Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Integration of semi-fuzzy SVDD and CC-Rule method for supplier

selection
Xuesong Guo ⇑, Zhengwei Zhu, Jia Shi
School of Public Policy and Administration, Xi’an Jiaotong University, 710049, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords:
Supplier selection
Semi-fuzzy kernel clustering algorithm
Support vector domain description
Cooperative coevolution algorithm
A model based on semi-fuzzy support vector domain description (semi-fuzzy SVDD) is put forward to
address multi-classification problem involved in supplier selection. By preprocessing using semi-fuzzy
kernel clustering algorithm, original samples are divided into two subsets: deterministic samples and
fuzzy samples. Only the fuzzy samples, rather than all original ones, require expert judgment to decide
their categories and are selected as training samples to accomplish SVDD specification. Therefore, the
samples preprocessing method can not only decrease experts working strength, but also achieve less
computational consumption and better performance of the classifier. Nevertheless, in order to accom-
plish practical decision making, another condition has to be met: good explanations to the decision. A
rule extraction method based on cooperative coevolution algorithm (CCEA), is introduced to achieve
the target. To validate the proposed methodology, samples from real world were employed for experi-
ments, with results compared with conventional multi-classification support vector machine approaches
and other artificial intelligence techniques. Moreover, in terms of rule extraction, experiments on key
parameters, different methods including decompositional and pedagogical ones etc. were also conducted.
 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction complexity of the multi-classification problem, it is tiring and

Supplier selection is a complex multi-criteria decision making
problem, on which some conflicting criteria might be considered
and evaluated. Decisions are complicated due to many dynamic
factors, such as uncertain price, capacity, and demand etc. So, is-
sues in supplier selection have received extensive attentions, with
some valuable academic surveys accomplished (Ho, Xu, & Dey,
2010; Jain, Wadhwa, & Deshmukh, 2009). Moreover, a systemic lit-
erature review on the latest development in this area was pre-
sented in Chai, Liu, and Ngai (2013). Among the proposed
methodologies and techniques, support vector machine, one of
promising machine learning methods, has begun to play more
important roles, which can be seen in section 1. However, in terms
of supplier selection using the method, some problems still exist,
which can be concluded as follows:
Firstly, multi-classification problem should be addressed. That
is, suppliers will usually be divided into more than two categories,
while standard support vector machine based on hyper-plane can-
not handle it directly.
Secondly, according to conventional methodologies, based on
machine learning techniques, experts will be required to evaluate
all training samples to determine their classification labels. Given
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: guoxues1@163.com (X. Guo).
time-consuming to consider every training sample to decide its
category. So, if only the ones, which are difficult to categorize
and vital for classifier establishment, can be selected for expert
judgment, working strength, possibility of human error and com-
putational consumption can be reduced greatly.
Thirdly, in terms of supplier selection, good prediction accuracy
alone cannot be considered as truly reliable decision support. Some
supplementary information on how a verdict has been reached is
also necessary. So, the method for rule extraction, which can dis-
cover attribute values connected to each possible outcome, is re-
quired. Although the models based on machine learning
techniques can achieve high accuracies, the comprehensibility is
limited. And it is a major drawback, which will cause reluctance
to use the method.
Moreover, at the methodological level, rule extraction from sup-
port vector machine models, rather than from data directly, is also
an important research issue (Barakat & Bradley, 2010). Methods
based on standard support vector machine do not provide explana-
tions or comprehensible justifications for the knowledge they
learn. This has been shown to be one of the main obstacles imped-
ing their practical applications. Hence, models based on support
vector machine were integrated with some other approaches to
accomplish rule extraction in different areas (He, Hu, & Harrison,
2006; Barakat, 2007; Castro, Flores-Hidalgo, Mantas, & Puche,
2007; Martens, Baesens, & Gestel, 2009; Ren, Liu, & Cao, 2011;
Zhu & Hu, 2013).

0957-4174/$ - see front matter  2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.09.008
2084 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097
In terms of the problems mentioned above, motivations of the
research can be concluded as follows:
(1) Develop a model suitable for handling multi-classification
problem in supplier selection.
(2) Propose sample preprocessing method to ensure only the
samples, which are difficult to categorize and vital for classi-
fier establishment, are selected for expert judgment. More-
over, sample preprocessing is also expected to reduce the
size of training set to decrease computational consumption
and achieve better performance of the classifier.
(3) Develop techniques for rule extraction from multi-classifica-
tion model, where the extracted rules are required to pro-
vide explanations to the classification results.
Therefore, a two-step hybridized method is proposed in the pa-
per. In the first step, multi-classification classifier is developed
with the thoughts of support vector domain description (SVDD)
employed. Especially, training samples, selected from original ones
after preprocessing, are deduced with their classification labels as-
signed using expert judgment. In the second step, CC-Rule method
based on cooperative coevolution algorithm is introduced to
achieve comprehensible rules extraction based on the set of sup-
port vectors obtained in the first step.
2. Literature review
2.1. Decision-making techniques applied in supplier selection
According to current literatures, structural suppler selection is
usually defined as multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) prob-
lem. Therefore, some MCDM techniques have been employed to
solve it, which can be concluded as follows: (1) Multi-attribute
utility methods such as AHP (Levary, 2008; Chan & Chan, 2010;
Ishizaka, Pearman, & Nemery, 2012; Bhattacharya, Geraghty, &
Young, 2010), ANP (Lin, Lin, Yu, & Tzeng, 2010; Tseng, Chiang, &
Lan, 2009) etc.; (2) Outranking methods such as Elimination and
Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE) (Sevkli, 2010), Preference
Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROM-
ETHEE) (Chen, Wang, & Wu, 2011) etc.; (3) Compromise methods
such as Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal
Solution (TOPSIS) (Awasthi, Chauhan, & Goyal, 2010), Multi-crite-
ria Optimization and Compromise Solution (VIKOR) (Chen & Wang,
2009) etc.; (4) other MCDM techniques such as Simple Multi-attri-
bute Rating Technique (SMART) (Chou & Chang, 2008), Decision-
Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) (Chang, Chang,
& Wu, 2011; Dalalah, Hayajneh, & Batieha, 2011; Buyukozkan &
Cifci, 2012) etc.
Mathematical Programming (MP) techniques were also applied.
A basic Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model, which can be
used to evaluate the relative efficiency of DMUs according to
multiple inputs and outputs, was put forward in some researches
(Adler, Friedman, & Sinuany-Stern, 2002; Wu & Blackhurst,
2009). Moreover, Linear Programming (LP), a mathematical opti-
mization method, was employed in suppler selection. Models
based on simple LP (Ng, 2008; Guneri, Yucel, & Ayyildiz, 2009;
Chen, Wang, & Lu, 2011), fuzzy LP (Amin, Razmi, & Zhang, 2011;
Yucel & Güneri, 2011; Lin, 2012), multi-objective LP (Ozkok &
Tiryaki, 2011; Xu & Ding, 2011) and mixed integer LP (Demirtas
& Üstün, 2008; Amin & Zhang, 2012) were developed. Besides LP,
some other researchers studied suppler selection with methods
based on Nonlinear Programming (NLP). Different from LP, NLP
allows for some constraints or objective functions represented as
nonlinear equations. Besides simple application of NLP methods
(Hsu, Chiang, & Shu, 2010), some modified ones based on mixed
integer NLP formulation were put forward (Rezaei & Davoodi,
2012). On the other hand, Multi-objective Programming (MOP), a
kind of MP characterized by multiple and conflicting objectives
functions, were applied. Especially, methods based on fuzzy MOP
were presented in Lin (2012), Ozkok and Tiryaki (2011), Haleh
and Hamidi (2011), Yu, Goh, and Lin (2012) and Shaw, Shankar,
Yadav, and Thakur (2012). As an extension or generalization of
MOP, Goal Programming (GP) can be applied to deal with multiple
and conflicting objective measures (Kull & Talluri, 2008; Tsai &
Hung, 2009; Chen, 2011; Liao & Kao, 2011). Given the uncertain
factors, Stochastic Programming (SP), a framework for modeling
uncertainty optimization problems, was also introduced (Kara,
2011; Li & Zabinsky, 2011).
Furthermore, models based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) have
begun to play more important roles, because they do not require
formulization of the decision making process. So, they can cope
better with complexity and uncertainty. When the models are em-
ployed, only information on characteristics of current situation,
e.g., performance on the criteria, is required. Moreover, the AI tech-
nologies subsequently make the actual trade off, based on what
they have ‘‘learned’’ from experts or cases.
Generally, Genetic Algorithm (GA), Neural Network (NN), Grey
System Theory (GST), and Rough Set Theory (RST) have been re-
garded as the most popular methods (Chai et al., 2013). Besides
models based on GA (Yang, Wee, Pai, & Tseng, 2011; Yeh & Chuang,
2011), some simulations (Xu & Ding, 2011), and a heuristic algo-
rithm combining Guided GA, Pareto GA were presented (Che,
2010). Moreover, GA can be also applied as one element for deci-
sion model establishment (Lin & Yeh, 2010; Sadeghieh, Dehghan-
baghi, Dabbaghi, & Barak, 2012). On the other hand, some typical
researches based on NN were presented (Celebi & Bayraktar,
2008; Wu, 2009), while approaches using adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system (Guneri, Ertay, & Yucel, 2011), adaptive reso-
nance theory NN (Keskin, Ilhan, & Özkan, 2010) etc. were also
put forward. GST is another available technique. That is, the
decision information can be depicted in the form of grey values
(Sadeghieh et al., 2012; Bai & Sarkis, 2010; Tseng, 2011), while
some results can be obtained using grey relational analysis (GRA)
(Golmohammadi & Mellat-Parast, 2012; Pitchipoo, Venkumar, &
Rajakarunakaran, 2012). RST, which can be applied to identify
structural relationships with imprecise or noisy data, was intro-
duced to this field (Bai & Sarkis, 2010; Chang & Hung, 2010).
Besides the AI methods mentioned above, Case Based Reasoning
(CBR) (Zhao & Yu, 2011), Bayesian Networks (BN) (Dogan & Aydin,
2011; Ferreira & Borenstein, 2012), Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO) (Xu & Yan, 2011), Ant Colony Algorithm (ACA) (Tsai, Yang,
& Lin, 2010), Dempster–Shafer Theory (DST) (Wu, 2009), Associa-
tion Rule (AR) (Lin, Chuang, Liou, & Wu, 2009), and Support Vector
Machine (SVM) (Guo, Yuan, & Tian, 2009) were regarded as other
alternatives.
More researchers have been focusing on integration of standard
techniques and methodologies towards more effective decision
support. An evaluation model based on AHP for risk index calcula-
tion, which were then incorporated into a GP model, was presented
(Liao & Kao, 2011). An integrated decision model using AHP and
the Taguchi loss function was put forward (Ordoobadi, 2010).
And an integrated AHP and quality function deployment (QFD)
for ranking alternative suppliers was also argued (Bhattacharya
et al., 2010). Considering uncertain decision environments, some
thoughts and methodologies based on fuzzy theories were intro-
duced and integrated with AHP (Labib, 2011; Amid, Ghodsypour,
& O’Brien, 2011; Chamodrakas, Batis, & Martakos, 2010; Chen &
Chao, 2012; Kilincci & Onal, 2011). AHP can also be integrated with
ANP, wherein triangular fuzzy values were employed to form
pairwise comparison matrix (Yucenur, Vayvay, & Demirel, 2011).
Multiple techniques, including AHP, TOPSIS, and DEA were
 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097
integrated (Zeydan, Çolpan, & Çobanoglu, 2011), with some inte-
gration with other methods such as Structural Equation Model
(Punniyamoorthy, Mathiyalagan, & Parthiban, 2011), MOP (Yu
et al., 2012; Shaw et al., 2012), GRA (Wu, 2009), etc. also argued.
Besides AHP, ANP were integrated with other techniques. A simple
hybrid approach, in which ANP was used to determine the weights
of criteria, was proposed (Chang et al., 2011). An ANP-integrated
mixed-integer non-linear decision model was also developed
(Razmi & Rafiei, 2010), while integration of ANP and QFD was ar-
gued (Ho, Dey, & Lockström, 2011). In terms of information system
design, ANP, TOPSIS, and LP were integrated for ERP system (Lin,
Chen, & Ting, 2011). Considering ANP and fuzzy logic hybrid
approaches, ANP techniques were integrated with fuzzy LP for
selecting the best suppliers and handling the inherent uncertainty
(Lin, 2012). Some researchers constructed ANP-related models
combined with other techniques such as fuzzy methods (Vinodh,
Anesh Ramiya, & Gautham, 2011), AHP (Yucenur et al., 2011) and
DEMATEL, TOPSIS (Buyukozkan & Cifci, 2012). DEA was integrated
with the cross efficiency evaluation (Falagario, Sciancalepore,
Costantino, & Pietroforte, 2012), while some other researchers
constructed DEA-related models considering a triangular fuzzy
environment (Zeydan et al., 2011; Azadeh & Alem, 2010; Chen,
2011). Apart from fuzzy decision environments, some researchers
discussed utilization of DEA in handling other types of uncertainty
(Wu, 2010; Saen, 2010).
Moreover, besides the formulated supplier selection problem
under deterministic conditions, current studies addressed practical
problems under different types of uncertainties. Some integrated
with uncertain decision approaches were proposed (Yang et al.,
2011; Pitchipoo et al., 2012). Several AI techniques, such as GST
(Golmohammadi & Mellat-Parast, 2012), were also introduced,
and integrated to deal with supplier selection problems (Bai &
Sarkis, 2010; Wu, 2010).
2.2. Multi-classification methods based on SVM
SVM method is a promising AI technique. It has been regarded
as a development in statistical learning theory, though researches
on supplier selection are few (Guo et al., 2009; Sun, Xie, & Xue,
2005). Since it is originally developed for binary classification
problem (Cortes & Vapnik, 1995), extend it to multi-class classifi-
cation effectively remains an important research issue. At present,
there are two main approaches to address this problem. One is the
single-machine approach, in which a single large optimization
problem is solved (Vapnik, 1998, 1999). The other is the multi-
ple-machine approach, which transforms a multi-class classifica-
tion problem into several binary classification problems
(Bredensteiner & Bennett, 1999; Guermeur, 2002). However, it re-
quires a significant amount of computational time to solve the sin-
gle large optimization problem and not suitable for practical
applications (Pontil & Verri, 1998). So, some modified methods
were proposed to address multi-classification problem.
One-against-all SVM (OAA-SVM) is one of the earliest and sim-
plest multiple-machine approaches. Recently, a reduced OAA-SVM
(R-OAA-SVM) was proposed based on sample selection to decrease
the time consumption of OAA-SVM (KreBel, 1999).
One-against-one SVM (OAO-SVM) is another popular multiple-
machine approach (Guermeur, 2002). For a C-class classification
problem, it usually constructs C(C-1)/2 binary SVMs, where each
binary SVM is trained on data points from two classes. Two inter-
esting modifications on OAO-SVM are directed acyclic graph SVM
(DAG-SVM) (Hsu & Lin, 2002) and adaptive directed acyclic graph
SVM (ADAG-SVM) (Bredensteiner & Bennett, 1999).
In order to improve generalization performances and reduce
time consumption, some OAO-based binary tree SVM algorithms
were proposed (Kumar & Gopal, 2011). An important difference
2085
in these algorithms is the choice of the data partitioning strategy,
which strongly influences the generalization performances of the
classifiers.
Different from the standard multi-class SVM based on hyper-
plane, some models based on hyper-sphere were also put forward.
An SVDD classification method for one-class data was proposed,
whose main idea is to find a hyper-sphere covering one-class data
and make its radius as small as possible (Lai, Tax, Duin, Pekalska, &
Paclik, 2004; Lee, Park, & Lee, 2006). SVDD is an excellent method
of one-class classification with the advantages of robustness and
high computation speed. Aiming at multi-classification problems,
a sphere-structured multi-class SVM was proposed (Tax & Duin,
1999, 2004). This method categorizes the same class data with a
hyper-sphere to reduce the complexity of the quadratic program-
ming. When adding data for a new class, only the relevant hy-
per-sphere needs to be constructed.
3. Proposed methodology
3.1. Framework of the methodology
In the paper, a two-step hybridized method is proposed. That is,
classification and support vectors identification is performed using
Semi-fuzzy Support Vector Domain Description (Semi-fuzzy
SVDD), while rules are extracted with Evolutionary Algorithm
(EA) employed. The framework can be illustrated in Fig. 1.
In the first step, a multi-classification classifier based on Semi-
fuzzy SVDD is developed to achieve high prediction accuracy, with
support vectors identified for the second step. Especially, original
samples are divided into two subsets: Deterministic Samples and
Fuzzy Samples, by preprocessing with semi-fuzzy kernel clustering
algorithm. Only the fuzzy samples, rather than all original ones, re-
quire expert judgment to assign their classification labels to form
training set.
In the second step, rule extraction method using Cooperative
Coevolution Algorithm (CCEA), labeled as CC-Rule method, is ap-
plied subsequently to evolve a set of rules based on support
vectors.
3.2. Multi-classification classifier based on semi-fuzzy SVDD
3.2.1. Multi-classification based on SVDD
SVDD is a sphere shaped data description. Using a nonlinear
transformation to map the data into a high dimensional kernel
space, it can obtain a flexible and accurate data description relying
on a small number of support vectors (Tax & Duin, 1999, 2004).
Give a data set v ¼ fxi 2 Rd ji ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; ng data points and a
nonlinear mapping u from the input space to a kernel space, a
smallest sphere, which can enclose most of the mapped data
points, will be developed. The sphere can be described using the
center l and radius R, just as shown in Eqs. (1) and (2).
X
n
Min FðR; l; ni Þ ¼ R2 þ C ni ; ð1Þ
i¼1
under the constraints
kuðxi Þ  lk2 6 R2 þ ni ; 8i ¼ 1; . . . ; n ð2Þ
where parameter C gives the trade-off between the volume of
sphere and the accuracy of data description, and ni P 0 are slack
variables allowing for soft boundaries.
By introducing the Lagrangian, we have
X
n X
n X
n
LðR; l; ni ; bi ; ai Þ ¼ R2 þ C ni  bi ðR2 þ ni  kuðxi Þ  lk2 Þ  ai ni ð3Þ
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
where ai P 0,bi P 0 are Lagrange multipliers.
2086 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097

