An induced OWA aggregation operator with dual preference setting for DEA cross-efficiency ranking

被引:5
|
作者
Oukil, Amar [1 ]
Amin, Gholam R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Sultan Qaboos Univ, Muscat, Oman
[2] Univ New Brunswick, St John, NB, Canada
关键词
Induced ordered weighted averaging (IOWA); Dual preference; Preference voting; Data envelopment analysis; Aggregation; Ranking; WEIGHTED AVERAGING AGGREGATION; DECISION-MAKING; IMPROVING DISCERNMENT; MINIMAX DISPARITY; MULTICRITERIA; MODELS; PRIORITIZATION; SELECTION;
D O I
10.1007/s00500-023-09235-0
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Cross-efficiency (CE) evaluation is an extension of the data envelopment analysis approach that allows decision making units (DMUs) to assess their peers by means of their own appreciation weights. As a result, each DMU is presented with a vector of CE scores, which need to undergo an aggregation operation to yield the ultimate ranking score. The aggregation is commonly carried out through an appropriate aggregation operator. In this paper, we propose an induced ordered weighted averaging (IOWA) operator with dual preference setting (2-IOWA) as a new aggregation device. The 2-IOWA aggregation novelty resides in its twined order inducing variables, which are defined by exploiting exclusively the appreciative properties of the CE matrix. The first-order inducing variable is the voting rank order that characterizes the preference voting system embedded within the CE matrix. The corresponding IOWA-level 1 aggregation produces a composite vote for each DMU by employing as arguments the individual votes assigned to it. The second-order inducing variable is represented by these composite votes, which are adopted to induce a common order on the rows of the CE matrix as a part of the IOWA-level 2 aggregation. The 2-IOWA aggregation process is conducted with OWA weights that are generated through different minimax disparity models by using different optimism level values in order to corroborate the influence of subjectivity on the structure of the ranking patterns besides evaluating the robustness of the proposed methodological framework.
引用
收藏
页码:18419 / 18440
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Evaluation techniques with a modified cross-efficiency in DEA
    Hibiki, N
    JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONS RESEARCH SOCIETY OF JAPAN, 1998, 41 (02) : 229 - 245
  • [33] A new thought on cross-efficiency evaluation in DEA
    Jiag, Hao
    Wang, Xuejun
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2007 CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMS SCIENCE, MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND SYSTEM DYNAMICS: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND COMPLEX SYSTEMS, VOLS 1-10, 2007, : 925 - 932
  • [34] A hybrid performance evaluation approach for urban logistics using extended cross-efficiency with prospect theory and OWA operator
    Jiang, Wenjun
    Liu, Shuli
    Wang, Weizhong
    ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA, 2022, : 3499 - 3518
  • [35] Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation
    Liang, Liang
    Wu, Jie
    Cook, Wade D.
    Zhu, Joe
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, 2008, 113 (02) : 1025 - 1030
  • [36] Some alternative models for DEA cross-efficiency evaluation
    Wang, Ying-Ming
    Chin, Kwai-Sang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, 2010, 128 (01) : 332 - 338
  • [37] A Min-Max Operator Allocation Formulation, Computer Simulation and DEA Cross-Efficiency in Determining the Optimal Operator Allocation
    Rani, Ruzanita Mat
    Ismail, Wan Rosmanira
    Ab Rahman, Mohd Nizam
    ADVANCED SCIENCE LETTERS, 2018, 24 (02) : 1519 - 1523
  • [38] DEA Cobb-Douglas frontier and cross-efficiency
    Cook, W. D.
    Zhu, J.
    JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY, 2014, 65 (02) : 265 - 268
  • [39] DEA cross-efficiency target setting approach based on different decision-making context
    Chen L.
    Wang Y.
    Xitong Gongcheng Lilun yu Shijian/System Engineering Theory and Practice, 2021, 41 (10): : 2683 - 2695
  • [40] DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on Pareto improvement
    Wu, Jie
    Chu, Junfei
    Sun, Jiasen
    Zhu, Qingyuan
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2016, 248 (02) : 571 - 579