Chance-constrained data envelopment analysis modeling with random-rough data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it