Original Samples

Preprocess Using Semi-fuzzy Kernel Clustering algorithm

New Data Points

on Supplier Selection
Fuzzy Samples Deterministic Samples

Expert Judgment

Training Samples

Classifier Establishment

Support Vectors Classifier Applied in Multi-Classification Classifier for Supplier

Selection

The First Step

The Second Step

Rules Extraction Using CCEA Explanations to the Results

Fig. 1. Framework of the proposed methodology.

@L @L
Setting @R
¼ 0 and @l
¼ 0 respectively, leads to In terms of the multi-classification problem, suppose a set of
X
n training samples fðxi ; yi Þgni¼1  v  w is given, where xi 2 v denotes
bi ¼ 1 ð4Þ an input pattern and yi 2 w denotes its output class respectively.
i¼1 The central idea is utilizing the information of the domain descrip-
tion generated by SVDD to estimate the distributions of each par-
and
titioned class data and then accomplish multi-classification (Zhu,
X
n
Chen, & Liu, 2003; Lee & Lee, 2005).
l¼ bi uðxi Þ ð5Þ
i¼1

By eliminating the variables R, l, ni and ai, the Lagrangian can be 3.2.2. Sample preprocessing based on semi-fuzzy kernel clustering
turned into the Wolfe Dual form, just as shown in Eqs. (6) and (7). Just as mentioned above, establishment of sphere according to
the training set is essential to multi-classification based on SVDD
X
n X
n
(Lee & Lee, 2007; Wang & Lai, 2013). A sphere is only determined
max W ¼ bi Kðxi ; xi Þ  bi bj Kðxi ; xj Þ ð6Þ
bi
i¼1 i;j¼1
by support vectors, but all the samples will have to be taken into
X
n consideration in standard algorithms (Tax & Duin, 1999, 2004;
subject to bi ¼ 1; 0 6 bi 6 C 8i ¼ 1; . . . ; n ð7Þ Lee & Lee, 2005). So, if the samples, which are more liable to be-
i¼1 come support vectors, can be identified in advance, the size of
training set will be reduced to cause lower complexity and compu-
where the dot products u(xi)u(xj) are replaced by the correspond-
tational consumption. Just as shown in Fig. 2, the sphere can be
ing kernel function K(xi,xj).
determined according to the samples in the Edge Zone. On the
Moreover, the kernel radius function, which is defined by the
other hand, in terms of practical supplier selection, it is difficult
Euclidian distance of u(x) from l, is given as Eq. (8).
to determine whether the samples located in this area belong to
RðxÞ ¼ kuðxÞ  lk the class or not, and supports from experts are necessary.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi To accomplish Edge Zone detection, semi-fuzzy kernel cluster-
u X n X n
u ing algorithm, which is developed based on standard Semi-fuzzy
¼ tKðx; xÞ  2 bi Kðxi ; xÞ þ bi bj Kðxi ; xj Þ ð8Þ
i¼1 i;j¼1 Clustering algorithm (Selim & Ismail, 1984; Kamel & Selim,
1991), is employed.
So, the radius of the sphere is defined as Eq. (9). Application of this algorithm is introduced as follows.
Let lji 2 [0, 1] denote the membership of xi, i = 1, . . . ,n, to the
R ¼ maxfRðxi Þjxi is a support vectorg ð9Þ j-th class, whose center of clustering is vj, where j = 1, . . . ,c and
 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097 2087

Based on the results derived using semi-fuzzy kernel clustering

algorithm, the original samples can be divided into two subsets:
Deterministic Samples and Fuzzy Samples, according to the follow-
ing partition rule.
If $lji = 1 for j 2 {1, . . . ,c}, then xi is a Deterministic Sample,
else xi is a Fuzzy Sample. Sets of Deterministic Samples and Fuzzy
Samples are represented as v1 and v2 respectively.
If xi 2 v1, xi can be classified as data point belonging to class j
directly without extra judgment.
Otherwise, it is a fuzzy sample, and difficult to categorize due to
fuzzy memberships. Therefore, expert consideration and judgment
is necessary.

3.2.3. Procedures for classifier establishment

Therefore, the procedures for training set generation can be
concluded as follows.
Fig. 2. Sphere specification in kernel space.

Step 1. Collect raw data to generate original samples depicted as

vectors, which are represented according to criteria, just as
m 2 (1, 1) denotes the weighting exponent. The mathematical
illustrated in Fig. 3.
formulation (Bezdek, 1980) of Semi-fuzzy Kernel Clustering
Step 2. Accomplishing sample preprocessing, divide them into
model takes the form shown as Eq. (10) by introducing kernel
two subsets: Deterministic Samples and Fuzzy Samples, just
function K(,).
as illustrated in Fig. 4. Classification labels of deterministic sam-
X
c X
n
ples are assigned using semi-fuzzy kernel clustering algorithm,
min JðU; VÞ ¼ ðlji Þm  kUðxi Þ  Uðv j Þk2
while the ones of fuzzy samples remain null.
j¼1 i¼1
Step 3. Generate training set by assigning classification labels of
X
c X
n
¼ ðlji Þm ðKðxi ; xi Þ  2Kðxi ; v j Þ þ Kðv j ; v j ÞÞ ð10Þ fuzzy samples based on expert judgment, just as illustrated in
j¼1 i¼1 Fig. 5(a).
X
c
S:t lji ¼ 1; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n
j¼1 Just as shown in Fig. 5, different from conventional methods,
training set is derived from part samples, rather than all original
Some other functions can be expressed as Eqs. (11) and (12). ones. Therefore, experts can focus on considering categories of re-
 m1
1 duced samples.
1
dji
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Moreover, fuzzy samples can be identified to be located in Edge
lji ¼  m1 ; where dji ¼ Kðxi ;xi Þ  2Kðxi ; v j Þ þ Kðv j ; v j Þ ð11Þ
Pc 1
1
Zone, and are more liable to be selected as support vectors, just as
j¼1 dji shown in Fig. 6.
Pn
i¼1 ð lji Þm xi So, the sphere can be specified according to training samples,
vj ¼ Pn m ð12Þ which are located in Edge Zone, to reduce computational consump-
i¼1 ðlji Þ
tion, but also achieve better performance. Then, procedures of mul-
So, the procedures can be concluded as follows: ti-classification using Semi-fuzzy SVDD can be concluded as
follows.
Step 1. Set iterative stopping condition e 2 (0, 1), maximum
iterating time T, and parameter k 2 (0, 1]. Step 1. Generate training set according to the procedures for
Step 2. Initialize clustering center V = {v1,v2, . . . ,vc}. training set generation.
P  m1 1

Step 3. Compute dji, and Let Li ¼ cj¼1 d1ji ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n.

Step 4. Set dpi = min{dji, "1 6 i 6 n}
For each data point, 1 6 i 6 n, do

1; j ¼ s
If $dji = 0 for j = s then set uji ¼ Original Samples Rrepresented According to Criteria
0; j – s; 81 6 j 6 c Classification Labels
 m1
1

Else If
1
dpi

Li
1; j ¼ p
P k, then uji ¼ x11 x12 x13 x14 x1j NULL
0; j – p; 81 6 j 6 c
Else compute lji according to Eq. (11) x21 x22 x23 x24 x2j NULL
End if
End if x31 x32 x33 x34 x3j NULL
End do
Step 5. Compute new lji x41 x42 x43 x44 x4j NULL

Step 6. If max jlji  l ji j < e or maximum iterating time is
reached, then terminate x51 x52 x53 x54 x5j NULL
Ă

Else compute new clustering center

 
V ¼ v 1 ; v 2 ; . . . ; v c according to Eq. (12), and turn to
Step3. xi1 xi2 xi3 xi4 Ă xij NULL
End if
Fig. 3. Graphical representation of original samples.
2088 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097

The results of rule extraction in classification can be repre-

sented by a set of rules containing at least one prototype for each
class (Stoean & Stoean, 2009). The decomposition of each potential
problem is performed by assigning to each population the task of
establishing rule(s) for one certain class. In the research, a rule is
considered to be a first order entity shown in Eq. (13), where
e1,e2, . . . ,ew are the attributes of every sample, h1,h2, . . . ,hw
are the values in the definition domain of each indicator, and
k 2 {1, 2, . . . , c} denotes the class.
IF ðe1 ¼ h1 Þ AND . . . ANDðew ¼ hw Þ THEN class ¼ k ð13Þ

3.3.1. Procedures for acquiring classification rules

(a) Training stage

Fig. 4. Samples partition using semi-fuzzy kernel clustering algorithm.
Step 2. Accomplish sphere specification based on the set of
training samples obtained in Step 1 for each class.
Step 3. Accomplish multi-classification of the testing samples
based on classifier (Zhu et al., 2003; Lee & Lee, 2005) estab-
lished in Step 2.
3.3. Rule extraction method using CCEA
Based on the results obtained using Semi-fuzzy SVDD, rules
extraction method based on CCEA (Potter & De Jong, 2000), labeled
as CC-Rule method, is developed in the section.
As the task is to build c rules, one for each class, c popula-
tions are considered, each with the purpose of evolving
one of the c individuals.
Representation
Each individual, which represents one rule, in each popula-
tion follows the same encoding as a sample from the data
set. And individuals representing simple IF–THEN rules have
the condition parts in the attribute space and the conclu-
sions in the class space.
Initialization
The values of genes of all individuals are initialized following
a uniform distribution intervals of the corresponding attri-
butes in the data set. In case the considered data set is nor-
malized, the values for the genes are initialized in the [0, 1]
interval, again following a uniform distribution.
Fitness evaluation
To evaluate an individual from a certain population, a collab-
orating rule from each of the other populations is selected
according to the collaborator selection pressure choice for

Fig. 5. Comparison of proposed training set generation method and conventional method.
 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097
Center Vj
Deterministic Sample
Fuzzy Sample
(a) Samples Partition According to Class j
Fig. 6. Sphere specification in semi-fuzzy SVDD.
a number of times equal to Collaboration Pool Size (cps). In
addition to the classical CCEA types (optimistic assignment,
pessimistic assignment and hedge assignment), a novel
assignment, which can be seen in Appendix, is applied in
the research. Departing from the current individual, for each
sample s, multiple sets of rules are formed and applied in
order to predict its class. All rules within a set have different
outcomes. Scores are computed for each of the possible out-
comes, in the following manner: When a rule set is applied
to a sample, a certain outcome is established for it. The score
of that outcome is increased by unity. Each of the cps sets of
rules is applied to s. Finally, the class of s is concluded to be
the class that obtains the highest score. The fitness of the
considered rule is computed as the correctly labeled cases
over the total number.
Independently of the chosen algorithm for evaluating rule
performance, the distance between individuals and samples
has to be computed to determine which rule is closest to
each sample. In the paper, normalized Manhattan was
adopted for distance calculation, where xi = (xi1, xi2, . . . ,xiw)
represents a sample from the training set, while h = (h1,
h2, . . . ,hw) represents an individual (or rule), and al, bl denote
the lower, upper bounds of the l-th attribute, just as shown
in Eq. (14).
X
w
jhl  xil j
dðh; xi Þ ¼
l¼1
bl  al
(b) Select and variation operators
In the study, intermediate recombination is applied, with
two parents p and q selected. The value of gene i of the off-
spring o is obtained according to Eq. (15), where r is a uni-
formed distributed random number over [0, 1].
oi ¼ pi þ r  ðqi  pi Þ
Mutation with normal perturbation is considered, and a statistically
chosen gene i of an individual p is changed according to Eq. (16).
bi  ai
pi ¼ pi þ r 
ms
where r is a random number with normal distribution, bi and ai are
the upper and lower bounds of the i-th attribute in the data set and
ms is the mutation strength parameter.
2089
Sphere Surface
Center Vj
Support Vector
(b) Sphere Specification Based on Fuzzy Samples
(c) Testing stage
After the stop condition is reached, it is disposed of c popu-
lations of rules that had been evolved against the training
set. In order to form a complete set of rules, an item from
each population has to be chosen. Rules may be selected ran-
domly, the best ones may be considered or a selection
scheme may be applied.
3.3.2. Application in rule extraction
If pedagogical method (Martens, Baesens, Gestel, & Vanthienen,
2007) is followed, fidelity is calculated in Eq. (17) and expressed as
the percentage of the identically labeled samples (Huysmans,
Baesens, & Vanthienen, 2006), where xi is the current observation,
yci is its outcome obtained by Semi-fuzzy SVDD, and yi is the one
reached by CCEA. Contrary, if the behavior is decompositional
(Martens et al., 2007), the known labels are taken as the real ones
from the samples that represent support vectors, just as shown in
Eq. (18), while accuracy is therefore calculated as Eq. (19).

fidelity ¼ Prob yci ¼ yi jxi 2 X ð17Þ

fidelity ¼ Prob yreal ¼ yi jxi is a support vector ð18Þ
i
 real
accuracy ¼ Prob yi ¼ yi jxi 2 X ð19Þ
In the study, the set of support vectors identified using Semi-
fuzzy SVDD is given as training set for rule extraction. So, decom-
positional method is followed, and Eqs. (18) and (19) should be
ð14Þ applied.
Overall, hybridization of Semi-fuzzy SVDD and CC-Rule method
can be illustrated in Fig. 7.
4. Experiments
4.1. Data sets
ð15Þ A data set, from one of the largest household appliances
manufacturing companies in China (Song, 2001; Sun, 2008),
was introduced and labeled as Data Set A. Because of its business
activities, the company needs a certain amount of raw materials
and has to coordinate with a large number of suppliers in Chinese
mainland. This company has a committee in supply chain manage-
ð16Þ
ment (SCM) unit including about 45 members, who decide the
choice of supplier. So, 31 active members were selected as experts
for interview and inquiry.
This research considered some previous literatures to conclude
some alternative items for further argument. Besides review
2090 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097

Fig. 7. Hybridization of semi-fuzzy SVDD and CC-Rule method.

literature (Kannan, Sivakumar, Joseph, & Murugesan, 2013), some
other researches on supplier selection of similar enterprises in
context of China were referred to (Qian, 2011; Li, Ming, & Zhong,
2011; Fan & Wang, 2012; Tan, Wang, & Jiao, 2012; Wu & Cao,
2012; Gong & Hong, 2012; Ji & Zhang, 2013; Xiao & Guo, 2013),
and the preferred evaluation criteria were listed in Table 1.
Based on the preliminary list of items derived from reference
materials mentioned above and the case company’s opinions, a
Delphi expert questionnaire was designed and released to the ex-
perts to determine the criteria. If the opinions are not consistent,
the Delphi questionnaire must be modified and reissued until the
results are converged. The questionnaire was based on Likert scale
to represent importance of each criterion. The criterion must be
omitted if it has lower total score, and can be preserved otherwise.
The final criteria has five dimensions including ‘‘Quality,’’
‘‘Cost,’’‘‘Delivery,’’ ‘‘Service,’’ and ‘‘Corporate social responsibility’’,
which were concluded in Table 2.
All indicators listed in Table 2 were applied as the factors in
supplier selection. The samples, generated from historical data,
were used to test the proposed methodology. Therefore, 672
samples were employed in the experiments. After raw data on
samples were distributed to the experts, Delphi method was
applied to determine their categories. A consensus process
was performed through the questionnaires. Each inquiry was
accompanied by providing information of proceeding round of
replies. Experts were encouraged to change previous replies
regarding those of others. Based on the procedures mentioned
above, the samples were all categorized, and the data set was
derived.
Moreover, another data set having been argued in Guo et al.
(2009), was also introduced and labeled as Data Set B. Perfor-
mances in Data Set A and B were both measured with a seven-
point scale, just as listed in Table 3.
4.2. Experiments set
In terms of the proposed methodology, whether it produces via-
ble results and how appropriate parameters should be determined

Table 1
Criteria for supplier selection.

