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

See PDF graphic file for better image quality and zooming options (generated with R).

Significantly Concordant Outranking Graph

( 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.)

See PDF graphic file for better image quality and zooming options (generated with GraphViz).

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.)

  1. Veto against a02 outranks a07 ( concordance degree:-17.39)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    tm -6.54 potential veto 1.00

  2. 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


Notice

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