# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021023

## Integrated dynamic interval data envelopment analysis in the presence of integer and negative data

 Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, India

* Corresponding author: Pooja Bansal

Received  October 2019 Revised  September 2020 Published  February 2021

Fund Project: The first author is supported by Council of Scientific Research (CSIR), India

The conventional data envelopment analysis (DEA) models presume that the values of input-output variables of the decision-making units (DMUs) are precisely known. However, some real-life situations can authoritatively mandate the data to vary in concrete fine-tuned ranges, which can include negative values and measures that are allowed to take integer values only. Our study proposes an integrated dynamic DEA model to accommodate interval-valued and integer-valued features that can take negative values. The proposed one-step model follows the directional distance function approach to determine the efficiency of DMUs over time in the presence of carryovers connecting the consecutive periods. We use the pessimistic and optimistic standpoints to evaluate the respective lower and upper bounds of the interval efficiency scores of the DMUs. We compare our proposed approach with a few relevant studies in the literature. We also validate our model on a synthetically generated dataset. Furthermore, we showcase the proposed procedure's applicability on a real dataset from 2014 to 2018 of airlines operating in India.

Citation: Pooja Bansal, Aparna Mehra. Integrated dynamic interval data envelopment analysis in the presence of integer and negative data. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021023
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
The dynamic framework for a DMU comprising of $T$ periods with multiple carryovers connecting consecutive periods
and 2b describe the upper and lower bounds respectively of efficient frontiers for DMUs $1$ (red) and $3$ (blue); the output is allowed to take integer values in the interval">Figure 2.  2a and 2b describe the upper and lower bounds respectively of efficient frontiers for DMUs $1$ (red) and $3$ (blue); the output is allowed to take integer values in the interval
The dynamic structure of an airline in two consecutive periods
Results from models $(M1)$ and $(M2)$ on the data of five DMUs when $\ell = \ell' = 1$ and $k = k' = 3$; the output is restricted to take only integer values in the intervals
 DMU$_j$ $[x_{1j}^L, \, x_{1j}^U]$ $[y_{1j}^L, \, y_{1j}^U]$ $E_j^{U}$ $E_j^{L}$ 1 [1,2] [2,3] 1.0909 1.025 2 [2.5, 3] [3,4] 1.0545 0.9405 3 [4,5] [5,7] 1.5714 1.0435 4 [6,7] [2,5] 1 0.76 5 [4, 4.5] [1,3] 0.9643 0.8444
 DMU$_j$ $[x_{1j}^L, \, x_{1j}^U]$ $[y_{1j}^L, \, y_{1j}^U]$ $E_j^{U}$ $E_j^{L}$ 1 [1,2] [2,3] 1.0909 1.025 2 [2.5, 3] [3,4] 1.0545 0.9405 3 [4,5] [5,7] 1.5714 1.0435 4 [6,7] [2,5] 1 0.76 5 [4, 4.5] [1,3] 0.9643 0.8444
Results from models $(M1)$ and $(M2)$, $\ell = \ell' = 1$, $k = k' = 3$, in columns 2 and 3; and the interval SORM model [17] in columns 5 and 6 for the dataset of 20 banks described in [17]. Column 4 represents the classification of DMUs into three classes by our approach, while column 7 presents the classification into strictly efficient class ($E^{++}$), weekly efficient class ($E^{+}$), and inefficient class ($E^{-}$) defined in [17]