Research Evaluation items

Qian (2011) Finance, Consistency, Relationship, Flexibility, Technology Capability, Service, Reliability, Price
Li et al. (2011) Quality Level, Production Capacity, Lead Time, Storage Capacity
Fan and Wang (2012) Quality, Delivery Performance, Price, Reaction to Demand Change, Service of Support
Tan et al. (2012) Quality, Delivery On Time, Price, Service
Wu and Cao (2012) Quality, Delivery, Price, Technical Capability, Financial Position, Past Performance Attribute, Facility, Flexibility, Service
Gong and Hong (2012) Cost, Quality, Reliability of Delivery, Lead Time, Delivery on Time
Ji and Zhang (2013) Cost, Quality, Delivery, Service, Social Responsibility, Response
Xiao and Guo (2013) R&D, Cost, Quality, Service, Response
 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097 2091

Table 2
Criteria involved in data set A.

Category Definition
Quality
Q1 Reject rate Percentage of rejected incoming material by quality control
Q2 Management commitment Degree of importance given to quality function in management
Q3 Process improvement The application of process improvement activities
Q4 Warranties and claim policies Existence of warranties and claim policies provided by supplier
Q5 Quality assurance The attainment of quality assurance
Cost
C1 Price performance value Supplier’s general delivery and quality performance for its product price
C2 Compliance with sectoral price behavior Consistence of price level of supplier with the sectoral average
C3 Transportation cost Sum of unit variable and allocated fixed transportation costs occurring as a result of product supply
Delivery
D1 Order fulfill rate Compliance with the predetermined order quantities
D2 Lead time Time between placement and arrival of an order
D3 Order frequency Frequency of orders
Service
R1 Responsiveness The ability of scheduling and changing orders
R2 Stock management Compliance of supplier’s stock management system with production line
R3 Willingness Willingness to share expertise and resolve conflicts
R4 Design capability Capability of developing new designs and speed of development
Corporate social responsibility
E1 The interests and rights of employees Labor relations, human rights and interests of employees
E2 The rights of stakeholders The interests and right of shareholders, such as consumers, communities and other related ones
E3 Information disclosure Non-financial information disclosure
E4 Respect for the policies Comply with local regulations and policies

Table 4
Values for the parameters.
Table 3
Parameter Value
Scale of performance.
Classifier Kernel function Gaussian Kernel
Scale Abbreviation Threshold (k) 0.9
Very poor VP CC-Rule method Population size 100
Poor P Recombination probability 0.5
Medium Poor MP Mutation probability 0.6
Fair F Mutation strength 0.01
Medium good MG Number of generations 120
Good G Collaboration pool size 2
Very good VG

Table 5
was argued. In the experiments, the values for parameters, listed in Experimental results of data set A.
Table 4, were tuned manually. Data set Classifier CC-Rule method CC
In the research, all features of data points ranged form 0 to 1
Train (%) Valid (%) Fidelity (%) Valid (%)
after Min–max transformation. The experiments were conducted
on platform of Matlab 7.0. To evaluate the prediction performance, 1 71.21 69.17 92.31 68.21 66.17
2 69.17 68.13 93.15 66.26 63.12
10-fold cross validation, which has shown good performance in 3 70.18 70.01 95.21 69.17 63.27
model selection, was followed, and about ten percent of the data 4 74.28 72.29 95.91a 70.11 66.74
points for each class were selected as testing samples to validate 5 80.91 79.99a 95.86 76.17 70.38
the proposed methodology. So, the results discussed in the paper 6 81.12a 79.99a 94.17 75.18 69.88
7 75.68 74.39 92.11 73.12 72.91a
were all shown as average values.
8 76.37 75.89 93.10 74.89 70.26
9 79.49 78.09 92.18 76.99a 72.17
10 72.09 71.15 92.82 70.17 68.91

4.3. Experimental results Avg. 75.05 73.91 93.68 72.03 68.38

To compare the classification accuracy of each algorithm, hit-
ratio, which is defined according to the samples classified cor-
rectly, is applied. Classification accuracies of training set were la-
beled as ‘‘Train’’, while ‘‘Valid’’ denoted those of testing samples.
Moreover, fidelity, labeled as ‘‘Fidelity’’, was also computed based
on the set of support vectors. Additionally, the CCEA method for
classification (Potter & De Jong, 2000; Stoean & Stoean, 2009),
labeled as CC, was also applied to test how the proposed
classifier helps it to boost performance. The results were shown
in Tables 5 and 6.
a
Denoted the best performance.
Then, the proposed methodology was compared with some
other Multi-class SVM (MSVM) techniques, which were listed in
Table 7.
As shown in Table 7, the proposed methods based on thoughts
of hyper-sphere, achieves better performance than conventional
MSVM models. Moreover, as one of modified models, some results
implied that the proposed methodology has better generalization
2092 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097

Table 6 much fewer samples to determine their categories in practical sup-

Experimental results of data set B. plier selection process.
Data set Classifier CC-rule method CC Furthermore, sample preprocessing is accomplished using
Train (%) Valid (%) Fidelity (%) Valid (%) semi-fuzzy kernel clustering algorithm. Since the Edge Zone is
determined by threshold k, greater value of k will lead to more can-
1 70.01 68.14 93.41 67.29 65.87
2 70.17 69.93 94.15 66.86 64.28
didates for support vectors. Especially, when k = 1, the algorithm
3 72.15 70.99 96.29a 70.17 62.27 will be transformed to standard SVDD because almost all data
4 75.66 73.19 94.91 71.17 64.29 points are candidates for support vectors. Hence, model with too
5 82.01a 77.70 96.13 77.17a 69.09 large threshold may be little different from standard SVDD, while
6 80.92 79.98a 95.23 74.38 68.14
a too small value will have poor ability due to lack of essential
7 79.78 74.69 94.11 72.91 71.99a
8 75.47 73.89 92.19 73.99 69.98 training samples. Thus, issues on choosing the appropriate thresh-
9 80.49 79.11 93.16 75.81 71.99 old were discussed by empirical trials.
10 74.09 73.28 94.87 71.26 69.92 In the following experiments, the model with various threshold
Avg. 76.08 74.09 94.45 72.10 67.78 values was tested based on different data sets, just as shown in
a Figs. 9 and 10.
Denoted the best performance.
The results on Data Set A illustrated in Fig. 9(a) showed that
ability and much less computational complexity, which can be par- the proposed method achieved the best performance with the
tially measured with training time labeled with ‘‘Time’’, than stan- threshold of 0.8, because some outliers can be eliminated from
dard SVDD. the original data set to improve generalization ability. Just as
Especially, a statistical method t-test was employed based on shown in Fig. 10, with decline of threshold, more samples were
the results of CC and CC-Rule method, and the difference between eliminated from training set to reduce training time. Hence,
the results (Valid) obtained using them proved to be significant. smaller values of threshold will lead to less computational con-
Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed classifier helps sumption, while classification accuracy may be decreased due to
CC to boost performance, while the latter can provide explanations lack of necessary training samples. Overall, threshold selection,
to the classification results. which involves complex tradeoffs between computational con-
As far as Semi-fuzzy SVDD was concerned, subsets of determin- sumption and classification accuracy, is essential to the proposed
istic samples and fuzzy samples derived using sample preprocess- methodology.
ing method were considered, and the distribution can be shown in On the other hand, experimental results on CC-Rule method
Fig. 8. were discussed in details. It can be noticed the amount of samples
The analysis results shown in Fig. 8 implied that less than half of representing support vectors, was larger than the misclassified
the samples are selected as fuzzy samples (44% in data set A and training samples, but significantly less than the entire training
48% in data set B). That is, experts will be required to consider set, just as shown in Fig. 11. The results implied that a major reduc-

Table 7
Experimental results of different methods.

Type Technique Data set A Data set B

Valid (%) Time (second) Valid (%) Time (second)
Prior AI approach GA Yeh and Chuang (2011) 64.71 4.21 65.77 3.98
NN Wu (2009) 65.25 2.15 66.71 2.09
GST Sadeghieh et al. (2012) 71.28 3.28 72.65 3.16
RST Chang and Hung (2010) 71.27 3.31 72.15 3.26
ACA Tsai et al. (2010) 69.29 4.31 70.18 3.68
CC Stoean and Stoean (2009) 68.38 4.19 67.78 3.96
Conventional MSVM One-Against-All 72.16 3.61 73.11 3.31
One-Against-One 72.12 2.57 72.19 2.12
H-PSVM Guo et al. (2009) 73.03 2.41 73.19 1.99
The sphere-based classifier Standard SVDD 73.78 1.14 74.08 1.11
Proposed method classifier 73.91 1.09 74.09 1.02
CC-Rule method 72.03 1.78 72.10 1.17

The training time of CC-Rule method was the time consumed in rules extraction phase, and Valid denoted the accuracy in terms of the testing samples.

298.9, 44% 245.2, 48%

373.1, 56% 266.8, 52%

Deterministic Sample Fuzzy Sample

Deterministic Sample Fuzzy Sample

(a) Data Set A (b) Data Set B

Fig. 8. Partition of samples after preprocessing.

 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097 2093

Fig. 9. Experimental results of generalization ability on data sets.

Fig. 10. Experimental results of training time on data sets.

168
122
288 188

216
202

Misclassified T raining Samples Support Vectors Other T raining Samples Misclassified T raining Samples Support Vectors Other T raining Samples

(a) Results on Data Set A (b) Results on Data Set B

Fig. 11. Partition of samples prior to rule extraction.

tion in number of training samples for rule extraction was per-
formed prior to application of CC-Rule method.
As shown in Fig. 12, the cps parameter directly influenced the
runtime of program that implements the approach. The final test-
ing accuracy was positively affected by the increase in this value at
the same time, but a balance had to be established between run-
time and accuracy. Another important observation was that, when
a certain threshold (cps = 6 for Data Set A and 5 for Data Set B) was
surpassed, no further gain in accuracy was reached with much
more training time consumption.
Besides the decompositional method, pedagogical method is
another one available for rule extraction. According to it, a
2094 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097

Fig. 12. Experimental results on CC-Rule method according to different cps parameters.

Fig. 13. Experimental results of performance on rule extraction methods.

