Cross-efficiency aggregation method based on prospect consensus process

  • Lei Chen
  • Ying-Ming WangEmail author
  • Yan Huang
Original Research


The arithmetic average method is usually adopted to aggregate cross-efficiency in traditional cross-efficiency methods. However, this method not only underestimates the importance of self-evaluation, but also ignores the subjective preference of decision-makers. This paper thus introduces prospect theory to describe the subjective preference of decision-makers in the aggregation process when they face gains and losses, then a new method is constructed to aggregate cross-efficiency. Based on the differences between the psychological expectations and aggregation results, the expectations are constantly adjusted until a consensus on aggregation results is reached. An aggregation result that is more acceptable to all decision-making units can then be obtained. Finally, the proposed method is applied to aggregate the cross-efficiency of 27 industrial robots to illustrate its effectiveness and convergence.


Data envelopment analysis Efficiency aggregation Prospect theory Consensus process Convergence 



This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (#71801050; #71801048), and Social Science Planning Fund project of Fujian Province (#FJ2018C014, #FJ2017C033), Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (#2019J01637, #2019J01399).


  1. Amin, G. R., & Oukil, A. (2019). Gangless cross-evaluation in DEA: An application to stock selection. RAIRO-Operations Research,53(2), 645–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang, S., Chen, M. H., & Yang, F. (2018). Group cross-efficiency evaluation in data envelopment analysis: An application to Taiwan hotels. Computers and Industrial Engineering,125, 190–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahaji, H. (2018). Are employee stock option exercise decisions better explained through the prospect theory? Annals of Operations Research,262(2), 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balcombe, K., Bardsley, N., Dadzie, S., et al. (2019). Estimating parametric loss aversion with prospect theory: Recognising and dealing with size dependence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,162, 106–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrillo, M., & Jorge, J. M. (2018). An alternative neutral approach for cross-efficiency evaluation. Computers and Industrial Engineering,120, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research,2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, L., Wang, Y. M., Lai, F., et al. (2017). An investment analysis for China’s sustainable development based on inverse data envelopment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production,142, 1638–1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ding, X. F., Liu, X. C., & Shi, H. (2019). A dynamic approach for emergency decision making based on prospect theory with interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy linguistic variables. Computers and Industrial Engineering,131, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dong, Y. C., Luo, N., & Liang, H. M. (2015). Consensus building in multiperson decision making with heterogeneous preference representation structures: A perspective based on prospect theory. Applied Soft Computing,35, 898–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dong, Y. C., Zha, Q. B., Zhang, H. J., et al. (2018). Consensus reaching in social network group decision making: Research paradigms and challenges. Knowledge-Based Systems,162, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doyle, J., & Green, R. (1994). Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses. Journal of the Operations Research Society,45(5), 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Essid, H., Ganouati, J., & Vigeant, S. (2018). A mean-maverick game cross-efficiency approach to portfolio selection: An application to Paris stock exchange. Expert Systems with Applications,113, 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. González-Arteaga, T., Calle, R. D. A., & Chiclana, F. (2016). A new measure of consensus with reciprocal preference relations: The correlation consensus degree. Knowledge-Based Systems,107, 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica,47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kao, C., & Liu, S. T. (2019). Cross efficiency measurement and decomposition in two basic network systems. Omega,83, 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerim, K. (2018). Cumulative prospect theory preferences in rent-seeking contests. Mathematical Social Sciences,96, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li, F., Zhu, Q., Chen, Z., et al. (2018). A balanced data envelopment analysis cross-efficiency evaluation approach. Expert Systems with Applications,106, 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W. D., et al. (2008). The DEA game cross-efficiency model and its nash equilibrium. Operations Research,56(5), 1278–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liang, H., Xiong, W., & Dong, Y. (2018). A prospect theory-based method for fusing the individual preference-approval structures in group decision making. Computers and Industrial Engineering,117, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu, S. T. (2018). A DEA ranking method based on cross-efficiency intervals and signal-to-noise ratio. Annals of Operations Research,261(1–2), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu, H. H., Song, Y. Y., & Yang, G. L. (2019). Cross-efficiency