D2-Decision-Deck UMCDA-ML application
Valued Outranking Digraph in XMCDA format
Identifier: /var/rubisServerData/Solutions/outrankingDigraph-jp557vQFlVkUw95y
Name: rel_officeChoiceXMCDA.xml
Author: XMCDA 1.0 Rubis Server
Version: saved from Python
Content
Method data
Identifier: Rubis
Name: Rubis best choice method
Comment: Rubis best choice recommendation in XMCDA format.
Version: 1.0
| Parameter | Value |
| variant |
standard
|
| valuationType |
bipolar
|
List of Alternatives
Potential decision actions.
| # | Identifyer | Name | Comment |
| 1 | A | Avenue de la Liberté | No comment |
| 2 | B | Bonnevoie | No comment |
| 3 | C | Cessange | No comment |
| 4 | D | Dommeldange | No comment |
| 5 | E | Esch-Belval à | No comment |
| 6 | F | Fentange | No comment |
| 7 | G | Avenue de la Gare | No comment |
Rubis family of criteria.
| # | Identifyer | Name | Comment | Weight | Scale | Thresholds |
| direction | min | max | indifference | weak preference | preference | weak veto | veto |
| 1 | C | Costs | loyer + charges + nettoyage | 45.00 | max | -50000.00 | 0.00 |
1000.00
| |
2500.00
|
35000.00
| |
| 2 | Cf | Comfort | quality of the equipments | 6.00 | max | 0.00 | 100.00 |
10.00
| |
20.00
|
80.00
| |
| 3 | P | Parking | disponibility | 3.00 | max | 0.00 | 100.00 |
10.00
| |
20.00
|
80.00
| |
| 4 | Pr | Proximité | distance from a town center | 32.00 | max | 0.00 | 100.00 |
10.00
| |
20.00
|
80.00
| |
| 5 | St | Standing | image et présentation | 23.00 | max | 0.00 | 100.00 |
10.00
| |
20.00
|
80.00
| |
| 6 | V | Visibility | circulation of potential customers | 26.00 | max | 0.00 | 100.00 |
10.00
| |
20.00
|
80.00
| |
| 7 | W | Working space | in square meters | 10.00 | max | 0.00 | 100.00 |
10.00
| |
20.00
|
80.00
| |
Rubis Performance Table
| criterion | A | B | C | D | E | F | G |
| C | -35000 | -17800 | -6700 | -14100 | -34800 | -18600 | -12000 |
| Cf | 0 | 100 | 10 | 30 | 60 | 80 | 50 |
| P | 90 | 30 | 100 | 90 | 70 | 0 | 80 |
| Pr | 100 | 20 | 80 | 70 | 40 | 0 | 60 |
| St | 100 | 10 | 0 | 30 | 90 | 70 | 20 |
| V | 60 | 80 | 70 | 50 | 60 | 0 | 100 |
| W | 75 | 30 | 0 | 55 | 100 | 0 | 50 |
( 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
Name: Stilde
Comment: Rubis Choice Recommendation Relation
Valuation Domain
| Maximum | 100.00 |
| Median | 0 |
| Minimum | -100.00 |
Valued Adjacency Table
Comment: Rubis Choice Recommendation
| Stilde | A | B | C | D | E | F | G |
| A | 100.00 | -6.21 | 37.93 | 29.66 | 77.93 | 0.00 | -6.21 |
| B | 0.00 | 100.00 | -10.34 | -55.86 | 0.00 | 68.28 | -60.00 |
| C | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 46.21 | 0.00 | 60.00 | 10.34 |
| D | 10.34 | 55.86 | 2.07 | 100.00 | 46.21 | 60.00 | 24.83 |
| E | 51.72 | -6.21 | -10.34 | -10.34 | 100.00 | 29.66 | -42.07 |
| F | -29.66 | -6.21 | -46.21 | -60.00 | -29.66 | 100.00 | -60.00 |
| G | 0.00 | 91.72 | -10.34 | 100.00 | 54.48 | 60.00 | 100.00 |
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 A outranks
B (
concordance degree:-0.06)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| Cf | -100.00 | potential weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against A outranks
F (
concordance degree:0.30)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| Cf | -80.00 | effective weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against C outranks
A (
concordance degree:0.10)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| St | -100.00 | effective weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against C outranks
B (
concordance degree:0.78)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| Cf | -90.00 | effective weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against C outranks
E (
concordance degree:0.46)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| St | -90.00 | effective weak veto | 0.00 |
| W | -100.00 | effective weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against B outranks
A (
concordance degree:0.06)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| Pr | -80.00 | effective weak veto | 0.00 |
| St | -90.00 | effective weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against B outranks
E (
concordance degree:0.06)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| St | -80.00 | effective weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against G outranks
A (
concordance degree:0.10)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| St | -80.00 | effective weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against F outranks
A (
concordance degree:-0.30)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| Pr | -100.00 | potential weak veto | 0.00 |
| P | -90.00 | potential weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against F outranks
C (
concordance degree:-0.46)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| Pr | -80.00 | potential weak veto | 0.00 |
| P | -100.00 | potential weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against F outranks
B (
concordance degree:-0.06)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| V | -80.00 | potential weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against F outranks
E (
concordance degree:-0.30)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| W | -100.00 | potential weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against F outranks
D (
concordance degree:-0.60)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| P | -90.00 | potential weak veto | 0.00 |
- Veto against F outranks
G (
concordance degree:-0.60)
| criterion | performance difference | status | characteristic |
| P | -80.00 | potential weak veto | 0.00 |
| V | -100.00 | potential weak veto | 0.00 |
Rubis Choice Recommendation
Comment: In decreasing order of determinateness. All values expressed in %.
| # | Choice set | Determinateness | Outrankingness | Outrankedness | Comment |
| 1 | {
D,
}
| 51.03 | 51.03 | 20.00 | Best choice |
| 2 | {
B,
C,
E,
}
| 50.00 | 55.17 | 46.90 | Potential good choice |
| 3 | {
A,
G,
}
| 50.00 | 68.97 | 35.17 | Potential good choice |
Potentially Bad Choices
Comment: All values expressed in %.
| # | Choice set | Determinateness | Outrankingness | Outrankedness | Comment |
| 1 | {
A,
F,
}
| 62.71 | 46.90 | 75.86 | Potential 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), forthcoming.
PDF preprint version.
Online documentation: Decision Deck Project
Default XSL Transformation to HTML
XMCDA 1.0 Schema P. Meyer and R.Bisdorff 2008 $Revision: 1.4 $
Copyright (C) 2008 DECISION DECK Project