 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097
correct data input–output mapping was established using all the
training samples. So, it should also be important to compare
performances of the different methods, and the results can be
shown in Fig. 13.
The fidelity values indicated that the pedagogical and decompo-
sitional methods both behave very similar to classifier based on
Semi-fuzzy SVDD, in the sense that the fidelity indicated relatively
high percents. High fidelity is very much desired, since it implies
that the approach can learn the relationship between the values
of the attributes and the outcomes capably.
Although pedagogical method proved to be more successful
than decompositional method in the results illustrated in
Fig. 13(a) and (b), the latter has a certain advantage. That is, it re-
duced by a great amount of training samples for rule extraction.
Just as shown in Fig. 13(c), this can be translated into a significant
reduction in computational consumption.
5. Conclusions and discussions
A two-step hybridized method, by which classifier establish-
ment and rule extraction for supplier selection can be accom-
plished, is proposed in the paper. And combination of the
advantages of two important tools has been achieved.
Semi-fuzzy SVDD has demonstrated its ability to solve multi-
classification problems in supplier selection by using only
necessary resources, with a solid mathematical background. From
experimental results, it can be concluded that generalization
performance of the classifier based on Semi-fuzzy SVDD is better
than standard SVDD, which outperformed many kinds of conven-
tional MSVM algorithms argued in prior literatures. Moreover, as
a modified sphere-based classifier, the method has much less
computational consumption than standard SVDD.
CC-Rule method has shown its applicability in rule extraction.
Its performance was also tested, with pedagogical method com-
pared. The approach based on pedagogical method outperforms
CC-Rule method in classification accuracy, while fidelity values of
the two methods behave very similar. But, the computational con-
sumption is reduced by CC-Rule method.
Accordingly, supplier selection process can be improved using
the methodology. Besides explanations to the decisions, a new
training set generation method is put forward. Only part of the
samples, rather than all the original ones, require expert judgment
to decide their categories and are selected as training ones to
accomplish SVDD specification, which was illustrated in Fig. 5,
with experimental results shown in Fig. 8.
The underlying assumption of the proposed method is that
sufficient boundary points identified in advance, could support
a close boundary around the target data but too many ones
might cause over-fitting and poor generalization ability. So, the
‘‘edge information’’ is exploited in the research. That is, the sup-
port vectors, which are selected from samples located in Edge
Zone, are applied not only in classifier establishment, but also
in rule extraction. Hence, it is one of the promising directions
to seek methods supporting sample selection, by which the can-
didates of support vectors can be identified with some outliers
eliminated to achieve better generalization ability. Furthermore,
since the extracted rules are required to provide explanations
to the results, tradeoff among fidelity, accuracy, and comprehen-
sibility should be argued.
Acknowledgment
The authors appreciate the valuable comments of editor and the
anonymous reviewers, which have positively contributed to the
quality of the paper.
2095
This research was sponsored by Project 985–3 of Xi’an Jiaotong
University.
Appendix A
Require: A rule m from a population
Ensure: The evaluation of the rule
Begin
For each samples s in the training set do
Set the score for each possible outcome of s to 0;
End for
For i = 1 to cps (Collaboration pool size) do
select a random collaborating rule from each population
different from that of c according to the collaborator
selection pressure parameter;
For each sample s in the training set do
find the rule r from the set of all collaborators that is
closest to s
found class for s = class of r
increase the score of found class for s by one
End For
End For
success = 0;
For each sample s in the training set do
If the real class of s equals the class with the highest score
for s then
s is correctly classified;
success = success + 1;
End If
End For
accuracy ¼ number 100 success
of training samples
End
References
Adler, N., Friedman, L., & Sinuany-Stern, Z. (2002). Review of ranking methods in the
data envelopment analysis context. European Journal of Operational Research,
140(2), 249–265.
Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (2011). A weighted max-min model for
fuzzy multi-objective supplier selection in a supply chain. International Journal
of Production Economics, 131(1), 139–145.
Amin, S. H., Razmi, J., & Zhang, G. (2011). Supplier selection and order allocation
based on fuzzy SWOT analysis and fuzzy linear programming. Expert Systems
with Applications, 38(1), 334–342.
Amin, S. H., & Zhang, G. (2012). An integrated model for closed-loop supply chain
configuration and supplier selection: Multi-objective approach. Expert Systems
and Applications, 39(8), 6782–6791.
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2010). A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for
evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International Journal of
Production Economics, 126(2), 370–378.
Azadeh, A., & Alem, S. M. (2010). A flexible deterministic, stochastic and fuzzy data
envelopment analysis approach for supply chain risk and vendor selection
problem: Simulation analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12),
7438–7448.
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey
system and rough set methodologies. International Journal of Production
Economics, 124(1), 252–264.
Barakat, N. H., & Bradley, A. P. (2007). Rule extraction from support vector
machines: A sequential covering approach. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and
Data Engineering, 19(6), 729–741.
Barakat, N., & Bradley, A. P. (2010). Rule extraction from support vector machines: A
review. Neurocomputing, 74, 178–190.
Bezdek, J. C. (1980). A convergence theorem for the fuzzy ISODATA clustering
algorithm. Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 12(1),
235–251.
Bhattacharya, A., Geraghty, J., & Young, P. (2010). Supplier selection paradigm: An
integrated hierarchical QFD methodology under multiple-criteria environment.
Applied Soft Computing Journal, 10(4), 1013–1027.
Bredensteiner, E. J., & Bennett, K. P. (1999). Multi-category classification by
support vector machines. Computational Optimization and Applications, 12(1–3),
53–79.
Buyukozkan, G., & Cifci, G. (2012). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy
DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert
Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3000–3011.
2096 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097
Castro, J. L., Flores-Hidalgo, L. D., Mantas, C. J., & Puche, J. M. (2007). Extraction of
fuzzy rules from support vector machines. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 158,
2057–2077.
Celebi, D., & Bayraktar, D. (2008). An integrated neural network and data
envelopment analysis for supplier evaluation under incomplete information.
Expert Systems with Applications, 35(4), 1698–1710.
Chai, J., Liu, J. N. K., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2013). Application of decision-making
techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert
Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872–3885.
Chamodrakas, I., Batis, D., & Martakos, D. (2010). Supplier selection in electronic
marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications,
37(1), 490–498.
Chan, F. T. S., & Chan, H. K. (2010). An AHP model for selection of suppliers in the
fast changing fashion market. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 51(9–12), 1195–1207.
Chang, B., Chang, C., & Wu, C. (2011). Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing
supplier selection criteria. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1850–1858.
Chang, B., & Hung, H. (2010). A study of using RST to create the supplier selection
model and decision-making rules. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12),
8284–8295.
Che, Z. H. (2010). A genetic algorithm-based model for solving multi-period supplier
selection problem with assembly sequence. International Journal of Production
Research, 48(15), 4355–4377.
Chen, T. (2011). Bivariate models of optimism and pessimism in multi-criteria
decision-making based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Information Sciences,
181(11), 2139–2165.
Chen, Y. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a
supply chain. Information Sciences, 181(9), 1651–1670.
Chen, Y., & Chao, R. (2012). Supplier selection using consistent fuzzy preference
relations. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3233–3240.
Chen, L. Y., & Wang, T. (2009). Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT outsourcing
projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR. International Journal of
Production Economics, 120(1), 233–242.
Chen, T., Wang, H., & Lu, Y. (2011). A multi-criteria group decision-making approach
based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: A comparative perspective.
Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7647–7658.
Chen, Y., Wang, T., & Wu, C. (2011). Strategic decisions using the fuzzy PROMETHEE
for IS outsourcing. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 13216–13222.
Chou, S., & Chang, Y. (2008). A decision support system for supplier selection based
on a strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach. Expert Systems with Applications,
34(4), 2241–2253.
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. N. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 20,
273–297.
Dalalah, D., Hayajneh, M., & Batieha, F. (2011). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision
making model for supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(7),
8384–8391.
Demirtas, E. A., & Üstün, O. (2008). An integrated multi-objective decision making
process for supplier selection and order allocation. Omega, 36(1), 76–90.
Dogan, I., & Aydin, N. (2011). Combining Bayesian networks and total cost of
ownership method for supplier selection analysis. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 61(4), 1072–1085.
Falagario, M., Sciancalepore, F., Costantino, N., & Pietroforte, R. (2012). Using a DEA
cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. European Journal of
Operational Research, 218(2), 523–529.
Fan, C., & Wang, X. (2012). Supplier evaluation based on synthesis method of
principal component analysis, data envelopment analysis and analytic
hierarchy. Journal of Tongji University, 40(12), 1899–1904.
Ferreira, L., & Borenstein, D. (2012). A fuzzy-Bayesian model for supplier selection.
Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), 7834–7844.
Golmohammadi, D., & Mellat-Parast, M. (2012). Developing a grey-based decision-
making model for supplier selection. International Journal of Production
Economics, 137(2), 191–200.
Golmohammadi, D., & Mellat-Parast, M. (2012). Developing a grey-based decision
making model for supplier selection. International Journal of Production
Economics, 137(2), 191–200.
Gong, X., & Hong, Y. (2012). Method of supplier selection based on DEA and game
theory. Machinery Design & Manufacture (11), 223–225.
Guermeur, Y. (2002). Combining discriminant models with new multi-class SVMS.
Pattern Analysis & Applications, 5, 168–179.
Guneri, A. F., Ertay, T., & Yucel, A. (2011). An approach based on ANFIS input
selection and modeling for supplier selection problem. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38(12), 14907–14917.
Guneri, A. F., Yucel, A., & Ayyildiz, G. (2009). An integrated fuzzy-lp approach for a
supplier selection problem in supply chain management. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36(5), 9223–9228.
Guo, X. S., Yuan, Z. P., & Tian, B. J. (2009). Supplier selection based on hierarchical
potential support vector machine. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3 PART
2), 6978–6985.
Haleh, H., & Hamidi, A. (2011). A fuzzy MCDM model for allocating orders to
suppliers in a supply chain under uncertainty over a multi-period time horizon.
Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9076–9083.
He, J., Hu, H.-J., & Harrison, R. (2006). Rule generation for protein secondary
structure prediction with support vector machines and decision tree. IEEE
Transactions on Nanobioscience, 5(1), 46–53.
Ho, W., Dey, P. K., & Lockström, M. (2011). Strategic sourcing: A combined QFD and
AHP approach in manufacturing. Supply Chain Management, 16(6), 446–461.
Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for
supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of
Operational Research, 202(1), 16–24.
Hsu, B., Chiang, C., & Shu, M. (2010). Supplier selection using fuzzy quality data and
their applications to touch screen. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9),
6192–6200.
Hsu, C. W., & Lin, C. J. (2002). A comparison of methods for multi-class support
vector machines. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 13, 415–425.
Huysmans, J., Baesens, B., & Vanthienen, J. (2006). Using rule extraction to improve
the comprehensibility of predictive models. Technical report KU Leuven.
