The Stata Journal (2010)

10, Number 2, pp. 267–280

Data envelopment analysis

Yong-bae Ji Choonjoo Lee
Korea National Defense University Korea National Defense University
Seoul, Republic of Korea Seoul, Republic of Korea
jyb77@hanmail.net sarang90@kndu.ac.kr

Abstract. In this article, we introduce a user-written data envelopment analysis

command for Stata. Data envelopment analysis is a linear programming method
for assessing the efficiency and productivity of units called decision-making units.
Over the last decades, data envelopment analysis has gained considerable attention
as a managerial tool for measuring performance of organizations, and it has been
used widely for assessing the efficiency of public and private sectors such as banks,
airlines, hospitals, universities, defense firms, and manufacturers. The dea com-
mand in Stata will allow users to conduct the standard optimization procedure and
extended managerial analysis. The dea command developed in this article selects
the chosen variables from a Stata data file and constructs a linear programming
model based on the selected dea options. Examples are given to illustrate how one
could use the code to measure the efficiency of decision-making units.
Keywords: st0193, dea, data envelopment analysis, linear programming, nonpara-
metric, efficiency, decision-making units

1 Introduction
In this article, we introduce a new application in Stata for performance measurement
of decision-making units (DMUs) using data envelopment analysis (DEA) techniques.
DEA is a nonparametric linear programming method for assessing the efficiency and
productivity of DMUs. DEA application areas have grown since it was first introduced
as a managerial and performance measurement tool in the late 1970s. Since then,
new applications with more variables and complicated models have been and are being
introduced.
Stata equipped with the dea command will provide the user with a new nonpara-
metric tool to analyze productivity data. From within Stata, users will be able to
produce DEA scores and analyze them. Because second-stage DEA analysis and DEA
efficiency estimates involve statistical inference, DEA users need a software package that
can analyze the whole process in one system. The alternative is juggling between a DEA
command and a statistical software that uses the DEA scores as dependent variables to
find the influential variables in second-stage DEA analysis.
The main purpose of this article is to implement the dea command in Stata. The
article unfolds as follows. The next section describes the DEA models and calculations
in DEA. The remainder of this article illustrates the features and options of the dea
command.


c 2010 StataCorp LP st0193
268 Data envelopment analysis

2 The basics of DEA

DEA is a method for measuring efficiency of DMUs using linear programming techniques
to envelop observed input–output vectors as tightly as possible (Boussofiane, Dyson,
and Thanassoulis 1991). DEA allows multiple inputs–outputs to be considered at the
same time without any assumption on data distribution. In each case, efficiency is
measured in terms of a proportional change in inputs or outputs. A DEA model can
be subdivided into an input-oriented model, which minimizes inputs while satisfying at
least the given output levels, and an output-oriented model, which maximizes outputs
without requiring more of any observed input values.
DEA models can also be subdivided in terms of returns to scale by adding weight con-
straints. Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (1978) originally proposed the efficiency mea-
surement of the DMUs for constant returns to scale (CRS), where all DMUs are operating
at their optimal scale. Later Banker, Charnes, and Cooper (1984) introduced the vari-
able returns to scale (VRS) efficiency measurement model, allowing the breakdown of
efficiency into technical and scale efficiencies in DEA.
In figure 1, frontiers determined by economies of scale are presented considering one
input and one output for 5 DMUs labeled A through E. The CRS, VRS, and nonincreasing
returns to scale frontiers are displayed in the figure. If CRS is assumed, then only DMU
C would be efficient; DMUs A, C, and E are efficient if VRS is assumed. Where the
nonincreasing returns to scale and VRS frontiers are equal, decreasing returns to scale
exist for those DMUs on the efficient frontier (such as E). Where the two frontiers are
unequal, then increasing returns to scale exist for those DMUs (such as DMU B). The
remaining DMUs, which are inefficient, can be classified as increasing returns to scale if
the sum of the reference weights is less than unity for the CRS frontier or as decreasing
returns to scale otherwise.
The efficiency of observation B is defined as θB,input,CRS = B0 B1 /B0 B for the input-
oriented CRS DEA model and represents that one can obtain the same output by reducing
the input by the ratio of 1 − θB,input,CRS . The efficiency for the output-oriented CRS
DEA model is defined as θB,output,CRS = B3 B/B3 C and represents that one can obtain
the same input by increasing the output by the ratio of 1 − θB,output,CRS . Accordingly,
the input-oriented efficiency relative to the VRS frontier is defined as θB,input,VRS =
B0 B2 /B0 B. All efficiency measures of DMU C are the same regardless of orientation
because the frontiers meet at point C.
Y. Ji and C. Lee 269

4 CRS Frontier NIRS Frontier

E
Y(output) 3

C D
2

B0 B1 B
1
B2
A
VRS Frontier

0 A1 B3

0 1 2 3 4 5
X(input)
Modified from Coelli et al., (2005, 174) and Cooper et al., (2006, 128)

Figure 1. Concepts of efficiency and returns to scale

It is possible to decompose the CRS technical inefficiency into scale efficiency and
“pure” technical efficiency. In figure 1, B2 B contributes to the technical efficiency of
point B regarding the VRS model, and B1 B contributes to the technical efficiency of
point B regarding the CRS model. Then B1 B2 contributes to scale efficiency.

A G
5

B
4

3
X2/Y

G1
C H
2
H1
F

D E
1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
X1/Y
Modified from Coelli et al., (2005, 197) and Cooper et al., (2006, 57)

Figure 2. CRS input-oriented DEA example

Figure 2 illustrates the concepts of efficiency, slacks, and references or peers in an

intuitive manner using two inputs and one output. The concept of frontier is especially
important for the analysis of efficiency, because we measure efficiency as the relative
270 Data envelopment analysis

distance to the frontier. For example, firms that are technically inefficient operate at
points in the interior of the frontier, while those that are technically efficient operate
somewhere along the technology defined by the frontier. The DMU is called efficient when
the DEA score equals 1 and all slacks are 0 (Cooper, Seiford, and Tone 2006). If only the
first condition is satisfied, the DMU is called efficient in terms of “radial”, “technical”,
and “weak” efficiency. If both conditions are satisfied, the DMU is called efficient in
terms of “Pareto–Koopmans” or “strong” efficiency. The technical efficiencies of DMUs
G and H are defined as OG1 /OG and OH1 /OH, respectively.
Inefficiency can be seen as how much the inputs must contract along a ray from
the origin until the ray crosses the frontier. For example, for firm G, the measure of
technical efficiency is OG1 /OG. Point G1 is the Farrell efficient point; however, input
X2 could be further reduced and still produce the same output. For this case, firm G
has input slack CG1 . If we disregard the slack and calculate it residually, the DEA model
becomes the single-stage DEA model. The way to reduce the slack and find the Pareto
optimal reference set can be further discussed; there are two-stage and multistage DEA
models available in the literature (Cooper, Seiford, and Tone 2006; Coelli et al. 2005).
Cherchye and Puyenbroeck (2001) showed that “most representative efficient points”
can be found using a direct approach and may differ from those obtained by multistage
DEA. The DEA model in this article provides stage options for single-stage and two-stage
which are still the most prevalent approaches in DEA literature. Reference or peer is a
point that an inefficient DMU, such as point G, targets to move from the Farrell efficient
point, such as point G1 , to the Pareto–Koopman efficient point, such as point C, in
figure 2 (based on the two-stage DEA solution or Pareto optimal solution). However,
the slack issues in DEA models disappear as the number of DMUs increases because the
DEA piecewise linear frontier becomes smoother and has fewer chances to run the Farrell
point to the input or output axes.
Free disposability means that one can produce the same output by wasting resources
or increase the output without increasing resources. Strong disposability assumes that
it is costless for firms to dispose of inputs or outputs or the isoquant does not bend
backwards. In figure 2, the line that links A and F represents the frontier imposed
by weak disposability. The line that links B and E represents the frontier imposed by
strong disposability.
Assuming the economic production activities, convexity, strong disposability, and
CRS, we can develop the linear program as a type of piecewise linear frontier. Input-
oriented CRS efficiency is defined as (1) by applying the piecewise linear frontier to the
input requirement set (Cooper, Seiford, and Tone 2006). This enables us to evaluate
the efficiency relative to the frontier.
max z = uyj (1)
ν,u

subject to νxj = 1, −νX + uY ≤ 0, ν ≥ 0, u ≥ 0, and uj being free in sign, where

a set of observed DMUs is DMUj , j = 1, . . . , n; xj and yj are input and output vectors;
u is the row vector; ν are the output and input multipliers; and X and Y are the
input and output matrices. The goal of the input-oriented DEA model is to minimize
Y. Ji and C. Lee 271

the virtual input, relative to a given virtual output, subject to the constraint that no
DMU can operate beyond the production possibility set and the constraint relating to
nonnegative weights. In practice, most of the available DEA programs use the dual forms
as expressed in (2), which lower the calculation burden and are virtually the same as
(1).
min θ (2)
θ,λ

subject to θxj − Xλ ≥ 0, Y λ ≥ yj , and λ ≥ 0, where λ is a semipositive vector in Rk

and θ is a real variable. The computational procedure for (2) can be expressed as

minθ θ (3)


minλ,s+ ,s− −s+ − s− (4)

subject to θxj − Xλ − s− = 0, Y λ + s+ = yj , and λ ≥ 0, where s+ , s− , and λ

are semipositive vectors in Rk and θ is a real variable. The single-stage DEA model
solves (3), and the two-stage DEA model solves (3) followed by (4), consecutively. The
input-oriented CRS model was introduced in this section; however, other variations are
easily extendable and available in most DEA literature, including Coelli et al. (2005)
and Cooper, Seiford, and Tone (2000, 2006).

3 The dea command

3.1 Syntax
The syntax of the dea command is
    
dea ivars = ovars if , rts(crs | vrs | drs | nirs) ort(in | out)
in

stage(1 | 2) trace saving(filename)

where ivars and ovars are input and output variable lists, respectively.

3.2 Description
dea requires the user to select the input and output variables from the user-designated
data file or in the dataset currently in memory and solves DEA models with the specifica-
tions set in the options specified. There are several options to enhance the models. The
user can select the desired options according to the particular model that is required.
The dea command requires an initial dataset that contains the input and output
variables for observed DMU. Variable names must be identified by ivars for input vari-
ables and by ovars for output variables so that the dea command can identify and handle
the multiple input–output dataset. In the output of the dea command, the prefix dmu:
precedes DMU names.
272 Data envelopment analysis

The command has the ability to accommodate an unlimited number of inputs and
outputs with an unlimited number of DMUs. The only limitation is the available com-
puter memory. The resulting file reports information including reference points and
slacks in the DEA model. This information can be used to analyze the inefficient DMU,
for example, the source of the inefficiency and how an inefficient unit could be improved
to the desired level.
saving(filename) creates filename.dta, which contains the results of dea, including
information about the DMUs, inputs and outputs the data used, ranks of DMUs, efficiency
scores, reference sets, and slacks. The log file dea.log will be created in the working
directory.
Based on the data and the options specified, the dea command conducts matrix
operations and linear programming to produce a results dataset that is available to
print or can be used for further analysis.

3.3 Options
rts(crs | vrs | drs | nirs) specifies the returns to scale. The default, rts(crs), specifies
constant returns to scale. rts(vrs), rts(drs), and rts(nirs) specify variable
returns to scale, decreasing returns to scale, and nonincreasing returns to scale,
respectively.
ort(in | out) specifies the orientation. The default is ort(in), meaning input-oriented
DEA. ort(out) is output-oriented DEA.

stage(1 | 2) specifies the way to identify all efficiency slacks. The default is stage(2),
meaning two-stage DEA. stage(1) is single-stage DEA.
trace specifies to save all the sequences displayed in the Results window in the dea.log
file. The default is to save the final results in the dea.log file.
saving(filename) specifies that the results be saved in filename.dta. If filename.dta
already exists, the existing data will be moved to the file filename bak DMYhms.dta
before the new data are saved in filename.dta.

