A new approach for ranking decision-making units in data envelopment analysis by using communication game theory

Iranian Journal of Numerical Analysis and Optimization

مقالات آماده انتشار، اصلاح شده برای چاپ، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 06 مهر 1402   

نوع مقاله: Research Article

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/ijnao.2023.82236.1251

نویسندگان

M. Amiri¹؛ A. Ashrafi^{* 2}

¹Ph.D Student, Faculty of athematics, Statistics and Computer Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.

²Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.

چکیده

Ranking decision making units (DMUs) is an important topic in data en-velopment analysis (DEA). When efficient DMUs or inefficient DMUs have the same efficiency score, the traditional DEA model usually fails to rank all DMUs. For the sake of comparing and improving the discrimination power of DMUs, some proposed approaches use cooperative game theory for rank-ing DMUs. In this paper, communication game theory, which includes a transferable utility cooperative game and an undirected graph describing limited cooperation between players, can be used to rank DMUs. The idea is that the ranking of DMUs can be done by measuring the effect of remov-ing a subset of DMUs on the total share of the remaining DMUs obtained by the reference frontier share model. In the proposed approach, the play-ers are the DMUs, and the characteristic function measures the increase and decrease in the total share of each DMU. The current paper considers the total share for efficient and inefficient DMUs to rank all DMUs. The proposed approach has been tested on several datasets and compared with the results of the previous ranking methods, which sometimes coincide. In the empirical study, a complete ranking of DMUs is useful and reasonable.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Data envelopment analysis؛ Communication game؛ Myerson value؛ Reference frontier share model

مراجع

[1] Abing, S.L.N., Barton, M.G.L., Dumdum, M.G.M., Bongo, M.F., and Ocampo, L.A. Shapley value-based multi-objective data envelopment analysis application for assessing academic efficiency of university de-partments, J. Ind. Eng. Int. 14(4) (2018) 733–746.
[2] Allevi, E., Basso, A., Bonenti, F., Oggioni, G., and Riccardi, R. Measur-ing the environmental performance of green SRI funds: A DEA approach, Energy Econ. 79 (2019) 32–44.
[3] An, Q., Wang, P., Zeng, Y., and Dai, Y. Cooperative social network community partition: A data envelopment analysis approach, Comput. Ind. Eng. 172 (2022) 108658.

[4] Andersen, P., and Petersen, N.C. A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis, Manag. Sci. 39 (1993) 1261–1264.
[5] Ang, S., Zheng, R., Wei, F., and Yang, F. A modified DEA-based ap-proach for selecting preferred benchmarks in social networks, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 72(2) (2021) 342–353.
[6] Behmanesh, R., Rahimi, I., and Gandomi, A.H. Evolutionary many-objective algorithms for combinatorial optimization problems: A com-parative study, Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 28(2) (2021) 673–688.
[7] Bergendahl, G. DEA and benchmarks–an application to Nordic banks, Ann. Oper. Res. 82 (1998) 233–250.
[8] Boljunčić, V. Sensitivity analysis of an efficient DMU in DEA model with variable returns to scale (VRS), J. Product. Anal. 25(1) (2006) 173–192.
[9] Caulier, J.F., Skoda, A., and Tanimura, E. Allocation rules for networks inspired by cooperative game-theory, Rev. Econ. Polit. 127(4) (2017) 517–558.
[10] Chang, T.S., Lin, J.G., and Ouenniche, J. DEA-based Nash bargaining approach to merger target selection, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 305(2) (2023) 930–945.
[11] Charnes, A., Cooper, W., and Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (1978) 429–444.
[12] Davtalab-Olyaie, M., Ghandi, F., and Asgharian, M. On the spectrum of achievable targets in cross-efficiency evaluation and the associated secondary goal models, Expert Syst. Appl. 177 (2021) 114927.
[13] Doyle, J. and Green, R., Efficiency and cross efficiency in DEA: Deriva-tions, meanings and the uses, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 45(5) (1994) 567–578.
[14] Du, J., Liang, L., Yang, F., Bi, G.B., and Yu, X.B. A new DEA-based method for fully ranking all decision-making units, Expert Syst. 27(5) (2010) 363–373.
[15] Ekiz, M.K. and Tuncer Şakar, C. A new DEA approach to fully rank DMUs with an application to MBA programs, Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 27(4) (2020) 1886–1910.
[16] Fallahnejad, R., Asadi Rahmati, S., and Moradipour, K. An entropy based Shapley value for ranking in data envelopment analysis, Iran. J. Optim. 14(1) (2022) 39–49.

