4.4 Review

Fuzzy chance-constrained data envelopment analysis: a structured literature review, current trends, and future directions

期刊

FUZZY OPTIMIZATION AND DECISION MAKING
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 197-261

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10700-021-09364-x

关键词

Data envelopment analysis (DEA); Fuzzy optimization; Fuzzy DEA (FDEA); Chance-constrained programming (CCP); Possibilistic programming; Fuzzy measure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides a comprehensive and structured literature review of fuzzy chance-constrained data envelopment analysis (FCCDEA) studies from 2000 to 2020, with main contributions including a review of fuzzy chance-constrained programming, survey of FCCDEA models based on different fuzzy measures, analysis of FCCDEA applications and features, classification of FCCDEA studies, bibliometric analysis, and identification of research gaps and future research directions.
Fuzzy data envelopment analysis (FDEA) is one of the most applicable approaches for performance assessment of peer decision making units under ambiguity which is evolving rapidly and gaining popularity under uncertain data envelopment analysis field. The goal of this paper is to review some FDEA models based on applied possibility, necessity, credibility, general fuzzy measures and chance-constrained programming to deal with data ambiguity. The study presents a comprehensive and structured literature review of fuzzy chance-constrained data envelopment analysis (FCCDEA) studies including 87 studies from 2000 to 2020. The main contributions of this research include the following details: (1) Review of fuzzy chance-constrained programming, (2) Survey of FCCDEA models based on different fuzzy measures, (3) Analysis of FCCDEA applications and features, (4) Classification of FCCDEA studies from modeling and uncertainty type viewpoints, (5) Bibliometric analysis of FCCDEA literature, and (6) Extraction of main research gaps and guidelines for future research directions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据