3.4 Saved results

dea saves the following in r():
Matrices
r(dearslt) n × m matrix of the results of dea, where n is the number of DMUs
and m is dependent on the model specified. Rows correspond
to DMUs and columns correspond to variables, including inputs,
outputs, rank (of DMU scores), theta (efficiency scores), ref.
(reference DMUs), input and output slacks, and more, depending on
the model specified.
Y. Ji and C. Lee 273

4 Applications of dea
4.1 Data
This section provides examples using data from Cooper, Seiford, and Tone (2006, 75,
table 3.7) and Coelli et al. (2005, 175, table 6.4) for illustration of the dea command.
The data of Cooper, Seiford, and Tone (2006) consist of five stores that use two inputs—
i employees (number of employees as an input variable) and i area (the area of floor
as an input variable)—to produce two outputs: o sales (the volume of sales as an
output variable) and o profits (the volume of profits as an output variable). The
data of Coelli et al. (2005) consist of five firms that use one input, i 1, to produce one
output, o 1.

4.2 CRS input-oriented two-stage DEA model

The dea default specifies a CRS input-oriented two-stage DEA model. If you want to
use this specification for your analysis, just use the dea command as we have below
using cooper table3.7.dta. Then you will have the following results. Store E is the
only efficient DMU and is the referent for all other stores, which is an equivalent result
to Cooper, Seiford, and Tone (2006, 75–76). The two-stage DEA model provides the
optimal solution, as shown in the results table.
For example, the optimal solution of efficiency score (theta), reference weights (λA ,
λB , λC , λD , λE ), and slack (i area, i employee, o sales, o profits) for Store A are
0.933333, (0, 0, 0, 0, 0.777778), and (11.6667, 0, 0, 0, 0.222222), respectively. Thus the
performance of Store A can be improved by subtracting 11.6667 units from input (area)
and 0.777778 unit from output (profits) even after they have reduced all inputs by 6.67%
without worsening any other input and output. Because Store A has an efficient score of
93.33%, all inputs (employee and area) could be reduced by 6.67%. In addition, because
Store A has an input slack for area of 11.67, 11.67 units of area could be reduced even
after Store A has reduced all inputs by 6.67%.

(Continued on next page)

274 Data envelopment analysis

. use cooper_table3.7.dta
. dea i_employee i_area = o_sales o_profits

options: RTS(CRS) ORT(IN) STAGE(2)

ref:
rank theta store_A
dmu:store_A 2 .933333 .
dmu:store_B 3 .888889 .
dmu:store_C 5 .533333 .
dmu:store_D 4 .666667 .
dmu:store_E 1 1 .
ref: ref: ref:
store_B store_C store_D
dmu:store_A . . .
dmu:store_B . . .
dmu:store_C . . .
dmu:store_D . . .
dmu:store_E . . .
ref: islack: islack:
store_E i_employee i_area
dmu:store_A .777778 . 11.6667
dmu:store_B 1.11111 . 3.33333
dmu:store_C .888889 . 8
dmu:store_D 1.11111 3.33333 .
dmu:store_E 1 . 0
oslack: oslack:
o_sales o_profits
dmu:store_A 2.98e-07 .222222
dmu:store_B 7.45e-07 5.88889
dmu:store_C 4.17e-06 2.11111
dmu:store_D 2.98e-06 6.88889
dmu:store_E . .

4.3 CRS output-oriented single-stage DEA model

If you want to use the CRS output-oriented single-stage DEA model, you can use the
dea command as we have below using coelli table6.4.dta.
Y. Ji and C. Lee 275

. use coelli_table6.4.dta
. dea i_x = o_q, rts(crs) ort(o) stage(1)

options: RTS(CRS) ORT(OUT) STAGE(1)

CRS-OUTPUT Oriented DEA Efficiency Results:
ref: ref: ref: ref: ref:
rank theta A B C D E
dmu:A 4 .5 . . .333333 . .
dmu:B 4 .5 . . .666667 . .
dmu:C 1 1 . . 1 . .
dmu:D 3 .8 . . 1.33333 . .
dmu:E 2 .833333 . . 1.66667 . .
islack: oslack:
i_x o_q
dmu:A . .
dmu:B . .
dmu:C . .
dmu:D . .
dmu:E . .

The rank of DMUs and efficiency score (theta), as well as the residually given ref-
erence set (ref:) and the slacks (islack: or oslack:), are listed in the above results.
Store C is the only efficient DMU and seems to be the referent for all other stores. The
Results window will display the above result, and a dea.log file that contains the above
result will be created in your working directory. The “.” in the results table represent
small numbers less than 10 to the minus 12 power, which mostly can be ignored. How-
ever, sometimes when you want to analyze financial data, the distinction between zero
and “.” values may be required to maintain accuracy.

