Chance-constrained data envelopment analysis modeling with random-rough data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a useful management tool for measuring the relative efficiency of decision making units (DMUs) which consumes multiple inputs to produce multiple outputs. Although precise input and output data are fundamentally indispensable in classical DEA models, real-world problems often involve random and/or rough input and output data. We present a chance-constrained DEA model with random and rough (random-rough) input and output data and propose a deterministic equivalent model with quadratic constraints to solve the model. The main contributions of this paper are fourfold: (3.1) we propose a DEA model for problems characterized by random-rough variables; (3.2) we transform the proposed chance-constrained model with random-rough variables into a deterministic equivalent non-linear form that could be simplified as a deterministic model with quadratic constraints; (3.3) we perform sensitivity analysis to investigate the stability and robustness of the proposed model; and (3.4) we use a numerical example to demonstrate the feasibility and richness of the obtained solutions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".