Construction of three-dimensional sections of the efficient frontier for non-convex models

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Non-convex Free Disposal Hull (FDH) model was proposed in the scientific literature in the end of 20-th century for performance measurement of complex multidimensional production units. FDH model was proposed almost simultaneously with DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) model. However, as distinct from the DEA models, production possibility set of FDH models are non-convex ones, what significantly refrained the development of these models. As far as we know, the necessity for such approach has been noted in the world scientific literature for a long time. In this paper, an approach is proposed for three-dimensional visualization of FDH models. An approach was tested using real-life data sets from different areas. Computational experiments confirm reliability and effectiveness of the proposed approach.

About the authors

V. E. Krivonozhko

National University of Science and Technology MISiS; Federal Research Center Computer Science and Control of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: krivonozhkove@mail.ru
Russian Federation, 4, Leninsky prospect, Moscow, 119049; 44/2, Vavilova street, Moscow, 119333

A. V. Lychev

National University of Science and Technology MISiS

Email: lychev@misis.ru
Russian Federation, 4, Leninsky prospect, Moscow, 119049

N. S. Blokhina

Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University)

Email: nsb_sapr@mail.ru
Russian Federation, 26, Yaroslavskoe shosse, Moscow, 129337

References

  1. Deprins D., Simar L., Tulkens H. Measuring labor efficiency in post offices. In: M. Marchand, P. Pestieau, H. Tulkens (Eds.). The performance of public enterprises: Concepts and measurements. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1984. P. 243-268.
  2. Banker R.D., Charnes A., Cooper W.W. // Management Sci. 1984. V. 30. № 9. P. 1078-1092.
  3. Charnes A., Cooper W.W., Rhodes E. // Europ. J. Operat. Res. 1978. V. 2. № 6. P. 429-444.
  4. Tulkens H. // J. Product. Anal. 1993. V. 4. № 1-2. P. 183-210.
  5. Soleimani-Damaneh M., Jahanshahloo G.R., Reshadi M. // Europ. J. Operat. Res. 2006. V. 174. № 2. P. 10551059.
  6. Kerstens K., Van de Woestyne I. // Annals of Operations Research. 2018. V. 271. № 2. P. 1067-1078.
  7. Cesaroni G., Kerstens K., Van de Woestyne I. // Europ. J. Operat. Res. 2017. V. 259. № 2. P. 576-586.
  8. Кривоножко В.Е., Лычев А.В. // ДАН. 2017. Т. 477. № 1. С. 22-25.
  9. Кривоножко В.Е., Лычев А.В. // ЖВМиМФ. 2019. Т. 59. № 3. С. 534-546.
  10. Kerstens K., Vanden Eeckaut P. // Europ. J. Operat. Res. 1999. V. 113. № 1. P. 206-214.
  11. Briec W., Kerstens K., Vanden Eeckaut P. // Journal of Economics. 2004. V. 81. № 2. P. 155-192.
  12. Krivonozhko V.E., Utkin O.B., Volodin A. V., et al. // J. Operat. Res. Soc. 2004. V. 55. № 10. P. 1049-1058.
  13. Krivonozhko V.E., Utkin O.B., Volodin A.V., et al. // J. Operat. Res. Soc. 2005. V. 56. № 12. P. 1373-1378.
  14. Володин А.В., Кривоножко В.Е., Рыжих Д.А., Уткин О.Б. // ЖВМиМФ. 2004. Т. 44. № 4. С. 623-639.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2019 Russian academy of sciences

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies