Integration of stochastic and robust optimization techniques into DEA model for more accurate and reliable efficiency estimation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35335/cit.Vol14.2022.229.pp1-4Keywords:
Data Envelopment Analysis, efficiency estimation, Optimization, Stochastic and robustAbstract
Efficiency assessment is vital to assessing decision-making units (DMUs) in numerous sectors. DEA is a prominent non-parametric efficiency assessment tool. Traditional DEA models assume deterministic inputs and outputs, ignoring real-world uncertainties and variability. To improve efficiency estimation, stochastic and robust optimization approaches can be integrated into DEA models. To improve efficiency estimation, we present a stochastic and robust optimization framework incorporating DEA. Probabilistic inputs and outputs allow stochastic optimization to account for uncertainty. The model can capture data variability and create stochastic DMU efficiency scores by adding probability distributions. For data uncertainties and outliers, the DEA model uses robust optimization. Robust optimization considers worst-case scenarios and minimizes extreme observations on efficiency estimation. This makes efficiency scores more resilient to data outliers and noise. DEA models benefit from stochastic and resilient optimization. First, considering data uncertainties and fluctuations improves DMU efficiency representation. Second, eliminating outliers and extreme observations improves efficiency estimation. Third, efficiency scores help decision-makers make better, more informed choices. A case study in a specific industry shows the framework's efficacy. We compare classic and integrated stochastic-robust DEA model outcomes. The integrated model provides more accurate and dependable efficiency estimates, helping decision-makers understand DMU performance. DEA models with stochastic and resilient optimization increase efficiency estimation. By considering uncertainties and outliers, this paradigm helps decision-makers evaluate DMUs in many sectors more accurately and reliably.
Downloads
References
M. Izadikhah and R. Farzipoor Saen, “A new data envelopment analysis method for ranking decision making units: an application in industrial parks,” Expert Syst., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 596–608, 2015.
M. Farahmand, M. I. Desa, and M. Nilashi, “A combined data envelopment analysis and support vector regression for efficiency evaluation of large decision making units,” Int. J. Eng. Technol., pp. 2310–2321, 2014.
S. V. Avilés-Sacoto, W. D. Cook, D. Güemes-Castorena, and J. Zhu, “Modelling efficiency in regional innovation systems: A two-stage data envelopment analysis problem with shared outputs within groups of decision-making units,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 287, no. 2, pp. 572–582, 2020.
J. Stroobants and G. Bouckaert, “Benchmarking local public libraries using non-parametric frontier methods: A case study of Flanders,” Libr. Inf. Sci. Res., vol. 36, no. 3–4, pp. 211–224, 2014.
A. Khoshroo, R. Mulwa, A. Emrouznejad, and B. Arabi, “A non-parametric Data Envelopment Analysis approach for improving energy efficiency of grape production,” Energy, vol. 63, pp. 189–194, 2013.
X. Dai and T. Kuosmanen, “Best-practice benchmarking using clustering methods: Application to energy regulation,” Omega, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 179–188, 2014.
S. J. Sadjadi and H. Omrani, “A bootstrapped robust data envelopment analysis model for efficiency estimating of telecommunication companies in Iran,” Telecomm. Policy, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 221–232, 2010.
T. Kuosmanen and M. Kortelainen, “Stochastic non-smooth envelopment of data: semi-parametric frontier estimation subject to shape constraints,” J. Product. Anal., vol. 38, pp. 11–28, 2012.
S. J. Sadjadi, H. Omrani, S. Abdollahzadeh, M. Alinaghian, and H. Mohammadi, “A robust super-efficiency data envelopment analysis model for ranking of provincial gas companies in Iran,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 10875–10881, 2011.
B. E. El-Demerdash, I. A. El-Khodary, and A. A. Tharwat, “A stochastic data envelopment analysis model considering variation in input and output variables,” Int. J. Data Envel. Anal. Oper. Res., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2016.
A. Desai, S. J. Ratick, and A. P. Schinnar, “Data envelopment analysis with stochastic variations in data,” Socioecon. Plann. Sci., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 147–164, 2005.
M. Asgharian, M. Khodabakhshi, and L. Neralic, “Congestion in stochastic data envelopment analysis: An input relaxation approach,” Int. J. Stat. Manag. Syst., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 84–106, 2010.
R. Eslami, M. Khodabakhshi, G. R. Jahanshahloo, F. H. Lotfi, and M. Khoveyni, “Estimating most productive scale size with imprecise-chance constrained input–output orientation model in data envelopment analysis,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 254–261, 2012.
C. Sutton, K. Rohanimanesh, and A. McCallum, “Dynamic conditional random fields: Factorized probabilistic models for labeling and segmenting sequence data,” in Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning, 2004, p. 99.
L. Getoor, N. Friedman, D. Koller, and A. Pfeffer, “Learning probabilistic relational models,” Relational data Min., pp. 307–335, 2001.
A. Parisio, C. Del Vecchio, and A. Vaccaro, “A robust optimization approach to energy hub management,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 98–104, 2012.
I. Sungur, F. Ordónez, and M. Dessouky, “A robust optimization approach for the capacitated vehicle routing problem with demand uncertainty,” Iie Trans., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 509–523, 2008.
M. Tavana, K. Khalili-Damghani, F. J. S. Arteaga, and A. Hosseini, “A fuzzy multi-objective multi-period network DEA model for efficiency measurement in oil refineries,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 135, pp. 143–155, 2019.
R. L. Iman, J. C. Helton, and J. E. Campbell, “An approach to sensitivity analysis of computer models: Part I—Introduction, input variable selection and preliminary variable assessment,” J. Qual. Technol., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 174–183, 1981.
C. Bohle, S. Maturana, and J. Vera, “A robust optimization approach to wine grape harvesting scheduling,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 245–252, 2010.
H.-G. Beyer and B. Sendhoff, “Robust optimization–a comprehensive survey,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 196, no. 33–34, pp. 3190–3218, 2007.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Hengki Tamando Sihotang, Patricius Michaud Felix, Aisyah Alesha, Joan De Mathew
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
