Yu Et Al. - 2019 - A Group Decision Making Sustain

Accepted Manuscript
A Group Decision Making Sustainable Supplier Selection Approach

using Extended TOPSIS under Interval-Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy
Environment
Chunxia Yu , Yifan Shao , Kai Wang , Luping Zhang
PII: S0957-4174(18)30772-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.010
Reference: ESWA 12351
To appear in: Expert Systems With Applications
Received date: 27 August 2018

Revised date: 4 December 2018
Accepted date: 5 December 2018
Please cite this article as: Chunxia Yu , Yifan Shao , Kai Wang , Luping Zhang , A Group
Decision Making Sustainable Supplier Selection Approach using Extended TOPSIS under
Interval-Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Environment, Expert Systems With Applications (2018), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.010
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
 A group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach using extended
TOPSIS based on IVPFSs is proposed.
 The IVPFSs are used to capture decision maker’s uncertainty information.
 An extended TOPSIS method integrating distance and similarity based on IVPFSs is
T
proposed to evaluate suppliers.
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Environment
Chunxia Yu1, Yifan Shao1, Kai Wang2*, Luping Zhang3,
T
1
School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum, Beijing, 102249,
China, yuchunxiasd@163.com, 519655766@qq.com
IP
2
Department of Management Science and Engineering, Economics and Management School,
CR
Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, kai.wang@whu.edu.cn
3
Research Institute of Economics and Management, Southwestern University of Finance and
US
Economics, Chengdu, China, nguzlp@gmail.com
AN
M
Corresponding author:
Department of Management Science and Engineering, Economics and Management School,

ED
Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, kai.wang@whu.edu.cn, phone number 86- 027- 68753063
PT
CE
AC
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Environment
T
Abstract
IP
Due to the increasing awareness of environmental and social issues, sustainable
CR
supplier selection becomes an important problem. The aim of this paper is to develop
US
a novel group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach using extended
Techniques for Order Preferences by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) under

AN
interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Sustainable supplier selection often
M
involves uncertain information due to the subjective nature of human judgments, and
the interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy set (IVPFS) has great ability to address strong
ED
fuzziness, ambiguity and inexactness during the decision-making process. The first
PT
contribution of this research is to use the IVPFS to capture the uncertain information
of decision makers. Moreover, sustainable supplier selection often involves multiple

CE
decision makers from different groups. The second contribution of this research is to
AC
develop a group decision making approach for sustainable supplier selection. TOPSIS
is the most commonly used technique in sustainable supplier selection. The third
contribution of this research is to propose an extended TOPSIS method by integrating
distance and similarity between alternatives concurrently to evaluate performances of
suppliers. In this research, the group decision making approach and extended TOPSIS
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
method is also extended to IVPFSs. Finally, experiments are conducted to verify the
feasibility and efficiency of the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach.
Experiments results show that the proposed approach is effective and efficient to help
decision makers to select optimal sustainable suppliers. Therefore, the proposed
approach can be applied by managers to evaluate and determine appropriate suppliers
T
in sustainable supplier selection process.
IP
Keywords: Sustainable supplier selection; Group decision making; TOPSIS;
CR
Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy set
1. Introduction
US
AN
Sustainable supply chain management is an integration and realization of the
company’s economic, environmental and social objectives in coordination of critical

M
business processes to improve the company’s long-term economic performance (Carter

ED
& Easton, 2011). Due to the increasing awareness of environmental and social issues,
PT
more and more practitioners and researchers have paid much attention to sustainable
supply chain management (Boudaghi & Farzipoor Saen, 2018; Raza & Rathinam,
CE
2017). How to select suitable sustainable suppliers is critical for an organization’s

AC
success, so sustainable supplier selection has become an important decision making
activity in supply chain management (Song, Xu, & Liu, 2017).
The sustainable supplier selection problem can be defined as the classical
supplier selection problem which considers economic, environmental and social
criteria to select and monitor suppliers’ performances (Gören, 2018). Recently,
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
considering sustainability in supplier selection process has attracted much attention
from both researchers and practitioners (Büyüközkan & Çifçi, 2012; Cobuloglu &
Büyüktahtakın, 2015; Fallahpour, Udoncy Olugu, Nurmaya Musa, Yew Wong, &
Noori, 2017; Ghadimi, Ghassemi Toosi, & Heavey, 2018; Gören, 2018). Decision
makers usually express their subjective preferences on alternatives in advance.
T
Nevertheless, uncertain and incomplete assessments exist in many practical situations,
IP
and decision makers cannot easily express their judgments on alternatives with exact
CR
numerical values (Banaeian, Mobli, Fahimnia, Nielsen, & Omid, 2018). The
US
interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy set (IVPFS) which permits the membership degrees
and non-membership degrees to a given set to have an interval value (Peng & Yang,
AN
2016), has great ability to address strong fuzziness, ambiguity and inexactness during
M
the decision-making process. Consequently, the IVPFS is applicable to capture
uncertain information in sustainable supplier selection process (Rahman, Abdullah,

ED
Ali, & Amin, 2018).

PT
In practice, sustainable supplier selection often involves decision makers from
different groups, such as procurement department, production department, quality

CE
control department, and so on. Different decision makers may have different
AC
motivations and may process the decision process from different angles, with a
common interest in selecting best suppliers. Therefore, sustainable supplier selection
process should be regarded as a complex group multiple criteria decision making
problem considering a number of alternative suppliers and sustainable evaluation
criteria (Qin, Liu, & Pedrycz, 2017). Moreover, decision makers usually prefer an
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
alternative which is short and similar to ideal solution concurrently. However, existing
sustainable supplier evaluation methods just considered distance or similarity between
alternatives, they have not made a comprehensive evaluation of suppliers from distance
and similarity simultaneously (Mohammed, Setchi, Filip, Harris, & Li, 2018).
The aim of this paper is to develop a novel group decision making sustainable
T
supplier selection approach using extended Techniques for Order Preferences by
IP
Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy
CR
environment. In the proposed approach, the uncertain information of decision makers
US
are captured by the IVPFS; different opinions of multiple decision makers have been
considered in the decision making process; the relative weights of evaluation criteria
AN
are determined by the entropy measure method to avoid decision makers’ subjective
M
judgments; alternatives are evaluated by the grey correlation analysis (GRA) and
TOPSIS integrated method to consider the distance and similarity between

ED
alternatives concurrently.
PT
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews related literature.
Section 3 proposed the novel sustainable supplier selection approach under

CE
interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Experiments are conducted in

AC
Section 4 to demonstrate the application and efficiency of the proposed sustainable
supplier selection approach. Finally, conclusions and future work follow in Section 5.
2. Literature review
2.1 Sustainable supplier evaluation criteria
One of the main challenges in supplier selection process is to formulate right

6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
criteria. The criteria in sustainable supplier selection are determined based on three
aspects known as economic, environmental and social. Economic aspect intends to
maximize the income flow that could be generated while minimizing the capital
yielding this income (Gören, 2018). For instance, cost, quality, delivery, service,
flexibility and technology capability are popular criteria in economic aspect (Weber,
T
Current, & Benton, 1991; Wilson, 1994). Environmental aspect is related to the issues
IP
that control renewable and non-renewable resource depletion and pollution creation
CR
(Raza & Rathinam, 2017). For instance, environmental management systems,
US
resource consumption, eco-design, and resource consumption, reduce, reuse and
recycle (3R) are popular criteria in environmental aspect. Social aspect are issues
AN
relevant to social problem, such as occupational health and safety, employee right and
M
welfare, information disclosure, etc. (Luthra, Govindan, Kannan, Mangla, & Garg,
2017).
ED
Researchers proposed different evaluation criteria for sustainable supplier

PT
selection problem according to concrete scenarios (Awasthi, Govindan, & Gold, 2018;
CE
Cheraghalipour & Farsad, 2018; Gören, 2018; Sinha & Anand, 2018). Although most
literature was based on the triple bottom line principle (economic, environmental and
AC
social) as evaluation criteria, the sub-criteria used by each scholar were different. Table
1 summarizes the sustainable supplier selection criteria drawing the greatest attention
in recent literature.
Table 1 Sustainable evaluation criteria and illustrations
Table 1 is about here.

7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2.2 Sustainable supplier selection considering uncertain information
Since the judgments of decision makers on evaluation criteria are subjective,
vague and imprecise, uncertainty is an important challenging problem in sustainable
supplier selection problem. The fuzzy set theory (FST) presented by Zadeh (1965)
was incorporated to deal with the uncertain information in sustainable supplier
T
selection process (Amindoust, Ahmed, Saghafinia, & Bahreininejad, 2012; Awasthi,
IP
Chauhan, & Goyal, 2010; Awasthi, et al., 2018; Büyüközkan & Çifçi, 2011;
CR
Fallahpour, et al., 2017; Govindan, Khodaverdi, & Jafarian, 2013; Kuo, Shia, Chen, &
US
Ho, 2011). Existing researchers used linguistic values to express experts’ subjective
preferences on criteria and the alternatives. However, membership degrees of fuzzy

AN
sets may involve some kind of hesitation due to a lack of precise knowledge in defining
M
the membership function. The intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) proposed by Atanassov
(1986) is an extension of ordinary fuzzy sets, which incorporates hesitation degree

ED
along with membership and non-membership degrees. In many situations, determining

PT
exact values of these parameters is also difficult. Subsequently, Atanassov and Gargov
(1989) proposed the theory of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set (IVIFS), which is
CE
an extension of IFS. Elements belonging to an IVIFS are represented by an

