Chance Constrained Programming Formulations for Stochastic Characterizations of Efficiency and Dominance in DEA

Pareto-Koopmans efficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is extended to stochastic inputs and outputs via probabilistic input-output vector comparisons in a given empirical production (possibility) set. In contrast to other approaches which have used Chance Constrained Programming formulations in DEA, the emphasis here is on “joint chance constraints.” An assumption of arbitrary but known probability distributions leads to the P-Model of chance constrained programming. A necessary condition for a DMU to be stochastically efficient and a sufficient condition for a DMU to be non-stochastically efficient are provided. Deterministic equivalents using the zero order decision rules of chance constrained programming and multivariate normal distributions take the form of an extended version of the additive model of DEA. Contacts are also maintained with all of the other presently available deterministic DEA models in the form of easily identified extensions which can be used to formalize the treatment of efficiency when stochastic elements are present.

[1]  H. Simon,et al.  Models of Man. , 1957 .

[2]  A. Charnes,et al.  Chance-Constrained Programming , 1959 .

[3]  A. Charnes,et al.  Deterministic Equivalents for Optimizing and Satisficing under Chance Constraints , 1963 .

[4]  B. L. Miller,et al.  Chance Constrained Programming with Joint Constraints , 1965 .

[5]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  An acceptance region theory for chance-constrained programming , 1970 .

[6]  Patrick Rivett,et al.  Principles of Operations Research , 1972 .

[7]  A. Prékopa.  PROGRAMMING UNDER PROBABILISTIC CONSTRAINTS WITH A RANDOM TECHNOLOGY MATRIX , 1974 .

[8]  D. Aigner,et al.  P. Schmidt, 1977,?Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models,? , 1977 .

[9]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 1978 .

[10]  William W. Cooper,et al.  Evaluating Program and Managerial Efficiency: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis to Program Follow Through , 1981 .

[11]  Jati K. Sengupta,et al.  Efficiency measurement in stochastic input-output systems† , 1982 .

[12]  A. Charnes,et al.  A multiplicative model for efficiency analysis , 1982 .

[13]  A. Charnes,et al.  Invariant multiplicative efficiency and piecewise cobb-douglas envelopments , 1983 .

[14]  A. Charnes,et al.  Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1984 .

[15]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Preface to topics in data envelopment analysis , 1984, Ann. Oper. Res..

[16]  Boaz Golany,et al.  Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions , 1985 .

[17]  Ravi Jagannathan,et al.  Use of Sample Information in Stochastic Recourse and Chance-Constrained Programming Models , 1985 .

[18]  Barton A. Smith,et al.  Comparative Site Evaluations for Locating a High-Energy Physics Lab in Texas , 1986 .

[19]  Jati K. Sengupta,et al.  Data envelopment analysis for efficiency measurement in the stochastic case , 1987, Comput. Oper. Res..

[20]  J. Sengupta,et al.  Minimax method of measuring productive efficiency , 1988 .

[21]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Efficiency characterizations in different DEA models , 1988 .

[22]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Cone ratio data envelopment analysis and multi-objective programming , 1989 .

[23]  L. Seiford,et al.  Translation invariance in data envelopment analysis , 1990 .

[24]  Russell G. Thompson,et al.  The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming , 1990 .

[25]  A. Charnes,et al.  Polyhedral Cone-Ratio DEA Models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks , 1990 .

[26]  Lawrence M. Seiford,et al.  Recent developments in dea : the mathematical programming approach to frontier analysis , 1990 .

[27]  C. Lovell,et al.  Productive Efficiency under Capitalism and State Socialism: The Chance-Constrained Programming Approach , 1992 .

[28]  Henry Tulkens,et al.  On FDH efficiency analysis: Some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts, and urban transit , 1993 .

[29]  R. Banker.  Maximum likelihood, consistency and data envelopment analysis: a statistical foundation , 1993 .

[30]  Kenneth C. Land,et al.  Chance‐constrained data envelopment analysis , 1993 .

[31]  Philippe Vanden Eeckaut,et al.  Evaluating the performance of US credit unions , 1993 .

[32]  Kenneth C. Land,et al.  Productive Efficiency under Capitalism and State Socialism: An Empirical Inquiry Using Chance-Constrained Data Envelopment Analysis , 1994 .

[33]  W. Cooper,et al.  Validation and generalization of DEA and its uses , 1994 .

[34]  Jesús T. Pastor,et al.  Linear programming approaches to the measurement and analysis of productive efficiency , 1994 .

[35]  N. Petersen,et al.  Chance constrained efficiency evaluation , 1995 .

[36]  Jesús T. Pastor,et al.  Units invariant and translation invariant DEA models , 1995, Oper. Res. Lett..

[37]  Zhimin Huang,et al.  Dominance stochastic models in data envelopment analysis , 1996 .

[38]  W. Cooper,et al.  MODELS AND MEASURES FOR EFFICIENCY DOMINANCE IN DEA Part II : Free Disposal Hull (FDH) and Russel Measure (RM) Approaches , 1996 .

[39]  William W. Cooper,et al.  Chapter 13 Satisficing DEA models under chance constraints , 1996, Ann. Oper. Res..

[40]  Kingshuk K. Sinha,et al.  Chapter 9 Moving frontier analysis: An application of Data Envelopment Analysis for competitive analysis of a high-technology manufacturing plant , 1996, Ann. Oper. Res..

[41]  William W. Cooper,et al.  MODELS AND MEASURES FOR EFFICIENCY DOMINANCE IN DEA Part I: Additive Models and MED Measures * , 1996 .