# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
The loss-averse newsvendor problem with quantity-oriented reference point under CVaR criterion
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Planning rolling stock maintenance: Optimization of train arrival dates at a maintenance center
doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021023
Online First

Online First articles are published articles within a journal that have not yet been assigned to a formal issue. This means they do not yet have a volume number, issue number, or page numbers assigned to them, however, they can still be found and cited using their DOI (Digital Object Identifier). Online First publication benefits the research community by making new scientific discoveries known as quickly as possible.

Readers can access Online First articles via the “Online First” tab for the selected journal.

## 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 Early access 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] Mohammad Afzalinejad, Zahra Abbasi. A slacks-based model for dynamic data envelopment analysis. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (1) : 275-291. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018043 [2] Mahdi Mahdiloo, Abdollah Noorizadeh, Reza Farzipoor Saen. Developing a new data envelopment analysis model for customer value analysis. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (3) : 531-558. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.531 [3] Habibe Zare Haghighi, Sajad Adeli, Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, Gholam Reza Jahanshahloo. Revenue congestion: An application of data envelopment analysis. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (4) : 1311-1322. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.1311 [4] Cheng-Kai Hu, Fung-Bao Liu, Cheng-Feng Hu. Efficiency measures in fuzzy data envelopment analysis with common weights. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (1) : 237-249. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016014 [5] 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 [6] Saber Saati, Adel Hatami-Marbini, Per J. Agrell, Madjid Tavana. A common set of weight approach using an ideal decision making unit in data envelopment analysis. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2012, 8 (3) : 623-637. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.623 [7] Haruki Umakoshi. A semilinear heat equation with initial data in negative Sobolev spaces. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (2) : 745-767. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020365 [8] Zheng Dai, I.G. Rosen, Chuming Wang, Nancy Barnett, Susan E. Luczak. Using drinking data and pharmacokinetic modeling to calibrate transport model and blind deconvolution based data analysis software for transdermal alcohol biosensors. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2016, 13 (5) : 911-934. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016023 [9] Mostafa Karimi, Noor Akma Ibrahim, Mohd Rizam Abu Bakar, Jayanthi Arasan. Rank-based inference for the accelerated failure time model in the presence of interval censored data. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2017, 7 (1) : 107-112. doi: 10.3934/naco.2017007 [10] George Siopsis. Quantum topological data analysis with continuous variables. Foundations of Data Science, 2019, 1 (4) : 419-431. doi: 10.3934/fods.2019017 [11] Zhouchen Lin. A review on low-rank models in data analysis. Big Data & Information Analytics, 2016, 1 (2&3) : 139-161. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016001 [12] Tyrus Berry, Timothy Sauer. Consistent manifold representation for topological data analysis. Foundations of Data Science, 2019, 1 (1) : 1-38. doi: 10.3934/fods.2019001 [13] Pankaj Sharma, David Baglee, Jaime Campos, Erkki Jantunen. Big data collection and analysis for manufacturing organisations. Big Data & Information Analytics, 2017, 2 (2) : 127-139. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017002 [14] Runqin Hao, Guanwen Zhang, Dong Li, Jie Zhang. Data modeling analysis on removal efficiency of hexavalent chromium. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 2019, 2 (3) : 203-213. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2019014 [15] Débora A. F. Albanez, Maicon J. Benvenutti. Continuous data assimilation algorithm for simplified Bardina model. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2018, 7 (1) : 33-52. doi: 10.3934/eect.2018002 [16] Cory D. Hauck, Michael Herty, Giuseppe Visconti. Qualitative properties of mathematical model for data flow. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2021, 16 (4) : 513-533. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021015 [17] Subrata Dasgupta. Disentangling data, information and knowledge. Big Data & Information Analytics, 2016, 1 (4) : 377-389. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016016 [18] Stefano Galatolo. Orbit complexity and data compression. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2001, 7 (3) : 477-486. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2001.7.477 [19] Alessia Marigo. Equilibria for data networks. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2007, 2 (3) : 497-528. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2007.2.497 [20] C. Burgos, J.-C. Cortés, L. Shaikhet, R.-J. Villanueva. A delayed nonlinear stochastic model for cocaine consumption: Stability analysis and simulation using real data. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (4) : 1233-1244. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020356

2020 Impact Factor: 1.801

## Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables