×

Counterfactual analysis and target setting in benchmarking. (English) Zbl 07895440

Summary: Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) allows us to capture the complex relationship between multiple inputs and outputs in firms and organizations. Unfortunately, managers may find it hard to understand a DEA model and this may lead to mistrust in the analyses and to difficulties in deriving actionable information from the model. In this paper, we propose to use the ideas of target setting in DEA and of counterfactual analysis in Machine Learning to overcome these problems. We define DEA counterfactuals or targets as alternative combinations of inputs and outputs that are close to the original inputs and outputs of the firm and lead to desired improvements in its performance. We formulate the problem of finding counterfactuals as a bilevel optimization model. For a rich class of cost functions, reflecting the effort an inefficient firm will need to spend to change to its counterfactual, finding counterfactual explanations boils down to solving Mixed Integer Convex Quadratic Problems with linear constraints. We illustrate our approach using both a small numerical example and a real-world dataset on banking branches.

MSC:

90Bxx Operations research and management science

Software:

sfa; DEA; Gurobi; Benchmarking

References:

[1] Agrell, P.; Bogetoft, P., Theory, techniques and applications of regulatory benchmarking and productivity analysis, (Oxford handbook of productivity analysis, 2017, Oxford: Oxford Oxford University Press), 523-555
[2] Antle, R.; Bogetoft, P., Mix stickiness under asymmetric cost information, Management Science, 65, 6, 2787-2812, 2019
[3] Aparicio, J.; Cordero, J. M.; Pastor, J. T., The determination of the least distance to the strongly efficient frontier in data envelopment analysis oriented models: modelling and computational aspects, Omega, 71, 1-10, 2017
[4] Aparicio, J.; Mahlberg, B.; Pastor, J.; Sahoo, B., Decomposing technical inefficiency using the principle of least action, European Journal of Operational Research, 239, 776-785, 2014 · Zbl 1339.90164
[5] Aparicio, J.; Pastor, J., A well-defined efficiency measure for dealing with closest targets in DEA, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219, 9142-9154, 2013 · Zbl 1288.90083
[6] Aparicio, J.; Ruiz, J. L.; Sirvent, I., Closest targets and minimum distance to the Pareto-efficient frontier in DEA, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 28, 209-218, 2007
[7] Bogetoft, P., Performance benchmarking - Measuring and managing performance, 2012, Springer: Springer New York
[8] Bogetoft, P.; Hougaard, J., Efficiency evaluation based on potential (non-proportional) improvements, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 12, 233-247, 1999
[9] Bogetoft, P.; Otto, L., Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R, 2011, Springer, New York · Zbl 1213.90001
[10] Carrizosa, E.; Ramírez-Ayerbe, J.; Romero Morales, D., Generating collective counterfactual explanations in score-based classification via mathematical optimization, Expert Systems with Applications, 238, Article 121954 pp., 2024
[11] Carrizosa, E.; Ramírez-Ayerbe, J.; Romero Morales, D., Mathematical optimization modelling for group counterfactual explanations, European Journal of Operational Research, 2024, forthcoming
[12] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W.; Lewin, A. Y.; Seiford, L. M., Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology and applications, 1995, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston, USA
[13] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W.; Rhodes, E., Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444, 1978 · Zbl 0416.90080
[14] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W.; Rhodes, E., Short Communication: Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units, European Journal of Operational Research, 3, 339, 1979 · Zbl 0425.90086
[15] Cherchye, L.; De Rock, B.; Dierynck, B.; Roodhooft, F.; Sabbe, J., Opening the “Black Box” of efficiency measurement: Input allocation in multioutput settings, Operations Research, 61, 5, 1148-1165, 2013 · Zbl 1296.90065
[16] Du, M.; Liu, N.; Hu, X., Techniques for interpretable machine learning, Communications of the ACM, 63, 1, 68-77, 2019
[17] Dynan, K., Habit formation in consumer preferences: Evidence from panel data, American Economic Review, 90, 3, 391-406, 2000
[18] European Commission, K., White paper on artificial intelligence : a European approach to excellence and trust, 2020, https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/white-paper-artificial-intelligence-european-approach-excellence-and-trust_en