 DMU$_j$ $E_j^{L}$ $E_j^{U}$ class (our approach) $\overline{E}_j$ $\underline{E}_j$ class (by [17]) 1 1.0063 1.0063 S 1 1 $E^{++}$ 2 0.9858 1.0116 E 0.813 1 $E^{+}$ 3 1.0006 1.0103 S 1 1 $E^{++}$ 4 0.9765 0.9889 IE 0.52 0.698 $E^{-}$ 5 1.0036 1.0084 S 1 1 $E^{++}$ 6 0.9678 0.9818 IE 0.427 0.614 $E^{-}$ 7 1.5072 1.5760 S 1 1 $E^{++}$ 8 0.9858 0.9896 IE 0.253 0.513 $E^{-}$ 9 1.0433 1.1944 S 1 1 $E^{++}$ 10 0.9616 0.9940 IE 0.718 0.901 $E^{-}$ 11 0.9984 1.0002 E 0.777 1 $E^{+}$ 12 0.9970 0.9990 IE 0.667 1 $E^{+}$ 13 0.9897 0.9939 IE 0.49 0.663 $E^{-}$ 14 0.9990 1.0042 E 0.929 1 $E^{+}$ 15 0.9940 1.0127 E 1 1 $E^{++}$ 16 0.9823 0.9928 IE 0.616 0.834 $E^{-}$ 17 0.9635 0.9823 IE 0.47 0.665 $E^{-}$ 18 0.9972 0.9990 IE 0.614 0.846 $E^{-}$ 19 0.9913 1.0051 E 0.866 1 $E^{+}$ 20 1.0066 1.0099 S 1 1 $E^{++}$
 DMU$_j$ $E_j^{L}$ $E_j^{U}$ class (our approach) $\overline{E}_j$ $\underline{E}_j$ class (by [17]) 1 1.0063 1.0063 S 1 1 $E^{++}$ 2 0.9858 1.0116 E 0.813 1 $E^{+}$ 3 1.0006 1.0103 S 1 1 $E^{++}$ 4 0.9765 0.9889 IE 0.52 0.698 $E^{-}$ 5 1.0036 1.0084 S 1 1 $E^{++}$ 6 0.9678 0.9818 IE 0.427 0.614 $E^{-}$ 7 1.5072 1.5760 S 1 1 $E^{++}$ 8 0.9858 0.9896 IE 0.253 0.513 $E^{-}$ 9 1.0433 1.1944 S 1 1 $E^{++}$ 10 0.9616 0.9940 IE 0.718 0.901 $E^{-}$ 11 0.9984 1.0002 E 0.777 1 $E^{+}$ 12 0.9970 0.9990 IE 0.667 1 $E^{+}$ 13 0.9897 0.9939 IE 0.49 0.663 $E^{-}$ 14 0.9990 1.0042 E 0.929 1 $E^{+}$ 15 0.9940 1.0127 E 1 1 $E^{++}$ 16 0.9823 0.9928 IE 0.616 0.834 $E^{-}$ 17 0.9635 0.9823 IE 0.47 0.665 $E^{-}$ 18 0.9972 0.9990 IE 0.614 0.846 $E^{-}$ 19 0.9913 1.0051 E 0.866 1 $E^{+}$ 20 1.0066 1.0099 S 1 1 $E^{++}$
Results from models $(M1)$ and $(M2)$ with necessary modifications, and the InDEA model in [26] on the data described in [26]. Here, $Et^{L}$ and $Et^{U}$ denote the lower and the upper bounds of the efficiency interval obtained by our models at time $t$, while these bounds are represented by $q^{Lt}$ and $q^{Ut},$ respectively, for the models in [26]. The symbols $Q, \;Q^{+}$ and $Q^{++}$ indicate the inefficient, efficient but not super-efficient, and super-efficient DMUs, respectively, by the classification defined in [26]. The ranking of units within each class is carried out by the PD method and recorded for both our proposed models and te one in [26]
 DMU$_j$ ($j\to$) 1 2 3 4 5 $E1^{L}$ 1.0591 1.0275 0.9515 1.0108 0.9548 $E1^{U}$ 1.1077 1.0833 1.0065 1.0108 0.9730 Class S S E S IE Rank 1 2 4 3 5 $q^{L1}$ 1.03 1.06 0.74 0.70 0.62 $q^{U1}$ 2.02 2.04 1.04 0.87 0.85 Class $Q^{++}$ $Q^{++}$ $Q^{+}$ $Q$ $Q$ Rank 1 2 3 4 5 $E2^{L}$ 0.9527 1.0260 1.0559 1.0143 0.9547 $E2^{U}$ 1.0065 1.0773 1.1046 1.0143 0.9766 Class E S S S IE Rank 4 2 1 3 5 $q^{L2}$ 0.75 1.05 1.03 0.71 0.75 $q^{U2}$ 1.03 1.75 1.88 0.79 0.85 Class $Q^{+}$ $Q^{++}$ $Q^{++}$ $Q$ $Q$ Rank 3 2 1 5 4 $E3^{L}$ 1.0117 1.0291 0.9653 1.0675 0.9652 $E3^{U}$ 1.0682 1.1144 1.0151 1.1123 1.0220 Class S S E S E Rank 3 2 5 1 4 $q^{L3}$ 0.70 1.10 0.73 1.04 0.76 $q^{U3}$ 0.87 2.04 0.96 2.21 0.83 Class $Q$ $Q^{++}$ $Q$ $Q^{++}$ $Q$ Rank 5 2 3 1 4 $E4^{L}$ 1.0891 1.0818 0.9646 1.0225 0.9886 $E4^{U}$ 1.1149 1.0818 1.0236 1.0685 1.0330 Class S S E S E Rank 1 3 5 2 4 $q^{L4}$ 0.89 0.68 0.73 1.05 0.81 $q^{U4}$ 1.87 0.95 0.88 1.79 1.33 Class $Q^{+}$ $Q$ $Q$ $Q^{++}$ $Q^{+}$ Rank 2 4 1 5 3 $E5^{L}$ 0.9759 1.0442 0.9765 0.9424 0.9528 $E5^{U}$ 1.0569 1.0745 1.0185 0.9867 0.9839 Class E S E IE IE Rank 2 1 3 5 4 $q^{L5}$ 0.95 1.12 0.78 0.71 0.72 $q^{U5}$ 1.66 1.76 1.13 0.98 0.94 Class $Q^{+}$ $Q^{++}$ $Q^{+}$ $Q$ $Q$ Rank 2 1 3 4 5