AC
interval-valued membership degree.
Recently, Pythagorean fuzzy set (PFS) proposed by Yager (2014) is a new
extension of IFS. PFS inherits the duality property of IFS. PFS not only can depict
imprecise and ambiguous information, which IFS can capture, but also can model
more-complex uncertainty in practical situations, which the latter cannot describe. The
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
IVPFS is a successful extension of the IVIFS and PFS for handling uncertain
information (Garg, 2016). IVPFS permits the degrees of membership and
non-membership of a given set to have an interval value. Therefore, IVPFSs have wider
application potentials because of their great ability to address strong fuzziness,
ambiguity and inexactness during the decision-making process (Chen, 2018), and it
T
can be used in this research to capture the uncertain information in sustainable
IP
supplier selection process.
CR
2.3 Sustainable supplier selection methods
US
Numerous studies on sustainable supplier selection have emerged (Amindoust, et
al., 2012; Fallahpour, et al., 2017; Luthra, et al., 2017; Mohammed, et al., 2018).
AN
Though these studies proposed different models for sustainable supplier selection, few
M
of them evaluate suppliers from the perspective of group decision making. However,
researchers have proposed group decision making approaches for conventional

ED
supplier selection problem, and regarded it as a complex group multiple criteria

PT
decision making problem considering a number of alternative suppliers and
quantitative and qualitative criteria (Memon, Lee, & Mari, 2015; You, You, Liu, &
CE
Zhen, 2015). Moreover, sustainable supplier selection often involves decision makers
AC
from different groups, and different decision makers have different preferences.
Therefore, a group decision making approach special for sustainable supplier selection
problem should be proposed. In this research, the group decision making approach for
sustainable supplier selection is also extended to interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy
environment.
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Researchers usually proposed integrated approaches combining weight
determination methods and supplier evaluation methods for sustainable supplier
selection (Awasthi, et al., 2018; Luthra, et al., 2017; Mohammed, et al., 2018). Existing
research adopted different approaches to calculate the relative weights of evaluation
criteria, such as expert opinion survey method, analytic hierarchy process (AHP),
T
Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL), entropy, and so on
IP
(Awasthi, et al., 2018; Gören, 2018; Mohammed, et al., 2018; Yu & Wong, 2015).
CR
Among these approaches, the entropy concept first introduced by Shannon and
US
Weaver (1998) is a measure that uses probability theory to measure the uncertainty of
information. It shows that the more dispersive the data, the bigger the uncertainty, the
AN
more important the criterion. The entropy concept is well suited for measuring the
M
relative contrast intensities of criteria to represent the average intrinsic information
transmitted to the decision maker (Shemshadi, Shirazi, Toreihi, & Tarokh, 2011).
ED
Therefore, the entropy measure method is adopted to determine criteria weights

PT
objectively in this study, and is extended to interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy
environment.
CE
Researchers proposed different multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods

AC
to evaluate the sustainable performance of suppliers, including TOPSIS,
VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Taguchi loss function, and so on (Awasthi, et al., 2018;
Fallahpour, et al., 2017; Gören, 2018; Jauhar & Pant, 2017; Lo, Liou, Wang, & Tsai,
2018; Luthra, et al., 2017; Mohammed, et al., 2018). Among these MCDM methods,
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TOPSIS is the most commonly used technique (Mohammed, et al., 2018). The basic
principle of TOPSIS is that the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance
from the positive ideal solution (PIS) and the farthest distance from the negative ideal
solution (NIS) (Hwang & Yoon, 1981). It can evaluate the distance between
alternatives; however, it cannot capture the similarity between alternatives.
T
Nevertheless, the GRA method developed by Deng (1989) can measure the relation
IP
between the reference series and comparison series. Usually, researchers will set the
CR
target series based on the objective of the studied problem as the reference series.
US
Therefore, the TOPSIS and GRA methods can complement each other, and the
integrated GRA-TOPSIS method can be used to evaluate the sustainable performance

AN
of suppliers. Moreover, in classical TOPSIS method, crisp numerical values are used to
M
express ratings of suppliers on evaluation criteria. Over the past decade, many
researchers extended TOPSIS method to the fuzzy environment (Dwivedi, Srivastava,

ED
& Srivastava, 2018; Sirisawat & Kiatcharoenpol, 2018; Sun, Guan, Yi, & Zhou, 2018).
PT
However, this method has not been extended to interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy
environment. In this research, the GRA-TOPSIS method is extended to

CE
interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment.

AC
2.4 Findings of the literature review and contributions of this study
Based on the literature review, it can be stated that rapidly increasing attention has
been given on sustainable supplier selection problem in recent years. The findings of
the literature review can be summarized in the following.
Firstly, most researchers used FST to solve the uncertain and incomplete
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
information of decision makers. However, FST still lose some information due to a lack
of precise knowledge in defining the membership function.
Secondly, though researchers proposed different sustainable supplier selection
approaches, few of them select suppliers from the perspective of group decision
making.
T
Thirdly, TOPSIS is the most frequently MCDM method in sustainable supplier
IP
selection problem. However, TOPSIS just can evaluate the distance between
CR
alternatives, and cannot measure the similarity between alternatives.
US
Considering the findings of the literature review, the contributions of this study
can be obtained from three perspectives.

AN
Firstly, the IVPFS is used in sustainable supplier selection problem for the first
M
time in literature to capture the uncertainty information of decision makers. This makes
decision makers’ assessments more accurate in complex environment.

ED
Secondly, a novel group decision making approach based on IVPFSs is proposed

PT
for sustainable supplier selection. Multiple decision makers have been included in the
decision making process, the individual biases of a decision maker are considered by
CE
the degree of optimism. This makes the proposed approach more realistic for a
AC
sustainable supplier selection process.
Thirdly, a GRA-TOPSIS integrated approach based on IVPFSs is originally
proposed to evaluate suppliers. Both distance and similarity between alternatives are
considered concurrently, and the IVIFS preference ratings of decision makers are
incorporated. Therefore, ranking results the proposed approach are more scientific.
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3. The proposed sustainable supplier selection approach
In this paper, a group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach
using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment is
proposed. Firstly, the evaluation matrix of each decision maker is obtained based on
interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy numbers (IVPFNs). Secondly, the entropy measure
T
method is used to calculate the relative weights of evaluation criteria. Then, the
IP
GRA-TOPSIS integrated approach is used to evaluate the distance and similarity of
CR
each alternative from the PIS and NIS. Finally, the final raking of alternatives are
US
obtained by the integrated value of distance and similarity. Figure 1 shows the flow
chart of the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach.

AN
Figure 1 is about here.
M
Figure 1 Flow chart of the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach
3.1 Preliminaries
ED
This section presents some basic concepts and aggregation operators of IVPFSs.
PT
Definition 1 (Atanassov, 1986). Let X be a finite nonempty set. A intuitionistic
fuzzy set (IFS) A can be described as:

CE
* ( ) ( ) + (1)
AC
where ( ) and ( ) denote the membership degree and non-membership degree
of element x to the IFS A, ( ) ( ) , -, and ( ) ( ) .
Degree of hesitation ( ) of the element x to A is defined as ( )
( ( ) ( )). ( ) , -, if ( ) , the IFS A is similar to a fuzzy set.
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Definition 2 (Atanassov & Gargov, 1989). The domain X is a finite nonempty set
and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set (IVIFS) A can be described as:
* , ( ) ( )- , ( ) ( )- + (2)
where , ( ) ( )- and , ( ) ( )- are interval-valued degrees of
membership and non-membership of the element x to the IVIFS A,
T
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) , - , ( ) ( ) , ( )
IP
( ) , and ( ) ( ) .
CR
( ) , ( ) ( )- indicates the hesitation degree for element x that
belongs to A, where
( ). When ( )
( )
( ) and
US
( )
( ) ( ) and
( ), IVIFSs similar to IFSs.

( ) ( )
AN
Definition 3 (Liang & Xu, 2017; Yager, 2014). Let X be a finite nonempty set. A
M
Pythagorean fuzzy set (PFS) P on X can be represented as the following mathematical
equation:
ED
* ( ( ) ( )) + (3)
PT
where ( ) and ( ) are the membership degree and non-membership degree of
x to P, ( ) ( ) , - . For every , it satisfies the condition:

CE
( ( )) ( ( )) The hesitation degree of x to P is

AC
( ) √ ( ( )) ( ( )) .
For simplicity, ( ( ) ( )) is Pythagorean fuzzy number (PFN), denoted
by ( ) , where , - , √ ( ) ( ) and
( ) ( ) (Zhang & Xu, 2014). PFN provides a way to evaluate the same
problem with the positive and the negative perspectives. If the value of is small,
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
then the knowledge of is more certain and vice versa. Given two PFNs
( ), ( ), their basic operations are summarized as follows:
(√ ) (4)
(√ ( ) ( ) ) (5)
Supposed that two PFS values * ( ) ( ) +, *
T
( ) ( ) + , the Euclidean distance between them is defined as
IP
follows (Szmidt & Kacprzyk, 2000):
CR
( ) √( ( ) ( )) ( ( ) ( )) ( ( ) ( )) (6)
US
Definition 4 (Garg, 2016). Let X be a finite nonempty set, interval-valued
Pythagorean fuzzy set (IVPFS) H which is an extension of IVIFS and PFSs is defined
AN
as:
M
* , ( ) ( )- , ( ) ( )- + (7)
where ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) , -, ( ( )) ( ( )) . And the

ED
hesitation degree for element x to H is defined as ( ) , ( ) ( )-, in which

PT
( ) √ ( ) ( ) , ( ) √ ( ) ( ) .
Definition 5 (Dwivedi, et al., 2018). Degree of optimism λ, is defined to

CE
incorporate human biases in the rating process. If ( - , an evaluator is

AC
optimistic for the ratings; if , ) , the evaluator is pessimistic for the ratings;
and If , the evaluator is normal. Calculation of expected membership
( ) and non-membership ( ) values of an IVPFS using degree of optimism is
as follows:
( ) ( ) (8)
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
( ) ( ) (9)
Definition 6 (R.Dharmarajan, 2017). Based on the entropy measure method
theory, the intuitionistic entropy of PFS is calculated by the following equation:
∑, ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - (10)
T
IP
3.2 Procedure of the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach
CR
Suppose that a MCDM problem has m alternatives * +, n
evaluation criteria * + , and h decision makers
* US
+. Each alternative evaluated by each decision maker with
AN
respect to n criteria form a decision matrix denoted by ( ) . Let
( ) be the relative weight vector of evaluation criteria, satisfying

M
∑ ; ( ) be the optimism degrees of decision makers;

ED
( ) be the relative weights of decision makers, satisfying ∑ .
Then the main steps of the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach can be
PT
described as following:
CE
Step 1: Identify and define linguistic terms, obtain the fuzzy rates of alternative
assigned by decision maker with IVPFNs ([ ], -) on

AC
criterion , and form decision matrix ([ ], -) ,
Step2: Calculate the expected PFS ( ) of ’s decision matrix
([ ], -) by the following equations, where is the degree
of optimism.
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
( ) (11)
( ) (12)
Step 3：Calculate the group aggregated decision matrix ( )
based on all decision makers’ expected decision matrix ( ) by the
following equation:
T
IP
*√ ∏. / ∏ + (13)
CR
The hesitation degree of every element of ( ) is:
√
US
Step 4: Calculate the entropy measure of each criterion by the following
(14)
AN
equation:
M
∑, ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(15)
ED
Define the divergence through the following equation, the more the
PT
divergence is, the more important the criterion is.

CE
(16)
Calculate the normalized criteria weights by the following equation:

AC
(17)
∑
Step 5: Determine the PIS and NIS by the following equations:
*( )( ) ( )+ (18)
*( )( ) ( )+ (19)
where
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
* +
* +
* +
* +
√
{
Step 6: Establish the distance matrix. The distance ∆ between the ideal solution
T
value and each comparison value is given as:
IP
∆ √*( ) ( ) ( ) + (20)
CR
∆ √*( ) ( ) ( ) + (21)
US
Calculate the weighted distances from each alternative to the PIS and the NIS
based on the following equations:

AN
∑ ∆ (22)
M
∑ ∆ (23)
ED
Step7: Calculate the grey relational coefficients by the follows equations:
∆ ∆
PT
(24)
∆ ∆
CE
∆ ∆
(25)
∆ ∆
AC
Calculate the grey relational grades by the following equations:
∑ (26)
∑ (27)
Step 8: Calculate the integrated value of distance and grey relational grade. The
distance and relational grade are normalized by:
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
⁄ ( ) (28)
where , . The integrated values of distance and
grey relational grade are obtained as:
(29)
(30)
T
where . Usually, equal important is set as . and
IP
represent closeness of the ith alternative to positive and negative solution.
CR
Step 9: The distance to optimized ideal reference point is used as the closeness
coefficient
US
to avoid existing rank reversals problem. Define the optimized ideal
reference point G as (Ren, Zhang, Wang, & Sun, 2007):

AN
( ) ( ( ) ( )) (31)
M
Step 10: Calculate the distance from each alternative to point G as:
√( ) ( ) (32)
ED
Step 11: Rank in increasing order and obtain the final ranks of suppliers.
PT
4. Implementation and experimental results

CE
In this section, performance of the proposed sustainable supplier selection

AC
approach is validated by a real-world case of a home appliances manufacturer
(denoted as ABC) in China. The company plans to produce sweeping robot, and needs
to procure a specific material which is necessary for sweeping robot production. Due
to the increasing pressure from customers and heightened awareness from government
and environmental organizations on development of eco-friendly products, the
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
company conducts a sustainable procurement strategy in order to achieve better
position among competitors. Given this, sustainable supplier selection has been
identified as a necessary decision activity for company ABC. Consequently, the
proposed approach is conducted to help company ABC select suitable raw material
suppliers with respect to sustainable evaluation criteria. The sustainable evaluation
T
criteria reviewed in Section 2.1 are used in this research. These criteria are denoted by
IP
{C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13}. As shown in Table 1,
CR
criteria C1-C6 are economic criteria, criteria C7-C10 are environmental criteria, and
criteria C11-C13 are social criteria.

US
In the simulation, the authors assume that ten suppliers are interested in
AN
providing the required products, which are denoted by {S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8,
M
S9, S10}. Four decision makers from different functions of company ABC are invited
to provide their opinions on ratings of alternative suppliers with respect to sustainable

ED
evaluation criteria, which are denoted by {DM1, DM2, DM3, DM4}. These decision
PT
makers include a strategic sourcing manager (DM1), a procurement manager (DM2), a
production department manager (DM3), and a quality control manager (DM4). The
CE
authors also assume that the optimism degrees of decision makers are
AC
( 8 9) , and the relative weights of decision makers are
η=(0.2,0.4,0.3,0.1). Decision makers express their preferences on ratings of suppliers
with respect to sustainable evaluation criteria by crisp and linguistic variables,
according to their domain knowledge and suppliers’ history performances. Table 2 and
Table 3 shows the numerical and linguistic variables used by decision makers and
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
their corresponding IVPFNs. Table 4 shows ratings of suppliers with respect to
sustainable evaluation criteria assigned by decision makers.
Table 2 Numerical variables and corresponding IVPFNs
Table 3 Linguistic variables and corresponding IVPFNs
T
IP
Table 4 Ratings of suppliers with respect to sustainable evaluation criteria
CR
US
4.1 Experiment 1: application of the proposed sustainable supplier selection
approach
AN
The computational procedure of the proposed sustainable supplier selection

M
approach is summarized as the following steps.
Step 1: According to the numerical and linguistic variables and their

ED
corresponding IVPFNs shown in Table 2 and Table 3, and ratings of suppliers with
PT
respect to sustainable evaluation criteria assigned by decision makers shown in Table
4, the IVPFNs of decision matrix assigned by decision makers are obtained as shown
CE
in Table 5-Table 8.
AC
Table 5 The IVPFNs of decision matrix assigned by decision maker DM1

21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Step 2: The expected PFSs decision matrix of decision makers are calculated by
Equation (11) and (12) as shown in Table 9-Table12.
T
Table 9 The expected decision matrix of decision maker DM1 (λ=0.8)
IP
CR
US

AN

M

ED
Step 3: The group aggregated decision matrix is calculated by Equation (13) and
PT
(14) as shown in Table 13.
Table 13 The group aggregated decision matrix

CE

AC
Step 4: The entropy measures of evaluation criteria are calculated by Equation
(15), the divergences of evaluation criteria are calculated by Equation (16), and the
normalized weights of evaluation criteria are calculated by Equation (17) as shown in
Table 14.
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 14 The entropy, divergence and relative weights of evaluation criteria
(Experiment 1)
Step 5: The PIS and the NIS are determined by Equation (18) and (19) as
follows:
T
IP
*( 78 69 6 )( 8 4 79) ( 78 64 ) ( 76 76 6 )
CR
( 8 9 )( 8 4 66) ( 784 6 6 )( 8 8 8 )
( 8
( 77
49
8
8 ) ( 796
6 8)+;
4
US
86) ( 766 74 6 8) ( 7 4 66 )
AN
M
*( 68 6 6) ( 699 649) ( 77 6 686) ( 46 7 6)
( 4 78 7 )( 484 7 8) ( 4 9 6 7 8) ( 4 4 7 )
ED
( 4 9 6 7 8) ( 46 4 698) ( 9 6 676) ( 7 8 66)

PT
( 77 94)+.
Step 6: The weighted distances from each alternative to the PIS and the NIS are
CE
calculated by Equation (20), (21), (22) and (23), then computation results shown as
AC
Table 15-Table 17.
Table 15 The distance ∆ between the ideal solution value and each comparison
value
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
value
Table 17 Weighted distances from each alternative to the PIS and the NIS
T
Step 7: The grey relational grades are calculated by Equation (20), (21), (24),
IP
(25), (26), and (27), then computation results shown as Table 18-Table 20.
CR
Table 18 The grey relational coefficients of each alternative
US
AN
M
Table 20 The grey relational grades of each alternative

ED

PT
Step 8: The integrated value of distance and grey relational grade are calculated
by Equation (28), (29) and (30), and the computation results are {0.943, 0.948,
CE
0.963, 0.978, 0.912, 0.937, 0.957, 0.975, 0.980, 0.969} and {0.973, 0.944, 0.869,
AC
0.885, 0.965, 0.973, 0.924, 0.937, 0.914, 0.947}.
Step 9: The optimized ideal reference point G is obtained by Equation (31) as
(0.980, 0.869).
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Step 10: The distance from each alternative to point G is calculated by Equation
(32), and the computation results are {0.111, 0.081, 0.017, 0.016, 0.117, 0.113,
0.060, 0.069, 0.045, 0.078}.
Step 11: Rank in increasing order, the outranking relations between
suppliers are determined as S4> S3> S9> S7> S8> S10>S2>S1>S6> S5, and
T
supplier S4 is selected by the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach.
IP
In sum, the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach is able to evaluate
CR
performances of suppliers with respect to sustainable evaluation criteria and select
sustainable supplier for company ABC.

