A cross-efficiency model based on super-efficiency for ranking units through the TOPSIS approach and its extension to the interval case

One of the most important approaches for ranking decision-making units in data envelopment analysis is the cross-efficiency method. The main idea of cross-efficiency is to use data envelopment analysis in peer evaluation, instead of only a self evaluation. However, in the cross-efficiency method, optimal weights corresponding to evaluation of decision-making units may not be unique. In this research with modifying the cross-efficiency method we are going to overcome this problem. Then with regard to the changes and using the TOPSIS method we present a new super-efficient method to rank all decision-making units. Furthermore, we extend the proposed method to the case that data are intervals.     

Cross-efficiency aggregation in DEA models using the evidential-reasoning approach

Cross-efficiency in data envelopment analysis (DEA) models is an effective way to rank decision-making units (DMUs). The common methods to aggregate cross-efficiency do not consider the preference structure of the decision maker (DM). When a DM’s preference structure does not satisfy the “additive independence” condition, a new aggregation method must be proposed. This paper uses the evidential-reasoning (ER) approach to aggregate the cross-efficiencies obtained from cross-evaluation through the transformation of the cross-efficiency matrix to pieces of evidence. This paper provides a new method for cross-efficiency aggregation and a new way for DEA models to reflect a DM’s preference or value judgments. Additionally, this paper presents examples that demonstrate the features of cross-efficiency aggregation using the ER approach, including an empirical example of the evaluation practice of 16 basic research institutes in Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in 2010 that illustrates how the ER approach can be used to aggregate the cross-efficiency matrix produced from DEA models.     

Dominance relations and ranking of units by using interval number ordering with cross-efficiency intervals

This paper proposes an approach to the cross-efficiency evaluation that considers all the optimal data envelopment analysis (DEA) weights of all the decision-making units (DMUs), thus avoiding the need to make a choice among them according to some alternative secondary goal. To be specific, we develop a couple of models that allow for all the possible weights of all the DMUs simultaneously and yield individual lower and upper bounds for the cross-efficiency scores of the different units. As a result, we have a cross-efficiency interval for the evaluation of each unit. Existing order relations for interval numbers are used to identify dominance relations among DMUs and derive a ranking of units based on the cross-efficiency intervals provided. The approach proposed may also be useful for assessing the stability of the cross-efficiency scores with respect to DEA weights that can be used for their calculation.     

基于前景理论和熵权法的交叉效率集结方法

传统的交叉效率集结过程通常采用算术平均方法,不仅会低估自评的重要性,而且未考虑决策者的风险偏好。针对上述问题,提出一种基于前景理论和熵权法的交叉效率集结方法。首先,求解交叉效率矩阵,运用熵权法确定他评过程中评价单元的指标权重。然后,引入前景理论以考虑决策者在交叉效率集结过程中的风险偏好,利用TOPSIS方法识别正负参考点,进而构造总体效用函数,得到前景交叉效率矩阵。随后,构建最大化前景价值模型,求解集结权重。该方法既考虑到交叉效率集结的相对重要性权重,又将决策者的风险偏好纳入到效率评价中,从而实现决策单元的全排序。最后,结合实例验证方法的有效性。     

DEA cross-efficiency evaluation under variable returns to scale

Cross-efficiency evaluation in data envelopment analysis (DEA) has been developed under the assumption of constant returns to scale (CRS), and no valid attempts have been made to apply the cross-efficiency concept to the variable returns to scale (VRS) condition. This is due to the fact that negative VRS cross-efficiency arises for some decision-making units (DMUs). Since there exist many instances that require the use of the VRS DEA model, it is imperative to develop cross-efficiency measures under VRS. We show that negative VRS cross-efficiency is related to free production of outputs. We offer a geometric interpretation of the relationship between the CRS and VRS DEA models. We show that each DMU, via solving the VRS model, seeks an optimal bundle of weights with which its CRS-efficiency score, measured under a translated Cartesian coordinate system, is maximized. We propose that VRS cross-efficiency evaluation should be done via a series of CRS models under translated Cartesian coordinate systems. The current study offers a valid cross-efficiency approach under the assumption of VRS—one of the most common assumptions in performance evaluation done by DEA.     