 DMU$_j$ ($j\to$) 1 2 3 4 5 $E1^{L}$ 1.0591 1.0275 0.9515 1.0108 0.9548 $E1^{U}$ 1.1077 1.0833 1.0065 1.0108 0.9730 Class S S E S IE Rank 1 2 4 3 5 $q^{L1}$ 1.03 1.06 0.74 0.70 0.62 $q^{U1}$ 2.02 2.04 1.04 0.87 0.85 Class $Q^{++}$ $Q^{++}$ $Q^{+}$ $Q$ $Q$ Rank 1 2 3 4 5 $E2^{L}$ 0.9527 1.0260 1.0559 1.0143 0.9547 $E2^{U}$ 1.0065 1.0773 1.1046 1.0143 0.9766 Class E S S S IE Rank 4 2 1 3 5 $q^{L2}$ 0.75 1.05 1.03 0.71 0.75 $q^{U2}$ 1.03 1.75 1.88 0.79 0.85 Class $Q^{+}$ $Q^{++}$ $Q^{++}$ $Q$ $Q$ Rank 3 2 1 5 4 $E3^{L}$ 1.0117 1.0291 0.9653 1.0675 0.9652 $E3^{U}$ 1.0682 1.1144 1.0151 1.1123 1.0220 Class S S E S E Rank 3 2 5 1 4 $q^{L3}$ 0.70 1.10 0.73 1.04 0.76 $q^{U3}$ 0.87 2.04 0.96 2.21 0.83 Class $Q$ $Q^{++}$ $Q$ $Q^{++}$ $Q$ Rank 5 2 3 1 4 $E4^{L}$ 1.0891 1.0818 0.9646 1.0225 0.9886 $E4^{U}$ 1.1149 1.0818 1.0236 1.0685 1.0330 Class S S E S E Rank 1 3 5 2 4 $q^{L4}$ 0.89 0.68 0.73 1.05 0.81 $q^{U4}$ 1.87 0.95 0.88 1.79 1.33 Class $Q^{+}$ $Q$ $Q$ $Q^{++}$ $Q^{+}$ Rank 2 4 1 5 3 $E5^{L}$ 0.9759 1.0442 0.9765 0.9424 0.9528 $E5^{U}$ 1.0569 1.0745 1.0185 0.9867 0.9839 Class E S E IE IE Rank 2 1 3 5 4 $q^{L5}$ 0.95 1.12 0.78 0.71 0.72 $q^{U5}$ 1.66 1.76 1.13 0.98 0.94 Class $Q^{+}$ $Q^{++}$ $Q^{+}$ $Q$ $Q$ Rank 2 1 3 4 5
Result from models $(M1)$ and $(M2)$ with $\ell = \, \ell' = \, 1$ and $k = \, k' = \, 3$, on the two periods synthetic dataset of 30 DMUs given in Appendix B
 DMU$_j$ interval of efficiency class rank 1 [0.7897, 1.2083] E 28 2 [0.8055, 1.1376] E 25 3 [0.8545, 1.3422] E 6 4 [0.8891, 1.2386] E 7 5 [0.8299, 1.2265] E 21 6 [0.8856, 1.2316] E 9 7 [0.8397, 1.2817] E 15 8 [0.8396, 1.2332] E 16 9 [0.8852, 1.224] E 10 10 [0.7816, 1.2137] E 29 11 [0.8582, 1.2269] E 12 12 [0.7638, 1.1997] E 30 13 [0.8442, 1.2267] E 18 14 [0.8514, 1.1736] E 13 15 [0.8054, 1.1402] E 26 16 [0.8265, 1.2899] E 17 17 [0.842, 1.1696] E 19 18 [0.9258, 1.2041] E 5 19 [0.8057, 1.2573] E 23 20 [0.8351, 1.1974] E 14 21 [0.8808, 1.2 759] E 8 22 [0.8023, 1.2583] E 24 23 [0.9288, 1.2615] E 4 24 [0.8297, 1.2457] E 22 25 [0.7959, 1.1546] E 27 26 [0.875, 1.1831] E 11 27 [0.9845, 1.2724] E 3 28 [1.0122, 1.3216] S 1 29 [0.9875, 1.1374] E 2 30 [0.8106, 1.1771] E 20
 DMU$_j$ interval of efficiency class rank 1 [0.7897, 1.2083] E 28 2 [0.8055, 1.1376] E 25 3 [0.8545, 1.3422] E 6 4 [0.8891, 1.2386] E 7 5 [0.8299, 1.2265] E 21 6 [0.8856, 1.2316] E 9 7 [0.8397, 1.2817] E 15 8 [0.8396, 1.2332] E 16 9 [0.8852, 1.224] E 10 10 [0.7816, 1.2137] E 29 11 [0.8582, 1.2269] E 12 12 [0.7638, 1.1997] E 30 13 [0.8442, 1.2267] E 18 14 [0.8514, 1.1736] E 13 15 [0.8054, 1.1402] E 26 16 [0.8265, 1.2899] E 17 17 [0.842, 1.1696] E 19 18 [0.9258, 1.2041] E 5 19 [0.8057, 1.2573] E 23 20 [0.8351, 1.1974] E 14 21 [0.8808, 1.2 759] E 8 22 [0.8023, 1.2583] E 24 23 [0.9288, 1.2615] E 4 24 [0.8297, 1.2457] E 22 25 [0.7959, 1.1546] E 27 26 [0.875, 1.1831] E 11 27 [0.9845, 1.2724] E 3 28 [1.0122, 1.3216] S 1 29 [0.9875, 1.1374] E 2 30 [0.8106, 1.1771] E 20
Inputs, outputs, desirable and undesirable carryovers applied in the empirical analysis
 Inputs Operating expenses (in millions INR) Desirable carryover Fleet size (in number) Undesirable carryover Losses carried forward after tax (in millions INR) Outputs Operating revenue (in millions INR) Pax load factor per month (in $\%$) Weight load factor per month (in $\%$) Passengers carried per month (in number) Cargo carried per month (in tonne)
 Inputs Operating expenses (in millions INR) Desirable carryover Fleet size (in number) Undesirable carryover Losses carried forward after tax (in millions INR) Outputs Operating revenue (in millions INR) Pax load factor per month (in $\%$) Weight load factor per month (in $\%$) Passengers carried per month (in number) Cargo carried per month (in tonne)
Data of 11 Indian airlines for the period 2014-15
 airline fleet size losses carried operating expenses operating revenue pax load factor weight load factor passengers carried cargo carried 1 101 59058.4 226854.4 206131.6 [73.7, 86.9] [66.7, 77.6] [990986,1217671] [7940,10098] 2 17 611.7 19597.6 22948.2 [56.3, 93.8] [45.4, 98.6] [8430,18674] [0, 32.8] 3 10 1789.2 3034 2279.5 [60.7, 72.2] [55.3, 65.6] [19612,38835] [13,19] 4 3 1333.1 2885 1551.9 [71.7, 84] [40.6, 53.2] [68790,181483] [450,1432] 5 5 -43.9 6310.4 6592 [0, 0] [66.1, 71.9] [0, 0] [9542,11858] 6 19 -363.7 28715.8 30664.3 [75.6, 89.4] [70.6, 82.4] [534795,639264] [3932,5485] 7 94 -16590.3 123578.6 139253.4 [76.8, 91.9] [68.1, 86.4] [2230645,2769283] [10300, 12303.8] 8 107 18137.1 215030.1 195606.1 [77.1, 89.5] [69.7, 78.6] [1186492,1393452] [6355,9124] 9 9 2876.5 16775.2 14229.4 [74.9, 89.7] [68.8, 79.8] [171551,294766] [915,1385] 10 34 6870.5 60885 52015.3 [80, 93.4] [75.3, 87.7] [552726,976517] [3202,6208] 11 6 1990.7 2681.9 691.3 [45.4, 77.6] [34.9, 66.6] [14999,158348] [0, 2151]
 airline fleet size losses carried operating expenses operating revenue pax load factor weight load factor passengers carried cargo carried 1 101 59058.4 226854.4 206131.6 [73.7, 86.9] [66.7, 77.6] [990986,1217671] [7940,10098] 2 17 611.7 19597.6 22948.2 [56.3, 93.8] [45.4, 98.6] [8430,18674] [0, 32.8] 3 10 1789.2 3034 2279.5 [60.7, 72.2] [55.3, 65.6] [19612,38835] [13,19] 4 3 1333.1 2885 1551.9 [71.7, 84] [40.6, 53.2] [68790,181483] [450,1432] 5 5 -43.9 6310.4 6592 [0, 0] [66.1, 71.9] [0, 0] [9542,11858] 6 19 -363.7 28715.8 30664.3 [75.6, 89.4] [70.6, 82.4] [534795,639264] [3932,5485] 7 94 -16590.3 123578.6 139253.4 [76.8, 91.9] [68.1, 86.4] [2230645,2769283] [10300, 12303.8] 8 107 18137.1 215030.1 195606.1 [77.1, 89.5] [69.7, 78.6] [1186492,1393452] [6355,9124] 9 9 2876.5 16775.2 14229.4 [74.9, 89.7] [68.8, 79.8] [171551,294766] [915,1385] 10 34 6870.5 60885 52015.3 [80, 93.4] [75.3, 87.7] [552726,976517] [3202,6208] 11 6 1990.7 2681.9 691.3 [45.4, 77.6] [34.9, 66.6] [14999,158348] [0, 2151]
Results of the dynamic integrated interval efficiency models $(M1)$ and $(M2)$ with $\ell = \ell' = 1$ and $k = k' = 3,$ and ranking of super-efficient and efficient DMUs
 Super-efficient DMUs Efficient DMUs airline efficiency interval class ranking vector rank ranking vector rank 1 [1.3333, 1.3938] S 7.5 2 2 [1.0026, 1.1066] S 2.459 7 3 [1.0156, 1.0369] S 1.356 9 4 [1.0052, 1.2314] S 4.053 6 5 [1.1249, 1.2199] S 5.373 3 6 [0.9994, 1.0895] E 1.051 10 7 [1.4685, 1.6575] S 8.5 1 8 [1.0950, 1.1924] S 4.847 4 9 [0.9986, 1.0734] E 0.949 11 10 [1.0210, 1.2842] S 4.630 5 11 [1.0081, 1.0591] S 1.781 8
