Open Access
Issue
RAIRO-Oper. Res.
Volume 56, Number 6, November-December 2022
Page(s) 3915 - 3940
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/2022133
Published online 25 November 2022
  • S. Abolghasem, M. Toloo and S. Amézquita, Cross-efficiency evaluation in the presence of flexible measures with an application to healthcare systems. Health Care Manage. Sci. 22 (2019) 512–533. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Afsharian, H. Ahn and S.G. Harms, A review of DEA approaches applying a common set of weights: the perspective of centralized management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 294 (2021) 3–15. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • N. Aghayi, M. Tavana and M.A. Raayatpanah, Robust efficiency measurement with common set of weights under varying degrees of conservatism and data uncertainty. Eur. J. Ind. Eng. 10 (2016) 385–405. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • G.R. Amin and M. Toloo, A polynomial-time algorithm for finding ε in DEA models. Comput. Oper. Res. 31 (2004) 803–805. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • A. Amirteimoori and A. Emrouznejad, Flexible measures in production process: a DEA-based approach. RAIRO: Oper. Res. 45 (2011) 63–74. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • A. Amirteimoori, A. Emrouznejad and L. Khoshandam, Classifying flexible measures in data envelopment analysis: a slack-based measure. Measurement 46 (2013) 4100–4107. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of DMUs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (1978) 429–444. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, Z.M. Huang and D.B. Sun, Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. J. Econ. 46 (1990) 73–91. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Chen, S. Ang, F. Yang and L. Jiang, Efficiency evaluation of non-homogeneous DMUs with inconsistent input quality. Comput. Ind. Eng. 158 (2021) 107418. [Google Scholar]
  • C.I. Chiang and G.H. Tzeng, A new efficiency measure for DEA: efficiency achievement measure established on fuzzy multiple objectives programming. J. Manage. 17 (2000) 369–388. [Google Scholar]
  • C.I. Chiang, M.J. Hwang and Y.H. Liu, Determining a common set of weights in a DEA problem using a separation vector. Math. Comput. Model. 54 (2011) 2464–2470. [Google Scholar]
  • W.D. Cook and J. Zhu, Classifying inputs and outputs in DEA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 180 (2007) 692–699. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • W.D. Cook, Y. Roll and A. Kazakov, A DEA model for measuring the relative efficiency of highway maintenance patrols. Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. 28 (1990) 113–124. [Google Scholar]
  • W.W. Cooper, K.S. Park and G. Yu, IDEA and AR-IDEA, Models for dealing with imprecise data in DEA. Manage. Sci. 45 (1999) 597–607. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • C.S. de Blas, S.J. Martin and G.D. Gonzalez, Combined social networks and data envelopment analysis for ranking. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 3 (2017) 990–999. [Google Scholar]
  • D.K. Despotis, Improving the discriminating power of DEA: focus on globally efficient units. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 53 (2002) 314–323. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • B. Ebrahimi, Efficiency bounds and efficiency classifications in imprecise DEA: an extension. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 71 (2020) 491–504. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • B. Ebrahimi and E. Hajizadeh, A novel DEA model for solving performance measurement problems with flexible measures: an application to Tehran Stock Exchange. Measurement 179 (2021) 109444. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • B. Ebrahimi and M. Khalili, A new integrated AR-IDEA model to find the best DMU in the presence of both weight restrictions and imprecise data. Comput. Ind. Eng. 125 (2018) 357–363. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • B. Ebrahimi, M. Tavana, M. Toloo and V. Charles, A novel mixed binary linear DEA model for ranking decision-making units with preference information. Comput. Ind. Eng. 149 (2020) 106720. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • D. Ennen and I. Batool, Airport efficiency in Pakistan-A Data Envelopment Analysis with weight restrictions. J. Air. Transp. Manage. 69 (2018) 205–212. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • T. Ertay, The most cost efficient automotive vendor with price uncertainty: a new DEA approach. Measurement 52 (2014) 135–144. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Ghadami, H. Sahebi, M. Pishvaee and H. Gilani, A sustainable cross-efficiency DEA model for international MSW-to-biofuel supply chain design. RAIRO: Res. Oper. 55 (2021) 2653. [Google Scholar]
  • A. Hatami Marbini, M. Tavana, P.J. Agrell, F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi and Z. Ghelej Beigi, A common-weights DEA model for centralized resource reduction and target setting. Comput. Ind. Eng. 79 (2015) 195–203. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, M. Rostamy-Malkhlifeh, G.R. Jahanshahloo, Z. Moghaddas, M. Khodabakhshi and M. Vaez-Ghasemi, A review of ranking models in data envelopment analysis. J. Appl. Math. (2013) 20. DOI: 10.1155/2013/492421. [Google Scholar]
  • C.F. Hu, H.F. Wang and T. Liu, Measuring efficiency of a recycling production system with imprecise data. Numer. Algebra Control Optim. 12 (2022) 79. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • C.L. Hwang and A.S.M. Masud, Methods for multiple objective decision making. In: Multiple Objective Decision Making – Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin (1979). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • G.R. Jahanshahloo, F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, M. Khanmohammadi, M. Kazemimanesh and V. Rezaie, Ranking of units by positive ideal DMU with common weights. Expert. Syst. Appl. 37 (2010) 7483–7488. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • C. Kao and H. Hung, Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the comprise solution approach. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 56 (2005) 1196–1203. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • S. Kazemi, M. Tavana, M. Toloo and N.A. Zenkevich, A common weights model for investigating efficiency-based leadership in the russian banking industry. RAIRO: Oper. Res. 55 (2021) 213–229. [Google Scholar]
  • K. Khalili-Damghani and M. Fadaei, A comprehensive common weights data envelopment analysis model, ideal and anti-ideal virtual decision making units approach. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 11 (2018) 281–306. [Google Scholar]