4.4 VRS input-oriented single-stage DEA model

Now we illustrate the VRS input-oriented single-stage DEA analysis using the data of
coelli table6.4.dta:

(Continued on next page)

276 Data envelopment analysis

. dea i_x = o_q, rts(vrs) stage(1)

options: RTS(VRS) ORT(IN) STAGE(1)

VRS-INPUT Oriented DEA Efficiency Results:
ref: ref: ref: ref: ref:
rank theta A B C D E
dmu:A 1 1 1 . . . .
dmu:B 5 .625 .5 . .5 . .
dmu:C 1 1 0 . 1 . .
dmu:D 4 .9 . . .5 . .5
dmu:E 1 1 . . 0 . 1
islack: oslack:
i_x o_q
dmu:A . 0
dmu:B . .
dmu:C . .
dmu:D . .
dmu:E . .
VRS Frontier(-1:drs, 0:crs, 1:irs)
CRS_TE VRS_TE NIRS_TE SCALE RTS
dmu:A 0.500000 1.000000 0.500000 0.500000 1.000000
dmu:B 0.500000 0.625000 0.500000 0.800000 1.000000
dmu:C 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000
dmu:D 0.800000 0.900000 0.900000 0.888889 -1.000000
dmu:E 0.833333 1.000000 1.000000 0.833333 -1.000000
VRS Frontier:

dmu o_q i_x CRS_TE VRS_TE SCALE RTS

1. A 1 2 0.500000 1.000000 0.500000 irs

2. B 2 4 0.500000 0.625000 0.800000 irs
3. C 3 3 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 -
4. D 4 5 0.800000 0.900000 0.888889 drs
5. E 5 6 0.833333 1.000000 0.833333 drs

If rts(vrs) is specified, the results show some additional information, as shown

above. Stores D and E are on the decreasing returns to scale (drs) portion of the VRS
frontier. On the other hand, Stores A and B are on the increasing returns to scale (irs)
portion of the VRS frontier.

4.5 VRS input-oriented two-stage DEA model

Here we illustrate the VRS input-oriented two-stage DEA model, again using data from
coelli table6.4.dta:
Y. Ji and C. Lee 277

. dea i_x = o_q, rts(vrs) ort(i)

options: RTS(VRS) ORT(IN) STAGE(2)

VRS-INPUT Oriented DEA Efficiency Results:
ref: ref: ref: ref: ref:
rank theta A B C D E
dmu:A 1 1 1 . 0 . .
dmu:B 5 .625 .5 . .5 . .
dmu:C 1 1 . . 1 . .
dmu:D 4 .9 . . .5 . .5
dmu:E 1 1 . . 0 . 1
islack: oslack:
i_x o_q
dmu:A . .
dmu:B . .
dmu:C . .
dmu:D . .
dmu:E 0 .
VRS Frontier(-1:drs, 0:crs, 1:irs)
CRS_TE VRS_TE NIRS_TE SCALE RTS
dmu:A 0.500000 1.000000 0.500000 0.500000 1.000000
dmu:B 0.500000 0.625000 0.500000 0.800000 1.000000
dmu:C 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000
dmu:D 0.800000 0.900000 0.900000 0.888889 -1.000000
dmu:E 0.833333 1.000000 1.000000 0.833333 -1.000000
VRS Frontier:

dmu o_q i_x CRS_TE VRS_TE SCALE RTS

1. A 1 2 0.500000 1.000000 0.500000 irs

2. B 2 4 0.500000 0.625000 0.800000 irs
3. C 3 3 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 -
4. D 4 5 0.800000 0.900000 0.888889 drs
5. E 5 6 0.833333 1.000000 0.833333 drs

