a07 (
concordance degree:8.70)
criterion |
performance difference |
status |
characteristic |
bi |
-6.18 |
effective veto |
1.00 |
tm |
-6.91 |
effective veto |
1.00 |
hi |
-6.73 |
effective veto |
1.00 |
Rubis Choice Recommendation
Comment: In decreasing order of determinateness. All values expressed in %.
# |
Choice set |
Determinateness |
Outrankingness |
Outrankedness |
Comment |
1 |
{
a07,
}
|
60.87 |
60.87 |
0.00 |
Best choice |
Potentially Bad Choices
Comment: All values expressed in %.
# |
Choice set |
Determinateness |
Outrankedness |
Outrankingness |
Comment |
1 |
{
a02,
}
|
82.61 |
82.61 |
0.00 |
Bad choice |
Content
Bisdorff R., Meyer P., Roubens M., Rubis: A new methodology for the choice decision problem. 4OR,
A Quarterly Journal of Operational Research, Springer (2008), Vol 6 Number 2 pp. 143-165, DOI 10.1007/s10288-007-0045-5.
PDF preprint version.
Online documentation: Decision Deck Project
Rubis XSL Transformation to HTML R. Bisdorff, $Revision: 1.6 $
XMCDA 2.0 Schema P. Meyer and Th. Veneziano 2009
Copyright © 2009 DECISION DECK Consortium