Fuzzy cross-efficiency evaluation: a possibility approach

Cross-efficiency evaluation is an extension of data envelopment analysis (DEA) aimed at ranking decision making units (DMUs) involved in a production process regarding their efficiency. As has been done with other enhancements and extensions of DEA, in this paper we propose a fuzzy approach to the cross-efficiency evaluation. Specifically, we develop a fuzzy cross-efficiency evaluation based on the possibility approach by Lertworasirikul et al. (Fuzzy Sets Syst 139:379–394, 2003a) to fuzzy DEA. Thus, a methodology for ranking DMUs is presented that may be used when data are imprecise, in particular for fuzzy inputs and outputs being normal and convex. We prove some results that allow us to define “consistent” cross-efficiencies. The ranking of DMUs for a given possibility level results from an ordering of cross-efficiency scores, which are real numbers. As in the crisp case, we also develop benevolent and aggressive fuzzy formulations in order to deal with the alternate optima for the weights.     

DEA models for minimizing weight disparity in cross-efficiency evaluation

Cross-efficiency evaluation is a commonly used approach for ranking decision-making units (DMUs) in data envelopment analysis (DEA). The weights used in the cross-efficiency evaluation may sometimes differ significantly among the inputs and outputs. This paper proposes some alternative DEA models to minimize the virtual disparity in the cross-efficiency evaluation. The proposed DEA models determine the input and output weights of each DMU in a neutral way without being aggressive or benevolent to the other DMUs. Numerical examples are tested to show the validity and effectiveness of the proposed DEA models and illustrate their significant role in reducing the number of zero weights.     

Ranking ranges in cross-efficiency evaluations

The existence of alternate optima for the DEA weights may reduce the usefulness of the cross-efficiency evaluation, since the ranking provided depends on the choice of weights that the different DMUs make. In this paper, we develop a procedure to carry out the cross-efficiency evaluation without the need to make any specific choice of DEA weights. The proposed procedure takes into consideration all the possible choices of weights that all the DMUs can make, and yields for each unit a range for its possible rankings instead of a single ranking. This range is determined by the best and the worst rankings that would result in the best and the worst scenarios of each unit across all the DEA weights of all the DMUs. This approach might identify good/bad performers, as those that rank at the top/bottom irrespective of the weights that are chosen, or units that outperform others in all the scenarios. In addition, it may be used to analyze the stability of the ranking provided by the standard cross-efficiency evaluation.     

Slack-based ranking method: an interpretation to the cross-efficiency method in DEA

The cross-efficiency method is generally utilized to rank decision-making units (DMUs) in data envelopment analysis (DEA) based on peer-evaluation logic. This brief note provides a method of using the available information from the linear program outputs to calculate the ranking of all DMUs with fewer computations and offers an alternative interpretation to the cross-efficiency method based on slack analysis in DEA.     

On the choice of weights profiles in cross-efficiency evaluations

In this paper, we propose a new approach to cross-efficiency evaluation that focuses on the choice of the weights profiles to be used in the calculation of the cross-efficiency scores. It has been claimed in the literature that cross-efficiency eliminates unrealistic weighting schemes in the sense that their effects are cancelled out in the summary that the cross-efficiency evaluation makes. The idea of our approach here is to try to avoid these unreasonable weights instead of expecting that their effects are cancelled out in the amalgamation of weights that is made. To do it, we extend the ideas of the multiplier bound approach to the assessment of efficiency without slacks in Ramón et al. (2010) to its use in cross-efficiency evaluations. The models used look for the profiles with the least dissimilar weights, and also guarantee non-zero weights. In particular, this approach allows the inefficient DMUs to make a choice of weights that prevent them from using unrealistic weighting schemes. We use some examples of the literature to illustrate the performance of this approach and discuss some issues of interest regarding the choice of weights in cross-efficiency evaluations.     

