基于交叉效率和合作博弈的决策单元排序方法

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2018.04.018

中国管理科学 ›› 2018, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (4): 163-170.doi: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2018.04.018

基于交叉效率和合作博弈的决策单元排序方法

刘文丽^1,2, 王应明¹, 吕书龙²

1. 福州大学经济与管理学院, 福建福州 350116;
2. 福州大学数学与计算机科学学院, 福建福州 350116

收稿日期:2016-08-27 修回日期:2017-03-24 出版日期:2018-04-20 发布日期:2018-06-22
通讯作者: 王应明(1964-),男(汉族),江苏海安人,福州大学经济与管理学院,教授,博士生导师,研究方向:决策理论与方法,E-mail:msymwang@hotmail.com E-mail:msymwang@hotmail.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助项目（71371053）；教育部高教司产学合作协同育人项目（201702057021，201702057007）；福建省本科高校教育教学改革研究项目（FBJG20170021）

Ranking Decision Making Units Based on Cross-efficiency and Cooperative Game

LIU Wen-li^1,2, WANG Ying-ming¹, LV Shu-long²

1. School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China;
2. School of Mathematics and Computer Science, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China

Received:2016-08-27 Revised:2017-03-24 Online:2018-04-20 Published:2018-06-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 在数据包络分析中，大量的交叉效率模型已被提出。然而选择不同的目标模型将实现不一样的交叉效率评价。本文基于针对单个决策单元实施的对抗型和仁慈型两个交叉效率模型，用合作博弈方法来研究交叉效率模型的选取，并利用Shapley值对决策单元进行排序。最后通过实例分析显示该排序方法充分利用了最小交叉效率和最大交叉效率的信息完全排序了所有决策单元，具有一定的综合性和合理性。

关键词: 数据包络分析(DEA), 交叉效率, 合作博弈, Shapley值

Abstract: In data envelopment analysis (DEA), the cross-efficiency evaluation is an effective method for ranking decision making units (DMUs), which is performed with peer-evaluation and self-evaluation. From different points of view, various secondary goals have been proposed such as the aggressive model and the benevolent model. Yet different secondary goal models lead to different cross-efficiency evaluation. In this paper, the cooperative game theory is used to choose the secondary goal model between the targeted aggressive model and the targeted benevolent model and then evaluate all DMUs. Specifically, it is assumed that a cooperative game is developed among all DMUs. Given a coalition of some DMUs, a DMU in this coalition will make the best appraisal of each DMU in the same coalition based on the targeted benevolent model, and choose the targeted aggressive model to evaluate the other DMUs which do not belong to the coalition. Further, each DMU is evaluated with its Shapley value in the cooperative game. Finally, an example is presented to show that the proposed method can make full use of the minimum cross-efficiency and the maximum cross-efficiency and it is a comprehensive, fair and reasonable ranking method.

Key words: data envelopment analysis (DEA), cross-efficiency, cooperative games, Shapley value

中图分类号:

C934

刘文丽, 王应明, 吕书龙. 基于交叉效率和合作博弈的决策单元排序方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(4): 163-170.

LIU Wen-li, WANG Ying-ming, LV Shu-long. Ranking Decision Making Units Based on Cross-efficiency and Cooperative Game[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2018, 26(4): 163-170.

参考文献

[1] Charnes A, Cooper W W, Rhodes E. Measuring efficiency of decision making units[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1978, 2(6):429-444.

[2] Sexton T S, Silkman R H, Hogan A J. Data envelopment analysis:Critique and extensions[J]. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986, 1986(32):73-105.

[3] Oral M, Kettani O, Lang P. A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects[J]. Management Science, 1991, 37(7):871-885.

[4] Shang J, Sueyoshi T. A unified framework for the selection of flexible manufacturing system[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1995, 85(2):297-315.

[5] Wu Jie, Liang Liang, Chen Yao. DEA game cross-efficiency approach to Olympic rankings[J]. Omega, 2009, 37(4):909-918.

[6] Doyle J, Green R. Efficiency and cross efficiency in DEA:Derivations, meaning and the uses[J]. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1994, 45(5):567-578.

[7] Doyle J, Green R. Cross-evaluation in DEA:Improving discrimination among DMUs[J]. INFOR:Information Systems and Operational, 1995, 33(3):205-222.