  • A. Kresta, Finding the best asset financing alternative: a DEA–WEO approach. Measurement 55 (2014) 288–294. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • K.F. Lam, Finding a common set of weights for ranking decision-making units in Data Envelopment Analysis. J. Econ. Bus. Manage. 4 (2016) 534–537. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • F.H.F. Liu and H.H. Peng, Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights. Comput. Oper. Res. 35 (2008) 1624–1637. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Luptáčik M. Luptá#ik and E. Nežinský,, E. Nežinský, Measuring income inequalities beyond the Gini coefficient. Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 28 (2020) 561–578. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • S. Mehrabian, G.R. Jahanshahloo, M.R. Alirezaei and G.R. Amin, An assurance interval of the non-Archimedean epsilon in DEA models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 48 (1998) 344–347. [Google Scholar]
  • L.P. Navas, F. Montes, S. Abolghasem, R.J. Salas, M. Toloo and R. Zarama, Colombian higher education institutions evaluation. Soc.-Econ. Plan. Sci. 71 (2020) 100801. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • A. Oukil, Ranking via composite weighting schemes under a DEA cross-evaluation framework. Comput. Ind. Eng. 117 (2018) 217–224. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • V.V. Podinovski and T. Bouzdine-Chameeva, Consistent weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 244 (2015) 201–209. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • S. Ramazani-Tarkhorani, M. Khodabakhshi, S. Mehrabian and F. Nuri-Bahmani, Ranking decision-makingunits using common weights in DEA. Appl. Math. Model. 38 (2013) 3890–3896. [Google Scholar]
  • Y. Roll, W.D. Cook and B. Golany, Controlling factor weighs in data envelopment analysis. IIE Trans. 24 (2013) 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • J.L. Ruiz and I. Sirvent, Common benchmarking and ranking of units with DEA. Omega 65 (2016) 1–9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Salahi, N. Torabi and A. Amiri, An optimistic robust optimization approach to common set of weights in DEA. Measurement 93 (2016) 67–73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Salahi, M. Toloo and N. Torabi, A new robust optimization approach to common weights formulation in DEA. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 72 (2020) 1390–1402. [Google Scholar]
  • M.S. Shahbazifar, R. Kazemi Matin, M. Khounsiavash and F. Koushki, Group ranking of two-stage production units in network data envelopment analysis. RAIRO: Oper. Res. 55 (2021) 185. [Google Scholar]
  • G.H. Shirdel and S. Ramezani-Tarkhorani, A new method for ranking decision making units using common set of weights: a developed criterion. J. Ind. Manage. Optim. 16 (2020) 633. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • G.H. Shirdel, S. Ramezani-Tarkhorani and Z. Jafari, A method for evaluating the performance of decision making units with imprecise data using common set of weights. Int. J. Appl. Comput. Math. 3 (2017) 411–423. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • J. Sun, J. Wu and D. Guo, Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights. Appl. Math. Model. 37 (2013) 6301–6310. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Tavana and F.J. Santos-Arteaga, An integrated data envelopment analysis and mixed integer non-linear programming model for linearizing the common set of weights. Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 27 (2019) 887–904. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • R.G. Thompson, F.D. Singleton Jr, R.M. Thrall and B.A. Smith, Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces 16 (1986) 35–49. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • G. Tohidi and F. Matroud, A new non-oriented model for classifying flexible measures in DEA. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 68 (2017) 1019–1029. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Toloo, Alternative solutions for classifying inputs and outputs in data envelopment analysis. Comput. Math. Appl. 63 (2012) 1104–1110. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Toloo, The most efficient unit without explicit inputs: an extended MILP-DEA model. Measurement 46 (2013) 3628–3634. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Toloo, An epsilon-free approach for finding the most efficient unit in DEA. Appl. Math. Model. 38 (2014) 3182–3192. [Google Scholar]
  • M. Toloo, Selecting and full ranking suppliers with imprecise data: a new DEA method. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 74 (2014) 1141–1148. [Google Scholar]
  • M. Toloo, A cost efficiency approach for strategic vendor selection problem under certain input prices assumption. Measurement 85 (2016) 175–183. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Toloo and M. Mirbolouki, A new project selection method using data envelopment analysis. Comput. Ind. Eng. 138 (2019) 106119. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Toloo and M. Salahi, A powerful discriminative approach for selecting the most efficient unit in DEA. Comput. Ind. Eng. 115 (2018) 269–277. [Google Scholar]
  • M. Toloo, B. Sohrabi and S. Nalchigar, A new method for ranking discovered rules from data mining by DEA. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009) 8503–8508. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Toloo, B. Ebrahimi and G.R. Amin, New data envelopment analysis models for classifying flexible measures: the role of non-Archimedean epsilon. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 292 (2021) 1037–1050. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Toloo, E.K. Mensah and M. Salahi, Robust optimization and its duality in data envelopment analysis. Omega 108 (2022) 102583. [Google Scholar]
  • Y.M. Wang, Y. Luo and Y.X. Lan, Common weights for fully ranking decision making units by regression analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 9122–9128. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J. Wu, J. Chu, Q. Zhu, Y. Li and L. Liang, Determining common weights in data envelopment analysis based on the satisfaction degree. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 67 (2016) 1446–1458. [Google Scholar]
  • A.P. Yekta, S. Kordrostami, A. Amirteimoori and R.K. Matin, Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the weight restriction approach. Math. Sci. 12 (2018) 197–203. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.