Cross-ranking of Decision Making Units in Data Envelopment Analysis

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is a mathematical model that evaluates the relative efficiency of Decision Making Units (DMUs) with multiple input and output. In some applications of DEA, ranking of the DMUs are important. For this purpose, a number of approaches have been introduced. Among them is the cross-efficiency method. The method utilizes the result of the cross-efficiency matrix and averages the cross-efficiency scores of each DMU. Ranking is then performed based on the average efficiency scores. In this paper, we proposed a new way of handling the information from the cross-efficiency matrix. Based on the notion that the ranking order is more important than individual efficiency score, the cross-efficiency matrix is converted to a cross-ranking matrix. A cross-ranking matrix is basically a cross-efficiency matrix with the efficiency score of each element being replaced with the ranking order of that efficiency score with respect to the other efficiency scores in a column. By so doing, each DMU assume the role of a decision maker and how they voted or ranked the other DMUs are reflected in their respective column of the cross-ranking matrix. These votes are then aggregated using a preference aggregation method to determine the overall ranking of the DMUs. Comparison with an existing cross-efficiency method indicates a relatively better result through usage of the proposed method.     

Efficiency ranking of decision making units in data envelopment analysis by using TOPSIS-DEA method

Data envelopment analysis methods classify the decision making units into two groups: efficient and inefficient ones. Therefore, the fully ranking all DMUs is demanded by most of the decision makers. However, data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making units are developed independently and designed for different purposes. However, there are some applications in problem solving such as ranking, where these two methods are combined. Combination of multiple criteria decision making methods with data envelopment analysis is a new idea for elimination of disadvantages when applied independently. In this paper, first the new combined method is proposed named TOPSIS-DEA for ranking efficient units which not only includes the benefits of both data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making methods, but also solves the issues that appear in former methods. Then properties and advantages of the suggested method are discussed and compared with super efficiency method, MAJ method, statistical-based model (CCA), statistical-based model (DR/DEA), cross-efficiency—aggressive, cross-efficiency—benevolent, Liang et al.’s model, through several illustrative examples. Finally, the proposed methods are validated.     

Use of DEA cross-efficiency evaluation in portfolio selection: An application to Korean stock market

We propose a way of using DEA cross-efficiency evaluation in portfolio selection. While cross efficiency is an approach developed for peer evaluation, we improve its use in portfolio selection. In addition to (average) cross-efficiency scores, we suggest to examine the variations of cross-efficiencies, and to incorporate two statistics of cross-efficiencies into the mean-variance formulation of portfolio selection. Two benefits are attained by our proposed approach. One is selection of portfolios well-diversified in terms of their performance on multiple evaluation criteria, and the other is alleviation of the so-called “ganging together” phenomenon of DEA cross-efficiency evaluation in portfolio selection. We apply the proposed approach to stock portfolio selection in the Korean stock market, and demonstrate that the proposed approach can be a promising tool for stock portfolio selection by showing that the selected portfolio yields higher risk-adjusted returns than other benchmark portfolios for a 9-year sample period from 2002 to 2011.     

基于交叉效率DEA和熵IAHP对物流企业绩效评价

本文在研究了现有文献对物流企业绩效评价的基础上,基于超效率DEA用以计算效率值的权值只在对被评价单元最有利的特定范围内取值、忽视绩效评价的公平性和IAHP方法主观判断性较大的缺陷,提出了交叉效率DEA和熵IAHP方法。交叉效率DEA的中心思想是采用互评体系,弥补了超效率DEA方法只是选择对被评价决策单元最有效的权重忽视公平性的缺陷。熵IAHP方法是客观确定权重的熵权法和体现决策者偏好的IAHP方法的结合,这有效地解决了IAHP方法确定指标权重时主观性过大的缺陷。笔者给出了交叉效率DEA和熵IAHP模型评价物流企业绩效的基本步骤,最后通过一个实例验证了此方法的有效性和优越性。     