evaluation in data envelopment analysis based on prospect theory. European Journal of Operational Research,273, 364–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lozano, S., Hinojosa, M. A., & Mármol, A. M. (2019). Extending the bargaining approach to DEA target setting. Omega,85, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mu, Y., Liu, X., & Wang, L. (2018). A Pearson’s correlation coefficient based decision tree and its parallel implementation. Information Sciences,435, 40–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oral, M., Amin, G. R., & Oukil, A. (2015). Cross-efficiency in DEA: A maximum resonated appreciative model. Measurement,63, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oral, M., Oukil, A., Malouin, J. L., & Kettani, O. (2014). The appreciative democratic voice of DEA: A case of faculty academic performance evaluation. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,48(1), 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oukil, A. (2019a). Embedding OWA under preference ranking for DEA cross-efficiency aggregation: Issues and procedures. International Journal of Intelligent Systems,34(5), 947–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oukil, A. (2019b). Exploiting value system multiplicity and Preference voting for Robust ranking. Omega. Scholar
  28. Oukil, A., & Govindaluri, S. M. (2017). A systematic approach for ranking football players within an integrated DEA-OWA framework. Managerial and Decision Economics,38(8), 1125–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearson, K. (1920). Notes on the history of correlation. Biometrika,13(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sexton, T. R., Silkman, R. H., & Hogan, A. J. (1986). Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. New Directions for Program Evaluation,32, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, J. E., & Ulu, C. (2017). Risk aversion, information acquisition, and technology adoption. Operations Research,65(4), 1011–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Song, M., Zhu, Q., Peng, J., & Gonzalez, E. D. R. S. (2017). Improving the evaluation of cross efficiencies: A method based on Shannon entropy weight. Computers and Industrial Engineering,112, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tian, X. L., Xu, Z. S., & Fujita, H. (2018). Sequential funding the venture project or not? A prospect consensus process with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference information. Knowledge-Based Systems,161, 172–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,5(4), 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vipin, B., & Amit, R. K. (2019). Describing decision bias in the newsvendor problem: A prospect theory model. Omega,82, 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang, Y. M., & Chin, K. S. (2010). A neutral DEA model for cross-efficiency evaluation and its extension. Expert Systems with Applications,37(5), 3666–3675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang, Y. M., & Chin, K. S. (2011). The use of OWA operator weights for cross-efficiency aggregation. Omega,39(5), 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang, L., Wang, Y. M., & Martínez, L. (2017). A group decision method based on prospect theory for emergency situations. Information Sciences,418–419, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu, J., Chu, J. F., Sun, J. S., et al. (2016). DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on Pareto improvement. European Journal of Operational Research,248(2), 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wu, J., Sun, Q., Fujita, H., et al. (2019). An attitudinal consensus degree to control feedback mechanism in group decision making with different adjustment cost. Knowledge-Based Systems,164, 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wu, J., Sun, J. S., & Liang, L. (2012). DEA cross-efficiency aggregation method based upon Shannon entropy. International Journal of Production Research,50(23), 6726–6736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xu, W. J., Huang, S. Y., & Li, J. (2019). A novel consensus reaching framework for heterogeneous group decision making based on cumulative prospect theory. Computers and Industrial Engineering,128, 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang, Z. S., & Wei, X. X. (2019). The measurement and influences of China’s urban total factor energy efficiency under environmental pollution: Based on the game cross-efficiency DEA. Journal of Cleaner Production,209, 439–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang, G. L., Yang, J. B., Liu, W. B., & Li, X. X. (2013). Cross-efficiency aggregation in DEA models using the evidential-reasoning approach. European Journal of Operational Research,231(2), 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhou, X. Y., Wang, L. Q., Liao, H. C., et al. (2019). A prospect theory-based group decision approach considering consensus for portfolio selection with hesitant fuzzy information. Knowledge-Based Systems,168, 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Science Institute, School of Economics and ManagementFuzhou UniversityFuzhouChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Spatial Data Mining and Information Sharing of Ministry of EducationFuzhou UniversityFuzhouChina
  3. 3.College of Computer and Information SciencesFujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityFuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations