Decision-Deck UMCDA-ML-2.0 Application

Rubis Best Choice Recommendation

XMCDA 2.0 encoding

Version: saved from Python session
Author: digraphs Module (RB)
Comment: produced by stringIO()

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 A Avenue de la Liberté High standing city centre
2 B Bonnevoie Industrial environment
3 C Cessange suburb location
4 D Dommeldange Industrial suburb environment
5 E Esch-Belval New and ambitious urbanization far from the city
6 F Fentange Out in the countryside
7 G Avenue de la Gare Main town shopping aera

Rubis family of criteria.

# Identifyer Name Comment Weight Scale Thresholds
direction min max indifference weak preference preference weak veto veto
1 C Costs rent, charges and cleaning 3.00 min 0.00 50000.00 1000.00 2500.00 35000.00
2 Cf Comfort quality of the office equipments 1.00 max 0.00 100.00 10.00 20.00 80.00
3 P Parking available parking facilities 1.00 max 0.00 100.00 10.00 20.00 80.00
4 Pr Proximity distance from a town center 1.00 max 0.00 100.00 10.00 20.00 80.00
5 St Standing image et presentation 1.00 max 0.00 100.00 10.00 20.00 80.00
6 V Visibility circulation of potential customers 1.00 max 0.00 100.00 10.00 20.00 80.00
7 W Working space in square meters 1.00 max 0.00 100.00 10.00 20.00 80.00

Rubis Performance Table

alternative C Cf P Pr St V W
A 35000.00 0.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 60.00 75.00
B 17800.00 100.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 80.00 30.00
C 6700.00 10.00 100.00 80.00 0.00 70.00 0.00
D 14100.00 30.00 90.00 70.00 30.00 50.00 55.00
E 34800.00 60.00 70.00 40.00 90.00 60.00 100.00
F 18600.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00
G 12000.00 50.00 80.00 60.00 20.00 100.00 50.00

Ordinal Criteria Correlation Index

Comment: Generalisation of Kendall's τ to nested homogeneous semiorders.
correlation
relation C Cf P Pr St V W
C 1.00 -0.52 -0.29 -0.10 -0.81 -0.10 -0.62
Cf -0.52 1.00 -0.71 -0.90 -0.38 -0.33 -0.43
P -0.29 -0.71 1.00 0.48 -0.57 -0.33 -0.24
Pr -0.10 -0.90 0.48 1.00 -0.33 -0.43 0.10
St -0.81 -0.38 -0.57 -0.33 1.00 -0.52 0.10
V -0.10 -0.33 -0.33 -0.43 -0.52 1.00 -0.48
W -0.62 -0.43 -0.24 0.10 0.10 -0.48 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
A B C D E F G
A 0.00 0.00 100.00 11.11 55.56 0.00 0.00
B 0.00 0.00 0.00 -55.56 0.00 100.00 -55.56
C 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 100.00 11.11
D 33.33 55.56 11.11 0.00 33.33 100.00 22.22
E 55.56 0.00 0.00 -11.11 0.00 100.00 -11.11
F 0.00 -100.00 -100.00 -100.00 -100.00 0.00 -100.00
G 0.00 77.78 -11.11 100.00 55.56 100.00 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 F outranks G ( concordance degree:-55.56)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    V -100.00 potential veto 1.00
    P -80.00 potential veto 1.00

  2. Veto against F outranks D ( concordance degree:-55.56)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    P -90.00 potential veto 1.00

  3. Veto against F outranks E ( concordance degree:-11.11)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    W -100.00 potential veto 1.00

  4. Veto against F outranks B ( concordance degree:-11.11)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    V -80.00 potential veto 1.00

  5. Veto against F outranks C ( concordance degree:-33.33)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    P -100.00 potential veto 1.00
    Pr -80.00 potential veto 1.00

  6. Veto against F outranks A ( concordance degree:-11.11)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    P -90.00 potential veto 1.00
    Pr -100.00 potential veto 1.00

  7. Veto against G outranks A ( concordance degree:33.33)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    St -80.00 effective veto 1.00

  8. Veto against B outranks E ( concordance degree:11.11)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    St -80.00 effective veto 1.00

  9. Veto against B outranks A ( concordance degree:11.11)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    St -90.00 effective veto 1.00
    Pr -80.00 effective veto 1.00

  10. Veto against C outranks E ( concordance degree:33.33)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    St -90.00 effective veto 1.00
    W -100.00 effective veto 1.00

  11. Veto against C outranks B ( concordance degree:55.56)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    Cf -90.00 effective veto 1.00

  12. Veto against C outranks A ( concordance degree:33.33)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    St -100.00 effective veto 1.00

  13. Veto against A outranks F ( concordance degree:11.11)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    Cf -80.00 effective veto 1.00

  14. Veto against A outranks B ( concordance degree:-11.11)
    criterion performance difference status characteristic
    Cf -100.00 potential veto 1.00

Rubis Choice Recommendation

Comment: In decreasing order of determinateness. All values expressed in %.
# Choice set Determinateness Outrankingness Outrankedness Comment
1 { D, } 55.56 55.56 0.00 Best choice
2 { E, B, C, } 50.00 55.56 0.00 Potential good choice
3 { G, A, } 50.00 77.78 50.00 Potential good choice

Potentially Bad Choices

Comment: All values expressed in %.
# Choice set Determinateness Outrankedness Outrankingness Comment
1 { F, A, } 50.00 100.00 50.00 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