Dual frontiers data envelopment analysis: multiple ranking approaches from optimistic and pessimistic perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of data envelopment analysis (DEA) has evolved rapidly since its introduction to decision-making science 40 years ago. DEA has since attracted the attention of many researchers because of its unique characteristic to measure the efficiency of multiple-input and multiple-output decision-making units (DMUs) without assigning prior weight to the input and output, unlike most available decision analysis tools. The body of research has resulted in a huge amount of literature and diverse DEA models with very many different approaches. DEA classifies all units under assessment into two groups: efficient with a 100% efficiency score and inefficient with a less than 100% efficiency score. This ability is considered both a strength and a weakness of the standard DEA model because, although it allows DEA to evaluate the efficiency of any dataset, it lacks the power to rank all DMUs, by giving full efficiency scores to many efficient units. This issue has attracted many researchers to investigate the weak discrimination power of classical DEA models, resulting in a subfield of research that focuses on DEA ranking. This thesis focuses on the development of the conventional DEA model, and an attempt has been made to study models that are considered as improved models, or approaches that bring a better ranking field, that may bring more accurate evaluation than the original DEA. After studying DEA ranking models, the thesis presents various models under the optimistic and pessimistic DEA ranking approaches. The first and fundamental contribution are the optimistic and pessimistic free disposal hull (FDH) models. In this study, authentic optimistic and pessimistic DEA models without convexity are developed from both input and output orientation. Further into the research investigation, extended models have been proposed, by combining the conventional and FDH ranking models with other different approaches in the literature. Chapter 4 of this thesis presents three extended FDH models: an FDH slack-based model, an FDH superefficiency model, and a dual frontier without infeasibility super-efficiency FDH model. Chapter 5 shows the development of extended models when virtual DMUs are considered. Improved virtual DMU models and improved FDH virtual DMU models are proposed in order to develop the DEA ranking ability from both optimistic and pessimistic approaches. The final model is an optimistic and pessimistic forecasting approach using regression analysis. The forecasting model can be used by decision makers to determine the resources needed for future planning to build an efficient new unit with reference to the current DMU set.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".