[17] Ghaeminasab, F., Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, M., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Be-hzadi, M.H., and Navidi, H. Equitable Resource Allocation Combining Coalitional Game and Data Envelopment Analysis, J. Appl. Res. Ind. Eng. (2022).
[18] Ghiyasi, M. Full ranking of efficient and inefficient DMUs with the same measure of efficiency in DEA, Int. J. Bus. Perform. Supply Chain Model. 10(3) (2019) 236–252.
[19] Hinojosa, M.A., Lozano, S., Borrero, D.V., and Marmol, A.M. Ranking efficient DMUs using cooperative game theory, Expert Syst. Appl. 80 (2017) 273–283.
[20] Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Noora, A.A., Jahanshahloo, G.R., and Reshadi, M. One DEA ranking method based on applying aggregate units, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 13468–13471.
[21] Izadikhah, M. and Farzipoor Saen, R. A new data envelopment analysis method for ranking decision making units: an application in industrial parks, Expert Syst. 32 (5) (2015) 596–608.
[22] Jahanshahloo, G.R., Vieira Junior, H., Hosseinzadeh Lofti, F., and Ak-barian, D. A new DEA ranking system based on changing the reference, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 181 (2007) 331–337.
[23] Khmelnitskaya, A., Selçuk, O., and Talman, D. The average covering tree value for directed graph games, J. Comb. Optim. 39 (2020) 315–333.
[24] Khodabakhshi, M. and Aryavash, K. Ranking all units in data envelop-ment analysis, Appl. Math. Lett. 25(12) (2012) 2066–2070.
[25] Kiaei, H. and Nasseri, S.H. Allocation of Weights Using Simultaneous Optimization of Inputs and Outputs’ Contribution in Cross-efficiency Evaluation of DEA. Yugoslav J. Oper. Res. 28(4) (2018) 521–538.
[26] Li, D.L., and Shan, E. The Myerson value for directed graph games, Oper. Res. Lett. 48(2) (2020) 142–146.
[27] Li, Y., Xie, J., Wang, M., and Liang, L. Super-efficiency evaluation using a common platform on a cooperative game, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 255(3) (2016) 884–892.
[28] Li, F., Zhu, Q., and Liang, L. Allocating a fixed cost based on a DEA-game cross efficiency approach, Expert Syst. Appl. 96 (2018) 196–207.
[29] Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W.D., and Zhu, J. Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113 (2008) 1025–1030.

