DEA Models for Parallel Systems: Game-Theoretic Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many settings, systems are composed of a group of independent sub-units. Each sub-unit produces the same set of outputs by consuming the same set of inputs. Conventional data envelopment analysis (DEA) views such a system as a "black-box", and uses the sum of the respective inputs and outputs of all relevant component units to calculate the system efficiency. Various DEA-based models have been developed for decomposing the overall efficiency. This paper further investigates this kind of structure by using the cooperative (or centralized) and non-cooperative (Stackelberg or leader–follower) game theory concepts. We show that the existing DEA approaches can be viewed as a centralized model that optimizes the efficiency scores of all sub-units jointly. The proposed leader–follower model will be useful when the priority sequence is available for sub-units. Consider, for example, the evaluation of relative efficiencies of a set of manufacturing facilities where multiple work shifts are operating. Management may wish to determine not only the overall plant efficiency, but as well, the performance of each shift in some priority sequence. The relationship between the system efficiency and component efficiencies is also explored. Our approaches are demonstrated with an example whose data set involves the national forests of Taiwan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".