Fuzzy cross-efficiency evaluation based on prospect theory and regret theory

被引:0
作者
Fan, Jianping [1 ]
Tian, Ge [1 ]
Wu, Meiqin [1 ]
机构
[1] Shanxi Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Taiyuan 030006, Peoples R China
关键词
Data envelopment analysis; cross-efficiency; CRITIC; prospect theory; regret theory; Pythagorean hesitant fuzzy set; DECISION-MAKING; DEA;
D O I
10.3233/JIFS-231371
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Cross-efficiency in data envelopment analysis is widely used in production as an evaluation method that includes input and output indicators and allows for self-evaluation and mutual evaluation of decision making units (DMUs). However, as the application scenarios continue to expand, the traditional methods gradually fail to meet the needs. Many researchers have proposed improved methods and made great progress in weight determination, but the existing studies still have shortcomings in considering the psychological behavior of decision makers (DMs) and there is still relatively little research on cross-efficiency in fuzzy environments. In this paper, we proposed a method to apply CRITIC to determine weights and introduce both prospect theory and regret theory into the evaluation method of cross-efficiency to obtain the prospect cross-efficiency matrix and regret cross-efficiency matrix respectively, and then applied the Pythagorean hesitant fuzzy operator to aggregate them to achieve the ranking of DMUs through the fraction function. This largely takes into account the subjective preference and regret avoidance psychology of DMs. The applicability of this paper's method is also verified through an example of shopping for a new energy vehicle. Finally, the effectiveness of this paper's method is verified by comparing three traditional methods with this paper's method, which provides an effective method for considering risk preferences in the decision-making process.
引用
收藏
页码:6035 / 6045
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] A novel cross-efficiency evaluation method under hesitant fuzzy environment
    Fan, Jianping
    Lan, Jinrong
    Zhang, Jing
    Wang, Zhan
    Wu, Meiqin
    JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT & FUZZY SYSTEMS, 2019, 36 (01) : 371 - 383
  • [32] Aggregating the DEA prospect cross-efficiency with an application to state key laboratories in China
    Liu, Hui-hui
    Song, Yao-yao
    Liu, Xiao-xiao
    Yang, Guo-liang
    SOCIO-ECONOMIC PLANNING SCIENCES, 2020, 71
  • [33] A novel regret-rejoice cross-efficiency approach for energy stock portfolio optimization
    Liu, Yong-Jun
    Yang, Guo-Sen
    Zhang, Wei-Guo
    OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2024, 126
  • [34] Fuzzy Concept Evaluation Based on Prospect Theory and Heterogeneous Evaluation Information
    Jiang, Shaofei
    Dou, Yubo
    He, Shun
    Tan, Bowen
    Peng, Xiang
    Jing, Liting
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING, 2022, 22 (04)
  • [35] Weight determination in the cross-efficiency evaluation
    Wang, Ying-Ming
    Chin, Kwai-Sang
    Jiang, Peng
    COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, 2011, 61 (03) : 497 - 502
  • [36] Cross-efficiency evaluation method based on the conservative point of view
    Sun, Jiasen
    Wu, Jie
    Wang, Yingming
    Li, Lei
    Wang, Yuhong
    EXPERT SYSTEMS, 2020, 37 (04)
  • [37] Technology Selection Based on EDAS Cross-Efficiency Evaluation Method
    Fan, Jian-Ping
    Li, Ya-Juan
    Wu, Mei-Qin
    IEEE ACCESS, 2019, 7 : 58974 - 58980
  • [38] A three-way decision with prospect-regret theory under Pythagorean fuzzy environments
    Zhang, Haidong
    Liu, Yin
    Selang, Deji
    He, Yanping
    APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING, 2024, 167
  • [39] Weight profiles in cross-efficiency evaluation based on hypervolume maximization
    Alcaraz, Javier
    Aparicio, Juan
    Fco Monge, Juan
    Ramon, Nuria
    SOCIO-ECONOMIC PLANNING SCIENCES, 2022, 82
  • [40] A Multi-Attribute Group Decision-Making Method Based on Trust Relationship and DEA Regret Cross-Efficiency
    Liu, Jinpei
    Shao, Longlong
    Jin, Feifei
    Tao, Zhifu
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, 2024, 71 : 824 - 836