US
AN
4.2 Experiment 2: comparative analysis
To further validate the effectiveness and strengths of the proposed sustainable

M
supplier selection approach, a comparative analysis experiment is conducted. Exiting

ED
studies usually adopted the FST to deal with the uncertain information of decision
makers. Therefore, in this experiment, the IVPFS is replaced by the FST to deal with
PT
the vagueness and ambiguity of decision makers’ subjective judgements. This

CE
experiment is fed with the same assumptions and parameters as Experiment 1, for
instance, ratings of suppliers with respect to sustainable evaluation criteria shown in

AC
Table 4 are used, the optimism degrees of decision makers are ( 8 9),
and the relative weights of decision makers are η=(0.2,0.4,0.3,0.1). Expect for that the
IVPFNs shown in Table 2 and Table 3 are replaced by the triangular fuzzy numbers
(TFNs) shown in Table 21 and Table 22.
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 21 Numerical variables and corresponding TFNs
Table 22 Linguistic variables and corresponding TFNs
In this simulation, the entropy measures, divergences and relative weights of
T
sustainable evaluation criteria are calculated as shown in Table 23. The weighted
IP
distances from each alternative to the PIS and the NIS are {0.322, 0.246, 0.220, 0.299,
CR
0.246, 0.252, 0.238, 0.283, 0.261, 0.225} and {0.267, 0.290, 0.257, 0.224, 0.246,
US
0.310, 0.284, 0.239, 0.282, 0.285}. The grey relational grades are {0.048, 0.048,
0.045, 0.044, 0.044, 0.051, 0.050, 0.045, 0.050, 0.048} and {0.052, 0.046, 0.044,
AN
0.049, 0.047, 0.047, 0.044, 0.049, 0.046, 0.045}. The integrated value of distance and
M
grey relational grade are {0.906, 0.946, 0.859, 0.799, 0.827, 1.000, 0.949, 0.827,
0.944, 0.934} and {1.000, 0.821, 0.760, 0.939, 0.830, 0.842, 0.795, 0.911, 0.846,
ED
0.780}. The optimized ideal reference point G is obtained as (1.000, 0.760). Then the
PT
distance from each alternative to point G are {0.161, 0.071, 0.177, 0.212, 0.176, 0.026,
0.088, 0.177, 0.059, 0.109}. Then the outranking relations between suppliers are
CE
determined as S6> S9> S2> S7> S10> S1>S5>S3>S8>S4, and supplier S6 is

AC
selected by the proposed integrated sustainable supplier selection approach.
(Experiment 2)
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 2 Experimental results of comparative analysis
According to the experimental results shown in Figure 2, the following findings
are obtained. Firstly, the adoption of uncertainty handling technique in group decision
making approach affects the final selection results. For instance, when the IVPFS is
incorporated, supplier S4 is selected; while when the FST is incorporated, supplier S6 is
T
selected. Secondly, the final supplier selected by the IVPFS based approach is much
IP
closer to optimal solution. For instance, as shown in Table 24, for the IVPFS based
CR
approach, the distance between selected supplier S4 and ideal solution is 0.563. For
0.543. It is obvious that 6

US
FST based approach, the distance between selected supplier S6 and ideal solution is
4 , and the supplier selected by the IVPFS based

AN
approach is closer to ideal solution. Since more information is lost in the transformation
M
from linguistic variables to the TFNs than the IVPFNs, the proposed IVPFS based
approach is more efficient to capture decision makers’ uncertain information.

ED
Table 24 The distances between selected supplier and ideal supplier

PT

CE
4.3 Experiment 3: sensitivity analysis
In the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach, the extended TOPSIS is

AC
an integration of GRA and TOPSIS. To further validate the effectiveness and
strengths of the proposed decision making approach, a sensitivity analysis is
conducted by adjusting the parameters of and in Equation (29) and (30). When
, single GRA is used to evaluate suppliers; when , single
TOPSIS is used to evaluate suppliers; when , the integrated

27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
GRA and TOPSIS is used to evaluate suppliers. Then, the value of is changed
from 0 to 1, and varies with to simulate different scenarios. Table 25 shows the
11 scenarios used in this section. The scenario 6 with is the
proposed sustainable supplier selection approach conducted in Section 4.1.
Table 25 Parameters for different scenarios
T
IP
CR
Figure 3 Experimental results under different scenarios
US
According to the experimental results shown in Figure 3, the following findings
are obtained. Firstly, the extended TOPSIS can synthesize distance and similarity by
AN
adjusting parameters and according to decision makers’ preferences. For
M
instance, when , supplier S3 is selected as the best supplier, while when
, supplier S4 is selected as the best supplier. Secondly, the extended TOPSIS

ED
can provide a comprehensive ranking of suppliers based on decision maker’s

PT
preferences on distance and similarity. For instance, when 8, supplier
S4, S3, S10 and S7 are the top-4 suppliers. Therefore, the proposed approach is
CE
efficient to synthesize distance and similarity according to decision makers’

AC
preferences in evaluation process.
4.4 Managerial implications
According to these experimental results, the following managerial implications
are obtained.
Firstly, the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach is able to select

28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
optimal suppliers for the company ABC. In this research, decision makers should
express their preferences on alternatives with respect to evaluation criteria based on
their experience and knowledge in advance, then optimal supplier is selected based on
the ratings of suppliers assigned by decision makers. In Experiment 1, supplier S4 is
selected by the proposed approach. According to the ratings of supplier S4 shown in
T
Table 4, all the decision makers think supplier S4 did well on economic and
IP
environmental aspects, and acceptably on social aspect. This means that the selected
CR
supplier is acceptable by all decision makers. Therefore, the proposed sustainable
US
supplier selection approach can be used as an aid for companies by implementing a
sustainable procurement strategy to select the best sustainable suppliers.

AN
Secondly, the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach adopts the IVPFS
M
to deal with the uncertain information of decision makers. To our knowledge, no
previous studies have extended supplier selection approach in an interval-valued

ED
Pythagorean fuzzy environment. The comparison results of Experiment 2 shows that

PT
the best supplier selected by the IVPFS based approach is better than the FST based
approach. Therefore, the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach is more

CE
efficient to capture decision makers’ subject judgments in supplier selection process.

AC
Finally, the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach adopts an extended
TOPSS which integrates GRA and TOPSIS to evaluate performances of suppliers. The
experimental results of Experiment 3 shows that the extended TOSPIS based approach
can make a comprehensive ranking of suppliers from distance and similarity according
to decision makers’ preferences. Therefore, the proposed sustainable supplier selection
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
approach is more actual and precise.
5. Conclusions and future work
In this research, a group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach
using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment is
proposed. In the proposed approach, the uncertain information of decision makers is
T
captured by the IVPFSs. Different opinions of multiple decision makers have been
IP
considered in the decision making process. The relative weights of evaluation criteria
CR
are determined by entropy measure method to avoid decision maker’s subjective
US
judgments. The alternatives are evaluated by an extended TOPSIS considering distance
and similarity between alternatives concurrently. Finally, a case study is conducted to

AN
verify the feasibility and efficiency of the proposed sustainable supplier selection
M
approach. The experimental results show that the proposed approach is effective and
efficient to help decision makers to select optimal sustainable suppliers.

ED
This research assumed that evaluation criteria are independent, and has not
PT
considered the interrelationships between criteria. However, in practice, evaluation
criteria can interact with each other. In future, more effectors will be conducted to
CE
explore interrelationships between criteria. Moreover, the proposed sustainable

AC
supplier selection approach will be utilized in other industrial cases, such as
manufacturing industry, pharmaceutical industry, automobile industry, etc. to further
improve its practicability.
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 71501187).
Author Contribution Section
Chunxia Yu conducted this research and formulated the model; Yifan Shao finished the
T
experiments; Kai Wang provided insights and research guidance; Chunxia Yu and Luping
IP
Zhang wrote the paper.
CR
References
Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S., Saghafinia, A., & Bahreininejad, A. (2012). Sustainable supplier
selection: A ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Applied Soft Computing,
12, 1668-1677.
US
Atanassov, K., & Gargov, G. (1989). Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 31, 343-349.
AN
Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20, 87-96.
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2010). A fuzzy multicriteria approach for
evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International Journal of
M
Production Economics, 126, 370-378.

Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection
using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production
ED
Economics, 195, 106-117.

Banaeian, N., Mobli, H., Fahimnia, B., Nielsen, I. E., & Omid, M. (2018). Green supplier
selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: A case study from the
PT
agri-food industry. Computers & Operations Research, 89, 337-347.

Boudaghi, E., & Farzipoor Saen, R. (2018). Developing a novel model of data envelopment
analysis–discriminant analysis for predicting group membership of suppliers in
CE
sustainable supply chain. Computers & Operations Research, 89, 348-359.

Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for
sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Computers in Industry,
AC
62, 164-174.
Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, 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, 3000-3011.
Carter, C. R., & Easton, L. P. (2011). Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and
future directions. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 41, 46-62.
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Chen, T.-Y. (2018). An outranking approach using a risk attitudinal assignment model
involving Pythagorean fuzzy information and its application to financial decision
making. Applied Soft Computing, 71, 460-487.
Cheraghalipour, A., & Farsad, S. (2018). A bi-objective sustainable supplier selection and
order allocation considering quantity discounts under disruption risks: A case study in
plastic industry. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 118, 237-250.
Cobuloglu, H. I., & Büyüktahtakın, İ. E. (2015). A stochastic multi-criteria decision analysis
for sustainable biomass crop selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 42,
6065-6074.
Deng, J. L. (1989). Introduction to Grey system theory. J. Grey Syst., 1, 1-24.
T
Dwivedi, G., Srivastava, R. K., & Srivastava, S. K. (2018). A generalised fuzzy TOPSIS with
IP
improved closeness coefficient. Expert Systems with Applications, 96, 185-195.
Fallahpour, A., Udoncy Olugu, E., Nurmaya Musa, S., Yew Wong, K., & Noori, S. (2017). A
CR
decision support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply chain
management. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 105, 391-410.
Garg, H. (2016). A novel accuracy function under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy
environment for solving multicriteria decision making problem. Journal of Intelligent
& Fuzzy Systems, 31, 529-540.
US
Ghadimi, P., Ghassemi Toosi, F., & Heavey, C. (2018). A multi-agent systems approach for
sustainable supplier selection and order allocation in a partnership supply chain.
AN
European Journal of Operational Research, 269, 286-301.
Gören, H. G. (2018). A decision framework for sustainable supplier selection and order
allocation with lost sales. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 1156-1169.
M
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for
measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line
approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 345-354.
ED
Hwang, C., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and
Applications, Springer. New York.
Jauhar, S. K., & Pant, M. (2017). Integrating DEA with DE and MODE for sustainable
PT
supplier selection. Journal of Computational Science, 21, 299-306.

Kuo, J. Y., Shia, B. C., Chen, Y. C., & Ho, J. Y. (2011). Evaluating the green suppliers of the
CE
Printed Circuit Board base on the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and
Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje. American Journal of
Applied Sciences, 8, 246-253.
AC
Liang, D., & Xu, Z. (2017). The new extension of TOPSIS method for multiple criteria
decision making with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing, 60,
167-179.
Lo, H.-W., Liou, J. J. H., Wang, H.-S., & Tsai, Y.-S. (2018). An integrated model for solving
problems in green supplier selection and order allocation. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 190, 339-352.
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated
framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698.
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Memon, M. S., Lee, Y. H., & Mari, S. I. (2015). Group multi-criteria supplier selection using
combined grey systems theory and uncertainty theory. Expert Systems with
Applications, 42, 7951-7959.
Mohammed, A., Setchi, R., Filip, M., Harris, I., & Li, X. (2018). An integrated methodology
for a sustainable two-stage supplier selection and order allocation problem. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 192, 99-114.
Peng, X., & Yang, Y. (2016). Fundamental Properties of Interval‐Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy
Aggregation Operators. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 33, 1689-1716.
Qin, J., Liu, X., & Pedrycz, W. (2017). An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision
making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment.
T
IP
R.Dharmarajan, V. (2017). An Intuitionistic Fuzzy Topsis DSS Model with Weight
Determining Methods. International Journal of Engineering and Computer Science,
CR
6, 20354-20361.
Rahman, K., Abdullah, S., Ali, A., & Amin, F. (2018). Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy
Einstein hybrid weighted averaging aggregation operator and their application to
group decision making. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 1-12.
US
Raza, S. A., & Rathinam, S. (2017). A risk tolerance analysis for a joint price differentiation
and inventory decisions problem with demand leakage effect. International Journal
of Production Economics, 183, 129-145.
AN
Ren, L., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., & Sun, Z. (2007). Comparative Analysis of a Novel
M-TOPSIS Method and TOPSIS. Applied Mathematics Research eXpress, 2007,
abm005-abm005.
M
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1998). The mathematical theory of communication:

University of Illinois press.
Shemshadi, A., Shirazi, H., Toreihi, M., & Tarokh, M. J. (2011). A fuzzy VIKOR method for
ED
supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Systems
with Applications, 38, 12160-12167.
Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for
PT
new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 197, 1587-1596.
CE
Sirisawat, P., & Kiatcharoenpol, T. (2018). Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches to prioritizing

solutions for reverse logistics barriers. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 117,
303-318.
AC
Song, W., Xu, Z., & Liu, H.-C. (2017). Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for
solar air-conditioner manufacturer: An integrated approach. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 1461-1471.
Sun, G., Guan, X., Yi, X., & Zhou, Z. (2018). An innovative TOPSIS approach based on
hesitant fuzzy correlation coefficient and its applications. Applied Soft Computing,
68, 249-267.
Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2000). Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 114, 505-518.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and methods.
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Wilson, E. J. (1994). The relative importance of supplier selection criteria: a review and
update. Journal of supply chain management, 30, 34-41.
Yager, R. R. (2014). Pythagorean Membership Grades in Multicriteria Decision Making.
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22, 958-965.
You, X.-Y., You, J.-X., Liu, H.-C., & Zhen, L. (2015). Group multi-criteria supplier selection
using an extended VIKOR method with interval 2-tuple linguistic information. Expert
Systems with Applications, 42, 1906-1916.
Yu, C., & Wong, T. N. (2015). An agent-based negotiation model for supplier selection of
multiple products with synergy effect. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 223-237.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Information and control. Fuzzy sets, 8, 338-353.
T
Zhang, X., & Xu, Z. (2014). Extension of TOPSIS to Multiple Criteria Decision Making with
IP
Pythagorean Fuzzy Sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 29, 1061-1078.
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
List of tables
T
IP
CR
US

AN

M
Table 14 The entropy, divergence and relative weights of evaluation criteria (Experiment 1)
Table 15 The distance ∆ between the ideal solution value and each comparison value
ED
Table 16 The distance ∆ between the ideal solution value and each comparison value
PT

CE

AC
Table 23 The entropy, divergence and relative weights of evaluation criteria (Experiment 2)
35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ID Criteria Illustrations
Economic
C1 Cost Product price, purchasing cost, holding cost, and ordering cost
C2 Quality Product quality and reliability level
T
C3 Delivery The on time delivery ability and reliability
IP
C4 Service The after sales service level
CR
The flexibility level in supplying material and giving price
C5 Flexibility
discount of the supplied material
C6
Technology
capability
US
New technology capability of production
AN
Environmental
A set of systematic processes and practices that enable a

Environmental
M
supplier to reduce its environmental impacts, which includes

C7 management
the organizational structure, planning and implementing policy
systems (e.g., ISO 14001 and TQEM) for environmental protection.
ED
The use of resources, including energy, power and water, are to

Resource be reduced by the practices such as modifying production,
C8
maintenance and process, conservation, recycling and reusing
PT
consumption
materials.
Designing product with consideration of environmental impacts

CE
C9 Eco-design during the whole product lifecycle including the stages of

procurement, manufacture, use, and disposal.
AC
Reduce, Reuse and Pollution (e.g., air pollution and water pollution) reduction,
C10
Recycle (3R) greening packaging and waste recycling & reuse.
Social
Implementing some regulations (e.g., OHSAS 18001), taking

Occupational ergonomic and safety measure, and utilizing other instruments
C11
health and safety that ensure the labor safety and their health (both the physical
and mental health)
36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Employee right and Concerns with the employees’ related factors and requirements
C12
welfare to achieve sustainable effectiveness in the long term.
Providing information to their customers and stakeholders

Information
C13 regarding material used, carbon emissions and toxins released
Disclosure during production, etc.
T
IP
Numerical terms IVPIFNs
CR
60-65 ([0.80,0.95],[0.00,0.15])
66-70
71-75
US ([0.70,0.80],[0.15,0.25])
([0.55,0.70],[0.25,0.40])
AN
76-80 ([0.45,0.55],[0.40,0.55])
81-85 ([0.30,0.45],[0.55,0.70])
M
86-90 ([0.20,0.30],[0.70,0.80])
ED
91-100 ([0.00,0.20],[0.80,0.95])
PT
CE

AC
Linguistic terms IVPFNs
Very good (VG) ([0.80,0.95],[0.00,0.15])
Good (G) ([0.70,0.80],[0.15,0.25])
Medium good (MG) ([0.55,0.70],[0.25,0.40])
Medium (M) ([0.45,0.55],[0.40,0.55])
37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Medium poor (MP) ([0.30,0.45],[0.55,0.70])
Poor (P) ([0.20,0.30],[0.70,0.80])
Very poor (VP) ([0.00,0.20],[0.80,0.95])
T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
DM1
S1 68 VG M MP MG M VG MP P G MG VP P
S2 87 M MG VP P VG MP G M VG MP MG G
S3 72 MP VG M G MP MG P G P M VP VG
T
IP
S4 61 MG M G VG P G M MP P MG MP VP
CR
S5 83 G P VG M VG MP MG G P M VP MG
S6 89 MP P MP G VG G VG M MG VP MG M
S7
S8
67
77
P
MG
VG
VP
M
G
MG
P
MP
M
US VG
P MG
MP
M
MG
MP
VG
G
MP
VG
P
VP
G
AN
S9 95 VG MG M VG G MP M P MP G P MG
S10 68 MG MP VG MP M P G VG MG P M VP
M
DM2
ED
S1 62 G MP MG VG M MP G MG M P VP P
S2 88 VP M VG P MG G MP M VG G MG MP
PT
S3 73 MP P MG G M MG VP VG MP M G P
S4 78 MG VG MP MG VG G M G P MP VP P
CE
S5 84 VG M MG G P M M VP MG P MP P
AC
S6 88 MP P MP M G MG G M MG VP MG VG
S7 68 M MP G P MG P MP VG MG M VP VG
S8 89 G MG G P VG G MG M MP VP M MP
S9 73 VG MP P G MG G VP M VG MP P M
S10 77 MP VP MG P G M VG MP P G MG VG
39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
DM3
S1 77 G VG MP G MG VG MP M MG P VP P
S2 67 P G VP MP MG M VG MG P MP M VG
S3 89 MG G MG M VG P G MP M VG MP VP
S4 83 VG MG VG MP M G M MG G P VP P
S5 62 MP VP MP VG M P MG G M MG G P
T
IP
S6 97 M MP MG M MG VG G P MP G VG P
S7 78 MG P M G P MG MP VG VP VG MP G
CR
S8 89 G M MP MG VG G VG MG M MP P VP
S9
S10
83
72
P
M
G
VG
MG
G
G
MG
VP
VG
US M
MP
MG
M
MP
P
VG
VP
M
G
P
MP
VG
P
AN
DM4
S1 67 MP MG VG G M MG P VG M VP P MP
M
S2 96 P MP G VG M G VG MG MP MG M P
ED
S3 82 VG P M P G M MG VP G MP MG VG
S4 88 M P G MG M MP G MG VG MP VG VP
PT
S5 92 G MP MG P VG MG VG G M MP P M
S6 68 P VG VG MG M MP G MG MP M P VP
CE
S7 88 M G MP P M VG MG VP MG VG MP G
AC
S8 93 P M MG MP MG MP G VG M G VG P
S9 64 MG G MP VG MG G P M P MP VP M
S10 61 VP P MG MP VG M MG P G M MP G
40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.20,0
S .80],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .20],[0. .30],[0.
1 15,0.25 00,0.15 40,0.55 55,0.70 25,0.40 40,0.55 00,0.15 55,0.70 70,0.80 15,0.25 25,0.40 80,0.95 70,0.80
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0
S .30],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .20],[0. .30],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0.
2 70,0.80 40,0.55 25,0.40 80,0.95 70,0.80 00,0.15 55,0.70 15,0.25 40,0.55 00,0.15 55,0.70 25,0.40 15,0.25
T
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
IP
([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.80,0
S .70],[0. .45],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .80],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0. .20],[0. .95],[0.
CR
3 25,0.40 55,0.70 00,0.15 40,0.55 15,0.25 55,0.70 25,0.40 70,0.80 15,0.25 70,0.80 40,0.55 80,0.95 00,0.15
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.00,0
US
S .95],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0. .20],[0.
4 00,0.15 25,0.40 40,0.55 15,0.25 00,0.15 70,0.80 15,0.25 40,0.55 55,0.70 70,0.80 25,0.40 55,0.70 80,0.95
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
AN
([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.55,0
S .45],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0. .20],[0. .70],[0.
5 55,0.70 15,0.25 70,0.80 00,0.15 40,0.55 00,0.15 55,0.70 25,0.40 15,0.25 70,0.80 40,0.55 80,0.95 25,0.40
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
M
([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0
S .30],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .20],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0.
ED
6 70,0.80 55,0.70 70,0.80 55,0.70 15,0.25 00,0.15 15,0.25 00,0.15 40,0.55 25,0.40 80,0.95 25,0.40 40,0.55
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.00,0
S .80],[0. .30],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .20],[0.
PT
7 15,0.25 70,0.80 00,0.15 40,0.55 25,0.40 55,0.70 70,0.80 25,0.40 40,0.55 55,0.70 15,0.25 00,0.15 80,0.95
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
CE
([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0
S .55],[0. .70],[0. .20],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0.
8 40,0.55 25,0.40 80,0.95 15,0.25 70,0.80 40,0.55 00,0.15 55,0.70 25,0.40 00,0.15 55,0.70 70,0.80 15,0.25
AC
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.00,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.55,0
S .20],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .80],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .70],[0.
9 80,0.95 00,0.15 25,0.40 40,0.55 00,0.15 15,0.25 55,0.70 40,0.55 70,0.80 55,0.70 15,0.25 70,0.80 25,0.40
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.00,0
S
.80],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0. .20],[0.
1
15,0.25 25,0.40 55,0.70 00,0.15 55,0.70 40,0.55 70,0.80 15,0.25 00,0.15 25,0.40 70,0.80 40,0.55 80,0.95
0
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
41
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
IP
CR
US
AN
M

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
ED
([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.20,0
S .95],[0. .80],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0. .20],[0. .30],[0.
1 00,0.15 15,0.25 55,0.70 25,0.40 00,0.15 40,0.55 55,0.70 15,0.25 25,0.40 40,0.55 70,0.80 80,0.95 70,0.80
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
PT
([0.20,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0
S .30],[0. .20],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .30],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0.
CE
2 70,0.80 80,0.95 40,0.55 00,0.15 70,0.80 25,0.40 15,0.25 55,0.70 40,0.55 00,0.15 15,0.25 25,0.40 55,0.70
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0
AC
S .70],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .20],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0.
3 25,0.40 55,0.70 70,0.80 25,0.40 15,0.25 40,0.55 25,0.40 80,0.95 00,0.15 55,0.70 40,0.55 15,0.25 70,0.80
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.20,0
S .55],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0. .20],[0. .30],[0.
4 40,0.55 25,0.40 00,0.15 55,0.70 25,0.40 00,0.15 15,0.25 40,0.55 15,0.25 70,0.80 55,0.70 80,0.95 70,0.80
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0
S
.45],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0. .55],[0. .20],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0.
5
55,0.70 00,0.15 40,0.55 25,0.40 15,0.25 70,0.80 40,0.55 40,0.55 80,0.95 25,0.40 70,0.80 55,0.70 70,0.80
42
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0
S .30],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .20],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0.
6 70,0.80 55,0.70 70,0.80 55,0.70 40,0.55 15,0.25 25,0.40 15,0.25 40,0.55 25,0.40 80,0.95 25,0.40 00,0.15
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.80,0
S .80],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .20],[0. .95],[0.
7 15,0.25 40,0.55 55,0.70 15,0.25 70,0.80 25,0.40 70,0.80 55,0.70 00,0.15 25,0.40 40,0.55 80,0.95 00,0.15
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
T
([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0
IP
S .30],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .95],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .20],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0.
8 70,0.80 15,0.25 25,0.40 15,0.25 70,0.80 00,0.15 15,0.25 25,0.40 40,0.55 55,0.70 80,0.95 40,0.55 55,0.70
CR
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0
S .70],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .20],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0.
US
9 25,0.40 00,0.15 55,0.70 70,0.80 15,0.25 25,0.40 15,0.25 80,0.95 40,0.55 00,0.15 55,0.70 70,0.80 40,0.55
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0
S
AN
.55],[0. .45],[0. .20],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0.
1
40,0.55 55,0.70 80,0.95 25,0.40 70,0.80 15,0.25 40,0.55 00,0.15 55,0.70 70,0.80 15,0.25 25,0.40 00,0.15
0
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
43
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.20,0
S .55],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .20],[0. .30],[0.
1 40,0.55 15,0.25 00,0.15 55,0.70 15,0.25 25,0.40 00,0.15 55,0.70 40,0.55 25,0.40 70,0.80 80,0.95 70,0.80
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0
S .80],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .20],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0.
2 15,0.25 70,0.80 15,0.25 80,0.95 55,0.70 25,0.40 40,0.55 00,0.15 25,0.40 70,0.80 55,0.70 40,0.55 00,0.15
T
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
IP
([0.20,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.00,0
S .30],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .20],[0.
CR
3 70,0.80 25,0.40 15,0.25 25,0.40 40,0.55 00,0.15 70,0.80 15,0.25 55,0.70 40,0.55 00,0.15 55,0.70 80,0.95
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.20,0
US
S .45],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .20],[0. .30],[0.
4 55,0.70 00,0.15 25,0.40 00,0.15 55,0.70 40,0.55 15,0.25 40,0.55 25,0.40 15,0.25 70,0.80 80,0.95 70,0.80
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
AN
([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0
S .95],[0. .45],[0. .20],[0. .45],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0.
5 00,0.15 55,0.70 80,0.95 55,0.70 00,0.15 40,0.55 70,0.80 25,0.40 15,0.25 40,0.55 25,0.40 15,0.25 70,0.80
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
M
([0.00,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.20,0
S .20],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .30],[0.
ED
6 80,0.95 40,0.55 55,0.70 25,0.40 40,0.55 25,0.40 00,0.15 15,0.25 70,0.80 55,0.70 15,0.25 00,0.15 70,0.80
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0
S .55],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0. .95],[0. .20],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0.
PT
7 40,0.55 25,0.40 70,0.80 40,0.55 15,0.25 70,0.80 25,0.40 55,0.70 00,0.15 80,0.95 00,0.15 55,0.70 15,0.25
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
CE
([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.00,0
S .30],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .20],[0.
8 70,0.80 15,0.25 40,0.55 55,0.70 25,0.40 00,0.15 15,0.25 00,0.15 25,0.40 40,0.55 55,0.70 70,0.80 80,0.95
AC
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.80,0
S .45],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .20],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0. .95],[0.
9 55,0.70 70,0.80 15,0.25 25,0.40 15,0.25 80,0.95 40,0.55 25,0.40 55,0.70 00,0.15 40,0.55 70,0.80 00,0.15
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0
S
.70],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0. .20],[0. .80],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0.
1
25,0.40 40,0.55 00,0.15 15,0.25 25,0.40 00,0.15 55,0.70 40,0.55 70,0.80 80,0.95 15,0.25 55,0.70 70,0.80
0
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
44
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
IP
CR
US
AN
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
M
([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0
S .80],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .20],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0.
ED
1 15,0.25 55,0.70 25,0.40 00,0.15 15,0.25 40,0.55 25,0.40 70,0.80 00,0.15 40,0.55 80,0.95 70,0.80 55,0.70
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.00,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0
S .20],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0.
PT
2 80,0.95 70,0.80 55,0.70 15,0.25 00,0.15 40,0.55 15,0.25 00,0.15 25,0.40 55,0.70 25,0.40 40,0.55 70,0.80
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
CE
([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0
S .45],[0. .95],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .20],[0. .80],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0.
3 55,0.70 00,0.15 70,0.80 40,0.55 70,0.80 15,0.25 40,0.55 25,0.40 80,0.95 15,0.25 55,0.70 25,0.40 00,0.15
AC
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.00,0
S .30],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .95],[0. .20],[0.
4 70,0.80 40,0.55 70,0.80 15,0.25 25,0.40 40,0.55 55,0.70 15,0.25 25,0.40 00,0.15 55,0.70 00,0.15 80,0.95
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.00,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0
S .20],[0. .80],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0.
5 80,0.95 15,0.25 55,0.70 25,0.40 70,0.80 00,0.15 25,0.40 00,0.15 15,0.25 40,0.55 55,0.70 70,0.80 40,0.55
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
45
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.00,0
S .80],[0. .30],[0. .95],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0. .20],[0.
6 15,0.25 70,0.80 00,0.15 00,0.15 25,0.40 40,0.55 55,0.70 15,0.25 25,0.40 55,0.70 40,0.55 70,0.80 80,0.95
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0
S .30],[0. .55],[0. .80],[0. .45],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .20],[0. .70],[0. .95],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0.
7 70,0.80 40,0.55 15,0.25 55,0.70 70,0.80 40,0.55 00,0.15 25,0.40 80,0.95 25,0.40 00,0.15 55,0.70 15,0.25
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.00,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.20,0
S .20],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .80],[0. .95],[0. .30],[0.
T
8 80,0.95 70,0.80 40,0.55 25,0.40 55,0.70 25,0.40 55,0.70 15,0.25 00,0.15 40,0.55 15,0.25 00,0.15 70,0.80
IP
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.45,0
CR
S .95],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .45],[0. .95],[0. .70],[0. .80],[0. .30],[0. .55],[0. .30],[0. .45],[0. .20],[0. .55],[0.
9 00,0.15 25,0.40 15,0.25 55,0.70 00,0.15 25,0.40 15,0.25 70,0.80 40,0.55 70,0.80 55,0.70 80,0.95 40,0.55
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
US
([0.80,0 ([0.00,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.80,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.55,0 ([0.20,0 ([0.70,0 ([0.45,0 ([0.30,0 ([0.70,0
S
.95],[0. .20],[0. .30],[0. .70],[0. .45],[0. .95],[0. .55],[0. .70],[0. .30],[0. .80],[0. .55],[0. .45],[0. .80],[0.
1
00,0.15 80,0.95 70,0.80 25,0.40 55,0.70 00,0.15 40,0.55 25,0.40 70,0.80 15,0.25 40,0.55 55,0.70 15,0.25
0
AN
]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ]) ])
M