[19] Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S., Network DEA, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34, 1, 35-49, 2000
[20] Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S.; Whittaker, G., Directional output distance functions: endogenous directions based on exogenous normalization constraints, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 40, 267-269, 2013
[21] Färe, R.; Pasurkac, C.; Vardanyan, M., On endogenizing direction vectors in parametric directional distance function-based models, European Journal of Operational Research, 262, 361-369, 2017
[22] Fischetti, M.; Jo, J., Deep neural networks and mixed integer linear optimization, Constraints, 23, 3, 296-309, 2018 · Zbl 1402.90096
[23] Fuhrer, J. C., Habit formation in consumption and its implications for monetary-policy models, The American Economic Review, 90, 4, 367-390, 2000
[24] Goodman, B.; Flaxman, S., European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”, AI Magazine, 38, 3, 50-57, 2017
[25] Guidotti, R., Counterfactual explanations and how to find them: literature review and benchmarking, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2022, forthcoming
[26] Gurobi Optimization, LLC, R., Gurobi optimizer reference manual, 2021, URL http://www.gurobi.com
[27] Hall, R., Measuring factor adjustment costs, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 3, 899-927, 2004 · Zbl 1074.91595
[28] Hamermesh, D. S.; Pfann, G. A., Adjustment costs in factor demand, Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 3, 1264-1292, 1999
[29] Haney, A.; Pollitt, M., Efficiency analysis of energy networks: An international survey of regulators, Energy Policy, 37, 12, 5814-5830, 2009
[30] Kao, C., Efficiency decomposition in network data envelopment analysis: A relational model, European Journal of Operational Research, 192, 949-962, 2009 · Zbl 1157.90494
[31] Karimi, A.-H.; Barthe, G.; Schölkopf, B.; Valera, I., A survey of algorithmic recourse: contrastive explanations and consequential recommendations, ACM Computing Surveys, 55, 5, 1-29, 2022
[32] Lundberg, S.; Lee, S.-I., A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, (Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017), 4765-4774
[33] Martens, D.; Provost, F., Explaining data-driven document classifications, MIS Quarterly, 38, 1, 73-99, 2014
[34] Molnar, C.; Casalicchio, G.; Bischl, B., Interpretable machine learning-a brief history, state-of-the-art and challenges, (Joint European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases, 2020, Springer), 417-431
[35] Parmentier, A.; Vidal, T., Optimal counterfactual explanations in tree ensembles, (International conference on machine learning, 2021, PMLR), 8422-8431
[36] Parmeter, C.; Zelenyuk, V., Combining the virtues of stochastic frontier and data envelopment analysis, Operations Research, 67, 6, 1628-1658, 2019 · Zbl 1456.62054
[37] Petersen, N., Directional Distance Functions in DEA with Optimal Endogenous Directions, Operations Research, 66, 4, 1068-1085, 2018 · Zbl 1456.90090
[38] Rigby, D., Management tools 2015 - An executive’s guide, 2015
[39] Rigby, D.; Bilodeau, B., Management tools and trends 2015, 2015
[40] Rostami, S.; Neri, F.; Epitropakis, M., Progressive preference articulation for decision making in multi-objective optimisation problems, Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering, 24, 4, 315-335, 2017
[41] Rudin, C.; Chen, C.; Chen, Z.; Huang, H.; Semenova, L.; Zhong, C., Interpretable machine learning: Fundamental principles and 10 grand challenges, Statistics Surveys, 16, 1-85, 2022 · Zbl 07471610
[42] Schaffnit, C.; Rosen, D.; Paradi, J., Best practice analysis of bank branches: An application of DEA in a large Canadian bank, European Journal of Operational Research, 98, 2, 269-289, 1997 · Zbl 0930.91028
[43] Silva Portela, M.; Borges, P.; Thanassoulis, E., Finding closest targets in non-oriented DEA models: The case of convex and non-convex technologies, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 19, 251-269, 2003
[44] Thach, P., The design centering problem as a DC programming problem, Mathematical Programming, 41, 1, 229-248, 1988 · Zbl 0651.90065
[45] Wachter, S.; Mittelstadt, B.; Russell, C., Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31, 841-887, 2017
[46] Zhu, J., Data envelopment analysis - A handbook on models and methods, 2016, Springer New York
[47] Zofio, J. L.; Pastor, J. T.; Aparicio, J., The directional profit efficiency measure: on why profit inefficiency is either technical or allocative, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 40, 257-266, 2013
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.