[8] Liang Liang, Wu Jie, Cook W D, et al. Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 2008, 113(2):1025-1030.

[9] Liang Liang, Wu Jie, Cook W D, et al. The DEA game cross efficiency model and its Nash Equilibrium[J]. Operations Research, 2008, 56(5):1278-1288.

[10] Wang Yingming, Chin K S. A neutral DEA model for cross-efficiency evaluation and its extension[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2010, 37(5):3666-3675.

[11] 李春好, 苏航, 佟轶杰, 孙永河基于理想决策单元参照求解策略的DEA交叉效率评价模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2015, 23(2):116-122.

[12] Wang Yingming, Chin K S. The use of OWA operator weights for cross-efficiency aggrega-tion[J]. Omega:2011, 39(5):493-503.

[13] Yager R R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making[J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, 1988, 18(1):183-190.

[14] Yang Feng, Ang Sheng, Xia Qiong, et al. Ranking DMUs by using interval DEA cross efficiency matrix with acceptability analysis[J]. European Journal of Operatio-nal Research, 2012, 223(2):483-488.

[15] Lahdelma R, Salminen P. SMAA-2:Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making[J]. Operations Research, 2001, 49(3):444-454.

[16] 吴杰, 梁樑, 查迎春. 基于核子解的最终交叉效率权系数确定方法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2008, 28(5):92-97.

[17] Wu Jie, Sun Jiasen, Liang Liang, et al. Determination of weights for ultimate cross efficiency using Shannon entropy[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2011, 38(5):5162-5165.

[18] Wang Yingming, Wang S. Approaches to determining the relative importance weights for cross-efficiency aggregation in data envelopment analysis[J]. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2013, 64(1):60-69.

[19] 张启平, 刘业政, 姜元春. 决策单元交叉效率的自适应群评价方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2014, 22(11):62-71.

[20] Shapley LS. A value for n-person games[M]//Kuhn H W, Tucker A W. Contributions to the Theory of Games, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1953.

[21] Wong Y H, Beasley J E. Restricting weight flexibility in Data Envelopment Analysis[J]. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1990, 41(9):829-835.

基于交叉效率和合作博弈的决策单元排序方法

Ranking Decision Making Units Based on Cross-efficiency and Cooperative Game

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

[1]	王树强, 刘赫, 徐娜, 孟娣. 大气污染物排放权初始分配的区际协调方法研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(3): 37-48.
[2]	许成磊, 朱秭洁, 段万春. 考虑多维合作策略的非径向超预期管理效率评价[J]. 中国管理科学, 2021, 29(1): 237-248.
[3]	李刚, 夏鹏成, 郑梦杰. 网络商店与社区便利店的商品虚拟展示合作研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(2): 115-125.
[4]	刘金培, 杨宏伟, 陈华友, 周礼刚. 基于交叉效率DEA与群体共识的区间乘性语言偏好关系群决策[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(2): 190-198.
[5]	刘培德, 滕飞. 基于证据推理和广义Shapley值的扩展概率语言多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(11): 206-218.
[6]	王先甲, 刘佳. 基于合作博弈模型的公共河流水资源分配方案研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(1): 1-9.
[7]	吴隽, 徐迪. 基于Shapley值法的商务模式创新价值分享[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27(6): 191-205.
[8]	王恰. 额外资源按需分配方法研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27(6): 206-216.
[9]	王大澳, 菅利荣, 王慧, 刘思峰. 基于限制合作博弈的产业集群企业利益分配研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27(4): 171-178.
[10]	张伸, 孟庆春, 安国政. 电商平台扣点率影响下的双渠道供应链协调定价研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27(10): 44-55.
[11]	叶银芳, 李登峰, 余高锋. 联合订货区间值EOQ模型及变权Shapley值成本分摊方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27(10): 90-99.
[12]	单而芳, 梁莉敏, 张广. 基于限制博弈的具有容量限制的易腐品联合运输费用分摊问题[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(9): 97-105.
[13]	张云丰, 王勇, 龚本刚, 但斌. 考虑信用销售的改良品联合采购决策[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(7): 84-96.
[14]	冯颖, 张炎治. 不同权力结构下TPL服务增值的供应链决策与效率评价[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(10): 164-175.
[15]	章德宾, 徐娟, Paul D. Mitchell, 李崇光. 一种农户与经销商合作的市场风险分担模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2017, 25(7): 93-101.