 Super-efficient DMUs Efficient DMUs airline efficiency interval class ranking vector rank ranking vector rank 1 [1.3333, 1.3938] S 7.5 2 2 [1.0026, 1.1066] S 2.459 7 3 [1.0156, 1.0369] S 1.356 9 4 [1.0052, 1.2314] S 4.053 6 5 [1.1249, 1.2199] S 5.373 3 6 [0.9994, 1.0895] E 1.051 10 7 [1.4685, 1.6575] S 8.5 1 8 [1.0950, 1.1924] S 4.847 4 9 [0.9986, 1.0734] E 0.949 11 10 [1.0210, 1.2842] S 4.630 5 11 [1.0081, 1.0591] S 1.781 8
Synthetic dataset of 30 DMUs for $t = 1$ with two inputs, two outputs, and one desirable carryover linking the two periods
 DMU$_j$ $X_{1}$ $X_{2}$ $Y_{1}$ $Y_{2}$ $C_{1}$ 1 [0, 3] [-0.1615, 3.0767] [2,10] [3.6768, 7.233] [-0.9007, 0.3911] 2 [-5, 0] [-1.182, 7.4288] [1,3] [5.0074, 7.5827] [-3.833, -1.0627] 3 [-2, -1] [2.863, 6.6322] [-2, 6] [6.5486, 11.8582] [0.7328, 7.2357] 4 [-11, -5] [5.5777, 9.1795] [-4, -3] [7.2685, 14.1149] [3.8294, -2.4358] 5 [-3, 1] [0.6484, 5.7141] [1,8] [6.5704, 9.7772] [3.5951, 3.4671] 6 [3,6] [-0.2489, 4.7478] [10,10] [5.5064, 9.1181] [5.1994, 0.0173] 7 [-6, -2] [-5.4287, -2.6282] [0, 3] [-1.6806, 3.1973] [-6.5508, -0.0203] 8 [-2, 2] [3.4445, 5.0916] [1,8] [6.8983, 9.4379] [-0.7025, -3.7166] 9 [2,5] [-5.9021, -2.2483] [7,12] [-1.7842, 0.9635] [3.2851, -1.2266] 10 [-2, 3] [-0.7791, 2.458] [2,7] [3.2602, 5.8106] [-3.2601, -0.8168] 11 [-9, -6] [4.5724, 8.613] [-2, -1] [10.5083, 15.6547] [-2.0706, 1.0867] 12 [-1, 2] [1.582, 4.8292] [2,4] [4.7475, 7.3799] [-5.0713, -2.4425] 13 [1,3] [5.5856, 5.9474] [5,8] [9.8552, 9.9694] [-5.5407, 0.0637] 14 [-6, -4] [-1.6635, 1.3701] [2,2] [1.7472, 2.1861] [-2.9329, -1.6078] 15 [-3, 1] [-3.975, -1.1701] [3,3] [-0.7801, 0.2799] [-2.3205, -1.5946] 16 [-7, 0] [-6.6192, -0.3315] [-4, 0] [-1.9427, -1.3506] [-6.3538, -0.7493] 17 [-4, 0] [1.1301, 5.0351] [0, 0] [6.6786, 8.0126] [-1.7038, 1.2584] 18 [6,8] [-3.3653, 2.1456] [12,13] [1.6537, 3.4448] [-1.2121, 5.5107] 19 [-5, 0] [6.2833, 7.7517] [-2, 0] [8.1914, 12.7517] [0.4046, 3.4051] 20 [-3, -1] [1.1149, 1.1633] [-2, 3] [5.6438, 8.1306] [-1.0965, 5.2077] 21 [-5, 4] [8.9549, 9.3198] [5,8] [11.0651, 17.3472] [-0.981, -5.7919] 22 [3,5] [-3.7758, -0.397] [4,7] [2.2879, 3.0219] [-1.1107, -3.3136] 23 [-8, -1] [-5.5734, -1.605] [-1, 3] [-2.0838, 4.5846] [4.0279, -0.1544] 24 [-2, 4] [-2.359, 1.1816] [2,5] [0.7777, 3.9289] [-0.2559, -3.4568] 25 [-1, 5] [2.6094, 2.7898] [5,6] [3.9727, 6.8607] [-0.5585, 0.7262] 26 [-1, -1] [2.9899, 6.6723] [5,6] [8.6948, 11.5419] [-1.5396, -3.3929] 27 [0, 5] [-3.0471, 3.6269] [4,9] [1.2691, 4.5094] [5.9166, 1.5114] 28 [0, 5] [-2.8085, 4.2057] [2,11] [4.4506, 5.2129] [2.597, 9.379] 29 [-1, 3] [1.7709, 3.0374] [2,6] [5.6242, 6.2396] [7.127, -3.5507] 30 [-5, -2] [-1.5041, 1.8533] [-2, 4] [2.1227, 5.3259] [-1.9647, -4.8179]