[30] Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W.D., and Zhu, J. The DEA game cross-efficiency model and its Nash equilibrium, Oper. Res. 56 (5), (2008) 1278–1288.
[31] Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W.D., and Zhu, J. The DEA game cross-efficiency model and its Nash equilibrium, Oper. Res. 56(5) (2008) 1278–1288.
[32] Liu, P., Wang, L.F., and Chang, J. A revised model of the neutral DEA model and its extension, Math. Probl. Eng. Res. (2017) 2017.
[33] Lozano, S. Bargaining approach for efficiency assessment and target setting with fixed-sum variables, Omega, 114 (2023) 102728.
[34] Ma, X., Liu, Y., Wei, X., Li, Y., Zheng, M., Li, Y., Cheng, C., Wu, Y., Liu, Z., and Yu, Y. Measurement and decomposition of energy efficiency of Northeast China–based on super efficiency DEA model and Malmquist index, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24(24) (2017) 19859–19873.
[35] Myerson, R.B. Graphs and cooperation in games, Math. Oper. Res. 2 (1977) 225–229.
[36] Nakabayashi, K. and Tone, K. Egoist’s dilemma: a DEA game, Omega, 34(2) (2006) 135–148.
[37] Omrani, H., Beiragh, R.G., and Kaleibari, S.S. Performance assessment of Iranian electricity distribution companies by an integrated cooperative game data envelopment analysis principal component analysis approach, Int J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 64 (2015) 617–625.
[38] Omrani, H., Fahimi, P., and Mahmoodi, A. A data envelopment analysis game theory approach for constructing composite indicator: An applica-tion to find out development degree of cities in West Azarbaijan province of Iran, Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 69 (2020) 100675.
[39] Ramón, N., Ruiz, J.L., and Sirvent, I. Reducing differences between pro-files of weights: A “peer-restricted” cross-efficiency evaluation, Omega, 39(6) (2011) 634–641.
[40] Ramón, N., Ruiz, J.L., and Sirvent, I. Cross-benchmarking for perfor-mance evaluation: Looking across best practices of different peer groups using DEA, Omega, 92 (2020) 102169.
[41] Rezaee, M.J., Izadbakhsh, H., and Yousefi, S. An improvement approach based on DEA-game theory for comparison of operational and spatial efficiencies in urban transportation systems, KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 20(4) (2016) 1526–1531.

[42] Rezaeiani, M.J., and Foroughi, A.A. Ranking efficient decision making units in data envelopment analysis based on reference frontier share, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 264(2) (2018) 665–674.
[43] Roshdi, I., Mehdiloozad, M., and Margaritis, D. A linear programming based approach for determining maximal closest reference set in DEA, arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.2592 (2014).
[44] Sexton, T.R., Silkman, R.H., and Hogan, A.J. Data envelopment analy-sis: Critique and extensions, New Dir. Program Eval. 32 (1986) 73–105.
[45] Sojoodi, S., Dastmalchi, L., and Neshat, H. Efficiency ranking of differ-ent types of power plants in Iran using super efficiency method, Energy, (2021) 121104.
[46] Soofizadeh, S. and Fallahnejad, R. Evaluation of groups using cooperative game with fuzzy data envelopment analysis, AIMS Math. 8(4) (2023) 8661–8679.
[47] Sun, J., Li, G., and Wang, Z. Technology heterogeneity and efficiency of China’s circular economic systems: A game meta-frontier DEA ap-proach, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 146 (2019) 337–347.
[48] Wang, Y.M. and Chin, K.S. Some alternative models for DEA cross-efficiency evaluation, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128 (2010) 332–338.
[49] Wang, Y. M., Chin, K.S., and Jiang, P. Weight determination in the cross-efficiency evaluation, Comput. Ind. Eng. 61(3) (2011) 497–502.
[50] Wang, Y.M., Chin, K.S., and Luo, Y. Cross-efficiency evaluation based on ideal and anti-ideal decision making units, Expert Syst. Appl. 38(8) (2011) 10312–10319.
[51] Wu, J., Liang, L., Feng, Y., and Hong, Y. Bargaining game model in the evaluation of decision making units, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (3) (2009) 4357–4362.
[52] Xie, Q., Zhang, L.L., Shang, H., Emrouznejad, A., and Li, Y. Evaluat-ing performance of super-efficiency models in ranking efficient decision-making units based on Monte Carlo simulations, Ann. Oper. Res. 305(1) (2021) 273–323.
[53] Yu, M.M. and Rakshit, I. Target setting for airlines incorporating CO2 emissions: The DEA bargaining approach, J. Air Transp. Manag. 108 (2023) 102376.
[54] Zhu, Q., Song, M., and Wu, J. Extended secondary goal approach for common equilibrium efficient frontier selection in DEA with fixed-sum outputs, Comput. Ind. Eng. 144 (2020) 106483.