ED
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
S (0.780, (0.920, (0.530, (0.420, (0.670, (0.530, (0.920, (0.420, (0.280, (0.780, (0.670, (0.160, (0.280,
PT
1 0.170) 0.030) 0.430) 0.580) 0.280) 0.430) 0.030) 0.580) 0.720) 0.170) 0.280) 0.810) 0.720)
S (0.280, (0.530, (0.670, (0.160, (0.280, (0.920, (0.420, (0.780, (0.530, (0.920, (0.420, (0.670, (0.780,
CE
2 0.720) 0.430) 0.280) 0.810) 0.720) 0.030) 0.580) 0.170) 0.430) 0.030) 0.580) 0.280) 0.170)
S (0.670, (0.420, (0.920, (0.530, (0.780, (0.420, (0.670, (0.280, (0.780, (0.280, (0.530, (0.160, (0.920,
AC
3 0.280) 0.580) 0.030) 0.430) 0.170) 0.580) 0.280) 0.720) 0.170) 0.720) 0.430) 0.810) 0.030)
S (0.920, (0.670, (0.530, (0.780, (0.920, (0.280, (0.780, (0.530, (0.420, (0.280, (0.670, (0.420, (0.160,
4 0.030) 0.280) 0.430) 0.170) 0.030) 0.720) 0.170) 0.430) 0.580) 0.720) 0.280) 0.580) 0.810)
S (0.420, (0.780, (0.280, (0.920, (0.530, (0.920, (0.420, (0.670, (0.780, (0.280, (0.530, (0.160, (0.670,
5 0.580) 0.170) 0.720) 0.030) 0.430) 0.030) 0.580) 0.280) 0.170) 0.720) 0.430) 0.810) 0.280)
S (0.280, (0.420, (0.280, (0.420, (0.780, (0.920, (0.780, (0.920, (0.530, (0.670, (0.160, (0.670, (0.530,
46
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6 0.720) 0.580) 0.720) 0.580) 0.170) 0.030) 0.170) 0.030) 0.430) 0.280) 0.810) 0.280) 0.430)
S (0.780, (0.280, (0.920, (0.530, (0.670, (0.420, (0.280, (0.670, (0.530, (0.420, (0.780, (0.920, (0.160,
7 0.170) 0.720) 0.030) 0.430) 0.280) 0.580) 0.720) 0.280) 0.430) 0.580) 0.170) 0.030) 0.810)
S (0.530, (0.670, (0.160, (0.780, (0.280, (0.530, (0.920, (0.420, (0.670, (0.920, (0.420, (0.280, (0.780,
8 0.430) 0.280) 0.810) 0.170) 0.720) 0.430) 0.030) 0.580) 0.280) 0.030) 0.580) 0.720) 0.170)
S (0.160, (0.920, (0.670, (0.530, (0.920, (0.780, (0.420, (0.530, (0.280, (0.420, (0.780, (0.280, (0.670,
9 0.810) 0.030) 0.280) 0.430) 0.030) 0.170) 0.580) 0.430) 0.720) 0.580) 0.170) 0.720) 0.280)
T
S
IP
(0.780, (0.670, (0.420, (0.920, (0.420, (0.530, (0.280, (0.780, (0.920, (0.670, (0.280, (0.530, (0.160,
1
0.170) 0.280) 0.580) 0.030) 0.580) 0.430) 0.720) 0.170) 0.030) 0.280) 0.720) 0.430) 0.810)
CR
0
US
AN
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
M
S (0.875, (0.750, (0.375, (0.625, (0.875, (0.500, (0.375, (0.750, (0.625, (0.500, (0.250, (0.100, (0.250,
1 0.075) 0.200) 0.625) 0.325) 0.075) 0.475) 0.625) 0.200) 0.325) 0.475) 0.750) 0.825) 0.750)
ED
S (0.250, (0.100, (0.500, (0.875, (0.250, (0.625, (0.750, (0.375, (0.500, (0.875, (0.750, (0.625, (0.375,
2 0.750) 0.825) 0.475) 0.075) 0.750) 0.325) 0.200) 0.625) 0.475) 0.075) 0.200) 0.325) 0.625)
PT
S (0.625, (0.375, (0.250, (0.625, (0.750, (0.500, (0.625, (0.100, (0.875, (0.375, (0.500, (0.750, (0.250,
3 0.325) 0.625) 0.750) 0.325) 0.200) 0.475) 0.325) 0.825) 0.075) 0.625) 0.475) 0.200) 0.750)
CE
S (0.500, (0.625, (0.875, (0.375, (0.625, (0.875, (0.750, (0.500, (0.750, (0.250, (0.375, (0.100, (0.250,
4 0.475) 0.325) 0.075) 0.625) 0.325) 0.075) 0.200) 0.475) 0.200) 0.750) 0.625) 0.825) 0.750)
AC
S (0.375, (0.875, (0.500, (0.625, (0.750, (0.250, (0.500, (0.500, (0.100, (0.625, (0.250, (0.375, (0.250,
5 0.625) 0.075) 0.475) 0.325) 0.200) 0.750) 0.475) 0.475) 0.825) 0.325) 0.750) 0.625) 0.750)
S (0.250, (0.375, (0.250, (0.375, (0.500, (0.750, (0.625, (0.750, (0.500, (0.625, (0.100, (0.625, (0.875,
6 0.750) 0.625) 0.750) 0.625) 0.475) 0.200) 0.325) 0.200) 0.475) 0.325) 0.825) 0.325) 0.075)
S (0.750, (0.500, (0.375, (0.750, (0.250, (0.625, (0.250, (0.375, (0.875, (0.625, (0.500, (0.100, (0.875,
7 0.200) 0.475) 0.625) 0.200) 0.750) 0.325) 0.750) 0.625) 0.075) 0.325) 0.475) 0.825) 0.075)
S (0.250, (0.750, (0.625, (0.750, (0.250, (0.875, (0.750, (0.625, (0.500, (0.375, (0.100, (0.500, (0.375,
47
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8 0.750) 0.200) 0.325) 0.200) 0.750) 0.075) 0.200) 0.325) 0.475) 0.625) 0.825) 0.475) 0.625)
S (0.625, (0.875, (0.375, (0.250, (0.750, (0.625, (0.750, (0.100, (0.500, (0.875, (0.375, (0.250, (0.500,
9 0.325) 0.075) 0.625) 0.750) 0.200) 0.325) 0.200) 0.825) 0.475) 0.075) 0.625) 0.750) 0.475)
S
(0.500, (0.375, (0.100, (0.625, (0.250, (0.750, (0.500, (0.875, (0.375, (0.250, (0.750, (0.625, (0.875,
1
0.475) 0.625) 0.825) 0.325) 0.750) 0.200) 0.475) 0.075) 0.625) 0.750) 0.200) 0.325) 0.075)
0
T
IP
CR
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
1
(0.480,
0.505)
(0.730,
0.220)
(0.845,
0.105)
(0.345,
0.655)
(0.730,
0.220) 0.355)
US
(0.595, (0.845,
0.105)
(0.345,
0.655)
(0.480,
0.505)
(0.595,
0.355)
(0.230,
0.770)
(0.060,
0.835)
(0.230,
0.770)
AN
S (0.730, (0.230, (0.730, (0.060, (0.345, (0.595, (0.480, (0.845, (0.595, (0.230, (0.345, (0.480, (0.845,
2 0.220) 0.770) 0.220) 0.835) 0.655) 0.355) 0.505) 0.105) 0.355) 0.770) 0.655) 0.505) 0.105)
M
S (0.230, (0.595, (0.730, (0.595, (0.480, (0.845, (0.230, (0.730, (0.345, (0.480, (0.845, (0.345, (0.060,
3 0.770) 0.355) 0.220) 0.355) 0.505) 0.105) 0.770) 0.220) 0.655) 0.505) 0.105) 0.655) 0.835)
ED
S (0.345, (0.845, (0.595, (0.845, (0.345, (0.480, (0.730, (0.480, (0.595, (0.730, (0.230, (0.060, (0.230,
4 0.655) 0.105) 0.355) 0.105) 0.655) 0.505) 0.220) 0.505) 0.355) 0.220) 0.770) 0.835) 0.770)
PT
S (0.845, (0.345, (0.060, (0.345, (0.845, (0.480, (0.230, (0.595, (0.730, (0.480, (0.595, (0.730, (0.230,
5 0.105) 0.655) 0.835) 0.655) 0.105) 0.505) 0.770) 0.355) 0.220) 0.505) 0.355) 0.220) 0.770)
CE
S (0.060, (0.480, (0.345, (0.595, (0.480, (0.595, (0.845, (0.730, (0.230, (0.345, (0.730, (0.845, (0.230,
6 0.835) 0.505) 0.655) 0.355) 0.505) 0.355) 0.105) 0.220) 0.770) 0.655) 0.220) 0.105) 0.770)
AC
S (0.480, (0.595, (0.230, (0.480, (0.730, (0.230, (0.595, (0.345, (0.845, (0.060, (0.845, (0.345, (0.730,
7 0.505) 0.355) 0.770) 0.505) 0.220) 0.770) 0.355) 0.655) 0.105) 0.835) 0.105) 0.655) 0.220)
S (0.230, (0.730, (0.480, (0.345, (0.595, (0.845, (0.730, (0.845, (0.595, (0.480, (0.345, (0.230, (0.060,
8 0.770) 0.220) 0.505) 0.655) 0.355) 0.105) 0.220) 0.105) 0.355) 0.505) 0.655) 0.770) 0.835)
S (0.345, (0.230, (0.730, (0.595, (0.730, (0.060, (0.480, (0.595, (0.345, (0.845, (0.480, (0.230, (0.845,
9 0.655) 0.770) 0.220) 0.355) 0.220) 0.835) 0.505) 0.355) 0.655) 0.105) 0.505) 0.770) 0.105)
S (0.595, (0.480, (0.845, (0.730, (0.595, (0.845, (0.345, (0.480, (0.230, (0.060, (0.730, (0.345, (0.230,
48
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 0.355) 0.505) 0.105) 0.220) 0.355) 0.105) 0.655) 0.505) 0.770) 0.835) 0.220) 0.655) 0.770)
T
IP
CR
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
US C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
AN
S (0.790, (0.435, (0.685, (0.935, (0.790, (0.540, (0.685, (0.290, (0.935, (0.540, (0.180, (0.290, (0.435,
1 0.160) 0.565) 0.265) 0.015) 0.160) 0.415) 0.265) 0.710) 0.015) 0.415) 0.805) 0.710) 0.565)
S (0.180, (0.290, (0.435, (0.790, (0.935, (0.540, (0.790, (0.935, (0.685, (0.435, (0.685, (0.540, (0.290,
M