 DMU$_j$ $X_{1}$ $X_{2}$ $Y_{1}$ $Y_{2}$ $C_{1}$ 1 [0, 3] [-0.1615, 3.0767] [2,10] [3.6768, 7.233] [-0.9007, 0.3911] 2 [-5, 0] [-1.182, 7.4288] [1,3] [5.0074, 7.5827] [-3.833, -1.0627] 3 [-2, -1] [2.863, 6.6322] [-2, 6] [6.5486, 11.8582] [0.7328, 7.2357] 4 [-11, -5] [5.5777, 9.1795] [-4, -3] [7.2685, 14.1149] [3.8294, -2.4358] 5 [-3, 1] [0.6484, 5.7141] [1,8] [6.5704, 9.7772] [3.5951, 3.4671] 6 [3,6] [-0.2489, 4.7478] [10,10] [5.5064, 9.1181] [5.1994, 0.0173] 7 [-6, -2] [-5.4287, -2.6282] [0, 3] [-1.6806, 3.1973] [-6.5508, -0.0203] 8 [-2, 2] [3.4445, 5.0916] [1,8] [6.8983, 9.4379] [-0.7025, -3.7166] 9 [2,5] [-5.9021, -2.2483] [7,12] [-1.7842, 0.9635] [3.2851, -1.2266] 10 [-2, 3] [-0.7791, 2.458] [2,7] [3.2602, 5.8106] [-3.2601, -0.8168] 11 [-9, -6] [4.5724, 8.613] [-2, -1] [10.5083, 15.6547] [-2.0706, 1.0867] 12 [-1, 2] [1.582, 4.8292] [2,4] [4.7475, 7.3799] [-5.0713, -2.4425] 13 [1,3] [5.5856, 5.9474] [5,8] [9.8552, 9.9694] [-5.5407, 0.0637] 14 [-6, -4] [-1.6635, 1.3701] [2,2] [1.7472, 2.1861] [-2.9329, -1.6078] 15 [-3, 1] [-3.975, -1.1701] [3,3] [-0.7801, 0.2799] [-2.3205, -1.5946] 16 [-7, 0] [-6.6192, -0.3315] [-4, 0] [-1.9427, -1.3506] [-6.3538, -0.7493] 17 [-4, 0] [1.1301, 5.0351] [0, 0] [6.6786, 8.0126] [-1.7038, 1.2584] 18 [6,8] [-3.3653, 2.1456] [12,13] [1.6537, 3.4448] [-1.2121, 5.5107] 19 [-5, 0] [6.2833, 7.7517] [-2, 0] [8.1914, 12.7517] [0.4046, 3.4051] 20 [-3, -1] [1.1149, 1.1633] [-2, 3] [5.6438, 8.1306] [-1.0965, 5.2077] 21 [-5, 4] [8.9549, 9.3198] [5,8] [11.0651, 17.3472] [-0.981, -5.7919] 22 [3,5] [-3.7758, -0.397] [4,7] [2.2879, 3.0219] [-1.1107, -3.3136] 23 [-8, -1] [-5.5734, -1.605] [-1, 3] [-2.0838, 4.5846] [4.0279, -0.1544] 24 [-2, 4] [-2.359, 1.1816] [2,5] [0.7777, 3.9289] [-0.2559, -3.4568] 25 [-1, 5] [2.6094, 2.7898] [5,6] [3.9727, 6.8607] [-0.5585, 0.7262] 26 [-1, -1] [2.9899, 6.6723] [5,6] [8.6948, 11.5419] [-1.5396, -3.3929] 27 [0, 5] [-3.0471, 3.6269] [4,9] [1.2691, 4.5094] [5.9166, 1.5114] 28 [0, 5] [-2.8085, 4.2057] [2,11] [4.4506, 5.2129] [2.597, 9.379] 29 [-1, 3] [1.7709, 3.0374] [2,6] [5.6242, 6.2396] [7.127, -3.5507] 30 [-5, -2] [-1.5041, 1.8533] [-2, 4] [2.1227, 5.3259] [-1.9647, -4.8179]
Synthetic dataset of 30 DMUs for $t = 2$ with two inputs, two outputs
 DMU$_j$ $X_{1}$ $X_{2}$ $Y_{1}$ $Y_{2}$ 1 [-3, 1] [1,3] [-11.36, -3.2555] [-3.3936, -1.5096] 2 [1,1] [2,5] [-0.9634, 1.7725] [1.7725, 4.0171] 3 [-7, -1] [0, 2] [1.8694, 3.4901] [3.4901, 8.0933] 4 [-3, 7] [5,7] [-0.4754, 4.3661] [4.3661, 2.8741] 5 [-3, 2] [0, 4] [-2.6313, 4.1259] [4.1259, 2.8374] 6 [-5, 0] [1,3] [0.6498, 3.7561] [3.7561, 2.7529] 7 [-1, 6] [4,9] [-9.4604, -4.8163] [-4.8163, -5.7451] 8 [-8, -4] [-4, -1] [-1.7383, -0.5501] [-0.5501, 1.5019] 9 [2,5] [6,10] [6.2155, 9.9875] [9.9875, 11.2043] 10 [-4, 4] [6,6] [0.3967, 3.3566] [3.3566, 4.4534] 11 [-3, -1] [-2, -2] [-3.638, -0.2749] [-0.2749, 2.2454] 12 [-1, 8] [4,11] [-6.8705, -3.8813] [-3.8813, -2.2912] 13 [-6, 2] [1,4] [1.3005, 3.6518] [3.6518, 5.8577] 14 [0, 1] [1,5] [4.6112, 7.6644] [7.6644, 7.6551] 15 [3,5] [3,8] [-3.1301, -0.6347] [-0.6347, 0.9748] 16 [-6, -3] [-1, 2] [-1.3322, 0.3764] [0.3764, 0.6187] 17 [-3, -2] [0, 4] [-8.6088, -6.2055] [-6.2055, -2.6939] 18 [1,5] [5,8] [-1.0369, 5.3176] [5.3176, 5.2215] 19 [1,4] [6,12] [-3.0645, 2.224] [2.224, 0.3195] 20 [-4, 0] [1,5] [-5.066, -1.4253] [-1.4253, -1.7729] 21 [-2, 3] [3,3] [4.9521, 8.3288] [8.3288, 7.6476] 22 [2,4] [3,15] [-1.5163, 3.1201] [3.1201, 4.2655] 23 [-5, -2] [-2, 1] [-5.5681, -1.3893] [-1.3893, -1.5713] 24 [-10, -4] [-4, -2] [-4.6455, 1.4948] [1.4948, 1.8267] 25 [-3, 2] [0, 4] [-3.4395, 6.5853] [6.5853, 7.1234] 26 [2,6] [8,9] [7.6897, 9.6555] [9.6555, 10.8196] 27 [2,3] [6,12] [-7.7017, -1.5092] [-1.5092, -1.0977] 28 [2,8] [8,10] [8.3769, 11.9711] [11.9711, 13.669] 29 [-1, 5] [0, 7] [-6.1897, 0.5822] [0.5822, 0.6056] 30 [-3, 3] [3,4] [-1.7567, 0.7063] [0.7063, 2.1542]