Ishizaka, A., Pearman, C., & Nemery, P. (2012). AHP sort: An AHP-based method for
sorting problems. International Journal of Production Research, 50(17),
4767–4784.
Jain, V., Wadhwa, S., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2009). Select supplier-related issues in
modeling a dynamic supply chain: Potential, challenges and direction for future
research. International Journal of Production Research, 47(11), 3013–3039.
Ji, J., & Zhang, W. (2013). Suppliers selection based on emergent loss in supply chain.
Science and Technology Management Research (8), 238–245.
Kamel, M. S., & Selim, S. Z. (1991). A threshold fuzzy C-means algorithm for semi-
fuzzy clustering. Pattern Recognition, 24(9), 825–833.
Kannan, G., Sivakumar, R., Joseph, S., & Murugesan, P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision
making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature
review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20, 1–18.
Kara, S. S. (2011). Supplier selection with an integrated methodology in unknown
environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2133–2139.
Keskin, G. A., Ilhan, S., & Özkan, C. (2010). The fuzzy ART algorithm: A categorization
method for supplier evaluation and selection. Expert Systems with Applications,
37(2), 1235–1240.
Kilincci, O., & Onal, S. A. (2011). Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a
washing machine company. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9656–9664.
KreBel, U. H. G. (1999). Pairwise classification and support vector machines. Advances
in Kernel Methods: Support Vector Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp.
255–268.
Kull, T. J., & Talluri, S. (2008). A supply risk reduction model using integrated multi-
criteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(3),
409–419.
Kumar, M. A., & Gopal, M. (2011). Reduced one-against-all method for multi-class
SVM classification. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 14238–14248.
Labib, A. W. (2011). A supplier selection model: A comparison of fuzzy logic and the
analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Research, 49(21),
6287–6299.
Lai, C., Tax, D., Duin, R., Pekalska, E., & Paclik, P. (2004). A study on combining image
representations for image classification and retrieval. International Journal of
Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 18(5), 867–890.
Lee, J., & Lee, D. (2005). An improved cluster labeling method for support vector
clustering. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 27(3),
461–464.
Lee, D., & Lee, J. (2007). Domain described support vector classifier for multi-
classification problems. Pattern Recognition, 40(4), 41–51.
Lee, S. W., Park, J., & Lee, S. W. (2006). Low resolution faces recognition based on
support vector data description. Pattern Recognition, 39(9), 1809–1812.
Levary, R. R. (2008). Using the analytic hierarchy process to rank foreign suppliers
based on supply risks. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 55(2), 535–542.
Liao, C., & Kao, H. (2011). An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP approach to
supplier selection in supply chain management. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38(9), 10803–10811.
Li, X., Ming, Y., & Zhong, J. (2011). A study of supplier selection method based on
QFD and Kano model. Journal of Systems & Management, 20(5), 589–594.
Lin, R. (2012). An integrated model for supplier selection under a fuzzy situation.
International Journal of Production Economics, 138(1), 55–61.
Lin, C., Chen, C., & Ting, Y. (2011). An ERP model for supplier selection in electronics
industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1760–1765.
Lin, R., Chuang, C., Liou, J. J. H., & Wu, G. (2009). An integrated method for finding
key suppliers in SCM. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3 PART 2),
6461–6465.
Lin, Y., Lin, C., Yu, H., & Tzeng, G. (2010). A novel hybrid MCDM approach for
outsourcing vendor selection: A case study for a semiconductor company in
Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 4796–4804.
Lin, Y., & Yeh, C. (2010). Optimal carrier selection based on network reliability
criterion for stochastic logistics networks. International Journal of Production
Economics, 128(2), 510–517.
Li, L., & Zabinsky, Z. B. (2011). Incorporating uncertainty into a supplier selection
problem. International Journal of Production Economics, 134(2), 344–356.
Martens, D., Baesens, B., & Gestel, T. V. (2009). Decompositional rule extraction from
support vector machines by active learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and
Data Engineering, 21(2), 178–191.
Martens, D., Baesens, B., Gestel, T. V., & Vanthienen, J. (2007). Comprehensible credit
scoring models using rule extraction from support vector machines. European
Journal of Operational Research, 183, 1466–1476.
Ng, W. L. (2008). An efficient and simple model for multiple criteria supplier
selection problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(3), 1059–1067.
Ordoobadi, S. M. (2010). Application of AHP and taguchi loss functions in supply
chain. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 110(8), 1251–1269.
Ozkok, B. A., & Tiryaki, F. (2011). A compensatory fuzzy approach to multi-objective
linear supplier selection problem with multiple-item. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38(9), 11363–11368.
 X. Guo et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 41 (2014) 2083–2097
Pitchipoo, P., Venkumar, P., & Rajakarunakaran, S. (2012). A distinct decision model
for the evaluation and selection of a supplier for a chemical processing industry.
International Journal of Production Research, 50(16), 4635–4648.
Pontil, M., & Verri, A. (1998). Support vector machine for 3-D object recognition.
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 20(6), 637–646.
Potter, M. A., & De Jong, K. A. (2000). Cooperative coevolution: An architecture for
evolving co-adapted subcomponents. Evolutionary Computation, 8, 1–29.
Punniyamoorthy, M., Mathiyalagan, P., & Parthiban, P. (2011). A strategic model
using structural equation modeling and fuzzy logic in supplier selection. Expert
Systems with Applications, 38(1), 458–474.
Qian, Z. (2011). On the BP neural network and its application in supplier selection
and evaluation. Industrial Engineering and Management, 16(3), 1–7.
Razmi, J., & Rafiei, H. (2010). An integrated analytic network process with mixed
integer non-linear programming to supplier selection and order allocation.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 49(9–12),
1195–1208.
Ren, Y., Liu, X., & Cao, J. (2011). A parsimony fuzzy rule-based classifier using
axiomatic fuzzy set theory and support vector machines. Information Sciences,
181, 5180–5193.
Rezaei, J., & Davoodi, M. (2012). A joint pricing, lot-sizing, and supplier selection
model. International Journal of Production Research, 50(16), 4524–4542.
Sadeghieh, A., Dehghanbaghi, M., Dabbaghi, A., & Barak, S. (2012). A genetic
algorithm based grey goal programming (G3) approach for parts supplier
evaluation and selection. International Journal of Production Research, 50(16),
4612–4630.
Saen, R. F. (2010). Developing a new data envelopment analysis methodology for
supplier selection in the presence of both undesirable outputs and imprecise
data. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 51(9–12),
1243–1250.
Selim, S. Z., & Ismail, M. A. (1984). Soft clustering of multidimensional data: a semi-
fuzzy approach. Pattern Recognition, 17(5), 559–568.
Sevkli, M. (2010). An application of the fuzzy ELECTRE method for supplier
selection. International Journal of Production Research, 48(12), 3393–3405.
Shaw, K., Shankar, R., Yadav, S. S., & Thakur, L. S. (2012). Supplier selection using
fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for developing low
carbon supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), 8182–8192.
Song, H. (2001). Cases on modern logistics and supply chain management. Beijing:
Economic Press.
Stoean, C., & Stoean, R. (2009). Evolution of cooperating classification rules with an
archiving strategy to underpin collaboration. Studies in Computational Intelligence.
Intelligent Systems and Technologies – Methods and Applications (vol. 1). Springer,
pp. 47–65.
Sun, L. (2008). The advanced manufacturing mode of Chinese enterprise: T mode of
Haier. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
Sun, H.L., Xie, J.Y., & Xue, Y.F. (2005). An SVM-based model for supplier selection
using fuzzy and pairwise comparison. In Proceedings of 2005 international
conference on machine learning and cybernetics (vol. 6, pp. 3629–3633).
Tan, Di., Wang, X., & Jiao, X.-C. (2012). Supplier selection based on uncertain
linguistic information. Industrial Engineering Journal, 15(3), 46–51.
Tax, D. M. J., & Duin, R. P. W. (1999). Support vector domain description. Pattern
Recognition Letters, 20(11–13), 1191–1199.
Tax, D. M. J., & Duin, R. P. W. (2004). Support vector data description. Machine
Learning, 54(1), 45–66.
Tsai, W., & Hung, S. (2009). A fuzzy goal programming approach for green supply
chain optimization under activity-based costing and performance evaluation
with a value-chain structure. International Journal of Production Research, 47(18),
4991–5017.
Tsai, Y. L., Yang, Y. J., & Lin, C. H. (2010). A dynamic decision approach for supplier
selection using ant colony system. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12),
8313–8321.
2097
Tseng, M. (2011). Green supply chain management with linguistic preferences and
incomplete information. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 11(8), 4894–4903.
Tseng, M., Chiang, J. H., & Lan, L. W. (2009). Selection of optimal supplier in supply
chain management strategy with analytic network process and choquet
integral. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 57(1), 330–340.
Vapnik, V. N. (1998). Statistical learning theory. NewYork: JohnWiley& Sons.
Vapnik, V. N. (1999). An overview of statistical learning theory. IEEE Transactions on
Neural Networks, 10(5), 988–999.
Vinodh, S., Anesh Ramiya, R., & Gautham, S. G. (2011). Application of fuzzy analytic
network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organization. Expert
Systems with Applications, 38(1), 272–280.
Wang, C.-D., & Lai, J.-H. (2013). Position regularized support vector domain
description. Pattern Recognition, 46(3), 41–51.
Wu, D. (2009). Supplier selection: A hybrid model using DEA, decision tree and
neural network. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 9105–9112.
Wu, D. (2009). Supplier selection in a fuzzy group setting: A method using grey
related analysis and dempster-shafer theory. Expert Systems with Applications,
36(5), 8892–8899.
Wu, D. D. (2010). A systematic stochastic efficiency analysis model and application
to international supplier performance evaluation. Expert Systems with
Applications, 37(9), 6257–6264.
Wu, T., & Blackhurst, J. (2009). Supplier evaluation and selection: An augmented
DEA approach. International Journal of Production Research, 47(16), 4593–4608.
Wu, J., & Cao, Q. (2012). A method for choosing green supplier under uncertain
decision—making. Operations Research and Management Science, 21(1), 220–225.
Xiao, H., & Guo, P. (2013). Research on supplier selection based on principal
component analysis and BP neural network. Computing Technology and
Automation, 32(1), 130–133.
Xu, J., & Ding, C. (2011). A class of chance constrained multi-objective linear
programming with bi-random coefficients and its application to vendor
selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(2), 709–720.
Xu, J., & Yan, F. (2011). A multi-objective decision making model for the vendor
selection problem in a bi-fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications,
38(8), 9684–9695.
Yang, P. C., Wee, H. M., Pai, S., & Tseng, Y. F. (2011). Solving a stochastic demand
multi-product supplier selection model with service level and budget
constraints using genetic algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(12),
14773–14777.
Yeh, W., & Chuang, M. (2011). Using multi-objective genetic algorithm for partner
selection in green supply chain problems. Expert Systems with Applications,
38(4), 4244–4253.
Yucel, A., & Güneri, A. F. (2011). A weighted additive fuzzy programming approach
for multi-criteria supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5),
6281–6286.
Yucenur, G. N., Vayvay, Ö., & Demirel, N. Ç. (2011). Supplier selection problem in
global supply chains by AHP and ANP approaches under fuzzy environment.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 56(5–8), 823–833.
Yu, M., Goh, M., & Lin, H. (2012). Fuzzy multi-objective vendor selection under lean
procurement. European Journal of Operational Research, 219(2), 305–311.
Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., & Çobanoglu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for
supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications,
38(3), 2741–2751.
Zhao, K., & Yu, X. (2011). A case based reasoning approach on supplier selection in
petroleum enterprises. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 6839–6847.
Zhu, M.L., Chen, S.F., & Liu, X.D. (2003). Sphere-structured support vector machines
for multi-class pattern recognition, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.
2639, pp. 589–593.
Zhu, P., & Hu, Q. (2013). Rule extraction from support vector machines based on
consistent region covering reduction. Knowledge-Based Systems, 42, 1–8.