离差最大化时基于交叉评价的多属性决策方法

针对属性权重完全未知,且评价系统内既有客观数据、又有主观因素的多属性决策问题,提出一种基于离差最大化和交叉评价的模糊多属性决策方法。该方法首先定义了最小交叉效率、最大交叉效率等概念,将量化指标用交叉评价方法进行处理;然后采用模糊综合评价方法评价非量化指标,并基于离差最大化思想确定权重;最后将模糊化处理之后的量化指标与非量化指标一起进行最终评价,建立离差最大化条件下基于交叉评价的模糊多属性决策模型。最后通过算例验证了方法的可行性及有效性。     

基于参数设计的信噪比交叉效率评价方法

针对DEA交叉效率评价过程中没有考虑自评与互评效率的作用而主观赋予相同权重导致交叉效率评价值不准确的问题.文章基于参数设计的思想,依据试验设计中可控与不可控因素的作用机理区分自评权重和互评权重对所评价决策单元交叉效率的影响与作用,将其界定为可控与不可控因素的管理学属性,明确不同权重作用机理;引入信噪比作为衡量决策单元交...     

基于DEA博弈交叉效率和投资者心理的模糊投资组合研究

考虑到投资者并不是完全理性的,本文结合DEA博弈交叉效率方法研究了带有投资者心理因素的多目标模糊投资组合决策问题。首先,为了充分描绘投资者的心理因素和风险感知,本文基于可能性理论推导了带有风险态度的可能性均值和半绝对偏差。其次,将候选的风险资产视为互相竞争的博弈者,采用基于熵权法的DEA博弈交叉效率模型衡量它们的综合表现,从而得到每项资产的博弈交叉效率和奇异指数,并将其分别作为额外的收益和风险决策准则。基于此,提出了更加综合的可能性均值—半绝对偏差—博弈交叉效率—奇异指数模型。最后,通过一个应用实例验证了所提出的模型的合理性和有效性,从而为不同类型的投资者提供具有个性化的投资策略。     

基于传递性的效率评价及改进

现有交叉效率矩阵中往往会存在一些同行效率评价远低于自我效率评价的情形,即出现同行间的恶意评价。本文将第三方作为间接元素,考虑到这些间接元素在效率评价矩阵中具有传递性,引入间接判断结果对原有的交叉效率矩阵进行反复迭代,并证明迭代过程的最终稳定性。迭代的最终结果可以消除效率矩阵中的恶意评价元素,得到新的效率评价矩阵。最后,通过算例来说明模型的可行性和实用性。     

DEA Cobb–Douglas frontier and cross-efficiency

The current paper examines the cross-efficiency concept in data envelopment analysis (DEA). While cross-efficiency has appeal as a peer evaluation approach, it is often the subject of criticism, due mainly to the use of DEA weights that are often non-unique. As a result, cross-efficiency scores are routinely viewed as arbitrary in that they depend on a particular set of optimal DEA weights generated by the computer code in use at the time. While imposing secondary goals can reduce the variability of cross-efficiency scores, such approaches do not completely solve the problem of non-uniqueness, and meaningful secondary goals can lead to computationally intractable non-linear programs. The current paper proposes to use the units-invariant multiplicative DEA model to calculate the cross-efficiency scores. This allows one to calculate the maximum cross-efficiency score for each DMU in a converted linear model, and eliminates the need for imposing secondary goals.     

Meta-frontier analysis using cross-efficiency method for performance evaluation

Efficiency overestimation and technology heterogeneity are important factors that affect the use of data envelopment analysis. This paper introduces a meta-frontier analysis framework into a cross-efficiency method to develop a new efficiency evaluation method. This method can be used to calculate, aggregate, and decompose the cross efficiencies relative to the meta-frontier and group-frontier. Then the technology gap between these frontiers can be measured and more detailed information regarding the inefficiency of decision-making units can be obtained. This enables decision makers to improve efficiency in a targeted manner. Subsequently, the non-uniqueness of the optimal solution is discussed for the new method, and the cross-evaluation strategy is introduced to ensure the stability of the optimal solution. Finally, two examples are presented to illustrate the effectiveness of this method.