 DMU$_j$ $X_{1}$ $X_{2}$ $Y_{1}$ $Y_{2}$ 1 [-3, 1] [1,3] [-11.36, -3.2555] [-3.3936, -1.5096] 2 [1,1] [2,5] [-0.9634, 1.7725] [1.7725, 4.0171] 3 [-7, -1] [0, 2] [1.8694, 3.4901] [3.4901, 8.0933] 4 [-3, 7] [5,7] [-0.4754, 4.3661] [4.3661, 2.8741] 5 [-3, 2] [0, 4] [-2.6313, 4.1259] [4.1259, 2.8374] 6 [-5, 0] [1,3] [0.6498, 3.7561] [3.7561, 2.7529] 7 [-1, 6] [4,9] [-9.4604, -4.8163] [-4.8163, -5.7451] 8 [-8, -4] [-4, -1] [-1.7383, -0.5501] [-0.5501, 1.5019] 9 [2,5] [6,10] [6.2155, 9.9875] [9.9875, 11.2043] 10 [-4, 4] [6,6] [0.3967, 3.3566] [3.3566, 4.4534] 11 [-3, -1] [-2, -2] [-3.638, -0.2749] [-0.2749, 2.2454] 12 [-1, 8] [4,11] [-6.8705, -3.8813] [-3.8813, -2.2912] 13 [-6, 2] [1,4] [1.3005, 3.6518] [3.6518, 5.8577] 14 [0, 1] [1,5] [4.6112, 7.6644] [7.6644, 7.6551] 15 [3,5] [3,8] [-3.1301, -0.6347] [-0.6347, 0.9748] 16 [-6, -3] [-1, 2] [-1.3322, 0.3764] [0.3764, 0.6187] 17 [-3, -2] [0, 4] [-8.6088, -6.2055] [-6.2055, -2.6939] 18 [1,5] [5,8] [-1.0369, 5.3176] [5.3176, 5.2215] 19 [1,4] [6,12] [-3.0645, 2.224] [2.224, 0.3195] 20 [-4, 0] [1,5] [-5.066, -1.4253] [-1.4253, -1.7729] 21 [-2, 3] [3,3] [4.9521, 8.3288] [8.3288, 7.6476] 22 [2,4] [3,15] [-1.5163, 3.1201] [3.1201, 4.2655] 23 [-5, -2] [-2, 1] [-5.5681, -1.3893] [-1.3893, -1.5713] 24 [-10, -4] [-4, -2] [-4.6455, 1.4948] [1.4948, 1.8267] 25 [-3, 2] [0, 4] [-3.4395, 6.5853] [6.5853, 7.1234] 26 [2,6] [8,9] [7.6897, 9.6555] [9.6555, 10.8196] 27 [2,3] [6,12] [-7.7017, -1.5092] [-1.5092, -1.0977] 28 [2,8] [8,10] [8.3769, 11.9711] [11.9711, 13.669] 29 [-1, 5] [0, 7] [-6.1897, 0.5822] [0.5822, 0.6056] 30 [-3, 3] [3,4] [-1.7567, 0.7063] [0.7063, 2.1542]
 [1] Cheng-Kai Hu, Fung-Bao Liu, Hong-Ming Chen, Cheng-Feng Hu. Network data envelopment analysis with fuzzy non-discretionary factors. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (4) : 1795-1807. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020046 [2] Paul E. Anderson, Timothy P. Chartier, Amy N. Langville, Kathryn E. Pedings-Behling. The rankability of weighted data from pairwise comparisons. Foundations of Data Science, 2021, 3 (1) : 1-26. doi: 10.3934/fods.2021002 [3] Xiaoyi Zhou, Tong Ye, Tony T. Lee. Designing and analysis of a Wi-Fi data offloading strategy catering for the preference of mobile users. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021038 [4] Miroslav Bulíček, Victoria Patel, Endre Süli, Yasemin Şengül. Existence of large-data global weak solutions to a model of a strain-limiting viscoelastic body. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2021053 [5] Habib Ammari, Josselin Garnier, Vincent Jugnon. Detection, reconstruction, and characterization algorithms from noisy data in multistatic wave imaging. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2015, 8 (3) : 389-417. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2015.8.389 [6] Woocheol Choi, Youngwoo Koh. On the splitting method for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with initial data in $H^1$. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2021, 41 (8) : 3837-3867. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2021019 [7] Marion Darbas, Jérémy Heleine, Stephanie Lohrengel. Numerical resolution by the quasi-reversibility method of a data completion problem for Maxwell's equations. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (6) : 1107-1133. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020056 [8] Haili Qiao, Aijie Cheng. A fast high order method for time fractional diffusion equation with non-smooth data. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2021073 [9] Masahiro Ikeda, Ziheng Tu, Kyouhei Wakasa. Small data blow-up of semi-linear wave equation with scattering dissipation and time-dependent mass. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2021  doi: 10.3934/eect.2021011 [10] Lei Zhang, Luming Jia. Near-field imaging for an obstacle above rough surfaces with limited aperture data. Inverse Problems & Imaging, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2021024 [11] Yumi Yahagi. Construction of unique mild solution and continuity of solution for the small initial data to 1-D Keller-Segel system. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2021099 [12] Muhammad Ajmal, Xiande Zhang. New optimal error-correcting codes for crosstalk avoidance in on-chip data buses. Advances in Mathematics of Communications, 2021, 15 (3) : 487-506. doi: 10.3934/amc.2020078 [13] Jan Prüss, Laurent Pujo-Menjouet, G.F. Webb, Rico Zacher. Analysis of a model for the dynamics of prions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2006, 6 (1) : 225-235. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2006.6.225 [14] Yuncherl Choi, Taeyoung Ha, Jongmin Han, Sewoong Kim, Doo Seok Lee. Turing instability and dynamic phase transition for the Brusselator model with multiple critical eigenvalues. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2021035 [15] Raimund Bürger, Christophe Chalons, Rafael Ordoñez, Luis Miguel Villada. A multiclass Lighthill-Whitham-Richards traffic model with a discontinuous velocity function. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2021, 16 (2) : 187-219. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021004 [16] Demou Luo, Qiru Wang. Dynamic analysis on an almost periodic predator-prey system with impulsive effects and time delays. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (6) : 3427-3453. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020238 [17] Anton Schiela, Julian Ortiz. Second order directional shape derivatives of integrals on submanifolds. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2021  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2021017 [18] Martial Agueh, Reinhard Illner, Ashlin Richardson. Analysis and simulations of a refined flocking and swarming model of Cucker-Smale type. Kinetic & Related Models, 2011, 4 (1) : 1-16. doi: 10.3934/krm.2011.4.1 [19] Rui Hu, Yuan Yuan. Stability, bifurcation analysis in a neural network model with delay and diffusion. Conference Publications, 2009, 2009 (Special) : 367-376. doi: 10.3934/proc.2009.2009.367 [20] Seung-Yeal Ha, Shi Jin. Local sensitivity analysis for the Cucker-Smale model with random inputs. Kinetic & Related Models, 2018, 11 (4) : 859-889. doi: 10.3934/krm.2018034

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366