Note that the efficiency score (theta) of DMU B is 0.625, and DMUs A and C are the
reference DMUs for DMU B. The sum of the reference weights should equal 1 because
n
rts(vrs) specifies that j=1 λj = 1. The sum of the reference weights for DMU B equals
1 from (λA , λB , λC , λD , λE ) = (0.5, 0, 0.5, 0, 0). And note that the efficiency scores of
all the DMUs are not changed from the single-stage model shown in the previous section
to the current two-stage analysis because there is no slack in this case. This means
that the slack level of profits has no effect on the efficiency evaluation. Stores A, C,
and E are the efficient points that inefficient DMUs (B and D) can target to move in
input-oriented DEA calculation.
Here we analyze data from Coelli et al. (2005, 175) using the saving() option:

. dea i_x = o_q, rts(vrs) ort(i) saving(coelli_6.4_results)

(output omitted )
278 Data envelopment analysis

Specifying saving(coelli 6.4 results) will save the VRS frontier results, shown
above, as coelli 6.4 results.dta. The results match the Pareto–Koopman solution
of Coelli et al. (2005, 176, table 6.5) because slack has no role in this case.

4.6 Second-stage regression analysis using the efficiency scores

The prevalent method in the literature to find the determinants of efficiency gaps among
DMUs is by using tobit regression analysis because the efficiency scores are censored at
the maximum value of the efficiency scores. The tobit regression analysis uses the
efficiency scores as the dependent variables for the possible candidates of influential
variables (see, for example, Lee, Lee, and Kim [2009]).
Here we illustrate the second-stage regression analysis using
seco stage regression.dta.

. dea i_x = o_q, saving(seco_stage_regre_results)

(output omitted )
. use seco_stage_regre_results
. tobit theta rnd, ul(1)
Tobit regression Number of obs = 20
LR chi2(1) = 46.44
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Log likelihood = 19.060498 Pseudo R2 = 5.5845

theta Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

rnd .1464713 .0118676 12.34 0.000 .1216322 .1713104

_cons .3003908 .0360827 8.33 0.000 .2248688 .3759127

/sigma .0649661 .011565 .0407603 .089172

Obs. summary: 0 left-censored observations

16 uncensored observations
4 right-censored observations at theta>=1

The results show that the rnd (R&D) level is positively related with the CRS effi-
ciency scores of DMUs at the 1% level of significance.

5 Conclusion
Today, many academic researchers recognize Stata as one of the leading packages for
statistical analysis; however, there are still uncovered areas that managerial organiza-
tions are interested in. In particular, optimization procedures in Stata can be further
developed to fill in the gaps between parametric and nonparametric analysis. The dea
command introduced in this article is a new application in Stata and is a powerful
managerial tool for measuring the efficiency and productivity of DMUs.
Y. Ji and C. Lee 279

The dea command application has several advantages, including the following:

• It can be used by Stata users with no extra cost for DEA software.

• It is flexible to add other DEA models.

• It provides Stata with managerial tools for reports and statistical analysis, as well
as optimization procedures.

• The dea command report files can directly feed to other Stata routines for further
analysis.

6 Acknowledgments
We thank H. Joseph Newton and an anonymous reviewer for comments.

7 References
Banker, R. D., A. Charnes, and W. W. Cooper. 1984. Some models for estimating
technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science
30: 1078–1092.

Boussofiane, A., R. G. Dyson, and E. Thanassoulis. 1991. Applied data envelopment

analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 52: 1–15.
Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision
making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2: 429–444.

Cherchye, L., and T. V. Puyenbroeck. 2001. A comment on multi-stage DEA methodol-

ogy. Operations Research Letters 28: 93–98.

Coelli, T. J., D. S. P. Rao, C. J. O’Donnell, and G. E. Battese. 2005. An Introduction

to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.

Cooper, W. W., L. M. Seiford, and K. Tone. 2000. Data Envelopment Analysis: A Com-
prehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. 2nd
ed. New York: Springer.

———. 2006. Introduction to Data Envelopment Analysis and Its Uses. New York:
Springer.

Lee, C., J. Lee, and T. Kim. 2009. Innovation policy for defense acquisition and dynamics
of productive efficiency: A DEA application to the Korean defense industry. Asian
Journal of Technology Innovation 17: 151–171.
280 Data envelopment analysis

About the authors

Yong-bae Ji is a graduate student in the Defense Science and Technology Department at Korea
National Defense University in Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Choonjoo Lee (corresponding author) is an assistant professor in the Defense Science and
Technology Department at Korea National Defense University in Seoul, Republic of Korea.