2 0.805) 0.710) 0.565) 0.160) 0.015) 0.415) 0.160) 0.015) 0.265) 0.565) 0.265) 0.415) 0.710)
S (0.435, (0.935, (0.290, (0.540, (0.290, (0.790, (0.540, (0.685, (0.180, (0.790, (0.435, (0.685, (0.935,
ED
3 0.565) 0.015) 0.710) 0.415) 0.710) 0.160) 0.415) 0.265) 0.805) 0.160) 0.565) 0.265) 0.015)
S (0.290, (0.540, (0.290, (0.790, (0.685, (0.540, (0.435, (0.790, (0.685, (0.935, (0.435, (0.935, (0.180,
PT
4 0.710) 0.415) 0.710) 0.160) 0.265) 0.415) 0.565) 0.160) 0.265) 0.015) 0.565) 0.015) 0.805)
S (0.180, (0.790, (0.435, (0.685, (0.290, (0.935, (0.685, (0.935, (0.790, (0.540, (0.435, (0.290, (0.540,
CE
5 0.805) 0.160) 0.565) 0.265) 0.710) 0.015) 0.265) 0.015) 0.160) 0.415) 0.565) 0.710) 0.415)
S (0.790, (0.290, (0.935, (0.935, (0.685, (0.540, (0.435, (0.790, (0.685, (0.435, (0.540, (0.290, (0.180,
AC
6 0.160) 0.710) 0.015) 0.015) 0.265) 0.415) 0.565) 0.160) 0.265) 0.565) 0.415) 0.710) 0.805)
S (0.290, (0.540, (0.790, (0.435, (0.290, (0.540, (0.935, (0.685, (0.180, (0.685, (0.935, (0.435, (0.790,
7 0.710) 0.415) 0.160) 0.565) 0.710) 0.415) 0.015) 0.265) 0.805) 0.265) 0.015) 0.565) 0.160)
S (0.180, (0.290, (0.540, (0.685, (0.435, (0.685, (0.435, (0.790, (0.935, (0.540, (0.790, (0.935, (0.290,
8 0.805) 0.710) 0.415) 0.265) 0.565) 0.265) 0.565) 0.160) 0.015) 0.415) 0.160) 0.015) 0.710)
S (0.935, (0.685, (0.790, (0.435, (0.935, (0.685, (0.790, (0.290, (0.540, (0.290, (0.435, (0.180, (0.540,
49
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9 0.015) 0.265) 0.160) 0.565) 0.015) 0.265) 0.160) 0.710) 0.415) 0.710) 0.565) 0.805) 0.415)
S
(0.935, (0.180, (0.290, (0.685, (0.435, (0.935, (0.540, (0.685, (0.290, (0.790, (0.540, (0.435, (0.790,
1
0.015) 0.805) 0.710) 0.265) 0.565) 0.015) 0.415) 0.265) 0.710) 0.160) 0.415) 0.565) 0.160)
0
T
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
IP
(0.782, (0.784, (0.657, (0.619, (0.801, (0.541, (0.763, (0.584, (0.627, (0.611, (0.390, (0.137, (0.276,
S
CR
0.169,0 0.156,0 0.312,0 0.331,0 0.145,0 0.421,0 0.183,0 0.401,0 0.320,0 0.350,0 0.625,0 0.813,0 0.729,0
1
.600) .600) .686) .713) .581) .728) .619) .706) .710) .710) .676) .566) .626)
(0.489, (0.301, (0.619, (0.704, (0.500, (0.723, (0.649, (0.751, (0.559, (0.793, (0.613, (0.591, (0.685,
S
2
0.519,0
.701)
0.699,0
.649)
0.345,0
.705)
0.268,0
.658)
0.483,0
.719)
0.212,0
.658)
US
0.320,0
.691)
0.194,0
.631)
0.402,0
.725)
0.154,0
.589)
0.363,0
.702)
0.369,0
.717)
0.286,0
.671)
AN
(0.546, (0.595, (0.687, (0.591, (0.674, (0.683, (0.555, (0.518, (0.745, (0.473, (0.662, (0.595, (0.675,
S
0.432,0 0.358,0 0.271,0 0.362,0 0.290,0 0.282,0 0.419,0 0.482,0 0.215,0 0.526,0 0.301,0 0.388,0 0.275,0
3
.718) .719) .675) .721) .679) .674) .719) .707) .632) .707) .686) .704) .684)
M
(0.644, (0.719, (0.738, (0.717, (0.700, (0.713, (0.732, (0.548, (0.657, (0.616, (0.442, (0.471, (0.222,
S
ED
0.313,0 0.230,0 0.212,0 0.246,0 0.244,0 0.248,0 0.221,0 0.425,0 0.302,0 0.348,0 0.561,0 0.517,0 0.773,0
4
.698) .656) .641) .652) .671) .656) .644) .720) .691) .706) .700) .715) .594)
(0.617, (0.771, (0.377, (0.700, (0.736, (0.705, (0.456, (0.660, (0.636, (0.528, (0.465, (0.511, (0.422,
PT
S
0.370,0 0.183,0 0.622,0 0.244,0 0.218,0 0.237,0 0.539,0 0.277,0 0.343,0 0.446,0 0.521,0 0.487,0 0.585,0
5
.695) .610) .686) .671) .641) .669) .708) .698) .691) .723) .716) .708) .693)
CE
(0.363, (0.413, (0.500, (0.595, (0.599, (0.763, (0.737, (0.802, (0.479, (0.560, (0.488, (0.710, (0.697,
S
0.658,0 0.585,0 0.483,0 0.358,0 0.372,0 0.175,0 0.215,0 0.138,0 0.508,0 0.411,0 0.516,0 0.243,0 0.271,0
AC
6
.660) .698) .719) .719) .709) .623) .641) .581) .716) .719) .704) .661) .664)
(0.674, (0.507, (0.650, (0.625, (0.564, (0.500, (0.563, (0.495, (0.801, (0.510, (0.766, (0.595, (0.773,
S
0.290,0 0.467,0 0.316,0 0.341,0 0.424,0 0.484,0 0.402,0 0.495,0 0.149,0 0.475,0 0.174,0 0.382,0 0.180,0
7
.679) .725) .691) .702) .709) .718) .722) .714) .580) .717) .618) .707) .608)
(0.325, (0.705, (0.521, (0.680, (0.420, (0.814, (0.784, (0.713, (0.660, (0.650, (0.405, (0.547, (0.477,
S
0.681,0 0.250,0 0.456,0 0.284,0 0.578,0 0.133,0 0.156,0 0.242,0 0.277,0 0.307,0 0.609,0 0.422,0 0.532,0
8
.656) .664) .722) .676) .700) .566) .600) .658) .698) .696) .682) .723) .700)
50
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(0.601, (0.803, (0.630, (0.465, (0.825, (0.602, (0.649, (0.435, (0.429, (0.796, (0.542, (0.245, (0.689,
S
0.354,0 0.142,0 0.340,0 0.521,0 0.109,0 0.371,0 0.320,0 0.554,0 0.561,0 0.156,0 0.447,0 0.755,0 0.268,0
9
.716) .579) .698) .716) .555) .707) .691) .710) .708) .585) .711) .608) .673)
S (0.688, (0.480, (0.590, (0.761, (0.441, (0.790, (0.429, (0.773, (0.607, (0.465, (0.676, (0.525, (0.709,
1 0.251,0 0.512,0 0.408,0 0.176,0 0.553,0 0.148,0 0.561,0 0.178,0 0.367,0 0.545,0 0.286,0 0.448,0 0.262,0
0 .681) .712) .697) .625) .706) .595) .708) .609) .704) .698) .679) .723) .654)
T
IP
CR
US
(Experiment 1)
AN
C1 C1 C1 C1
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
0 1 2 3
M
0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7
4 6 7 1 8 2 9 0 3 5 9 5 6
ED
3 0 2 4 8 6 9 3 4 7 0 8 5
0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
PT
5 4 2 8 1 7 0 9 6 4 1 4 3
7 0 8 6 2 4 1 7 6 3 0 2 5
CE
0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 0 5 7 8 1 8 8 6 6 4 5 9
6 0 3 8 9 5 4 2 9 0 6 9 8
AC
value
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
S1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07
51
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0 3 7 8 5 9 3 0 9 8 7 8 3
S2 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
1 5 0 9 6 7 9 0 6 0 2 1 5
S3 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01
4 3 5 1 4 6 1 1 7 0 8 1 5
S4 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.08
5 4 0 7 9 0 8 0 6 7 3 2 0
S5 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05
8 6 9 8 5 1 3 1 9 5 2 9 3
S6 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01
T
3 0 0 1 4 0 7 0 5 2 1 0 3
IP
S7 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00
2 6 8 8 9 7 0 2 0 7 0 1 0
CR
S8 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04
5 7 8 1 6 0 0 0 6 4 6 5 6
S9 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01
US
9 0 9 6 0 0 9 1 9 0 7 1 4
S1 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01
0 0 1 3 0 4 5 6 0 2 1 7 7 1
AN
M
value
ED
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13

S1 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 3 2 9 2 9 3 8 2 5 0 0 8
S2 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.06
PT
6 0 0 7 1 1 8 0 4 1 6 9 6
S3 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.06
CE
2 6 5 6 4 2 6 9 3 1 9 8 7
S4 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00
2 3 9 9 9 7 9 4 4 5 4 8 0
AC
S5 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02
8 0 0 9 3 7 3 9 1 7 6 1 9
S6 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.06
3 7 0 6 4 8 9 7 5 0 7 8 8
S7 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.08
5 2 2 9 9 0 8 7 9 5 7 8 0
S8 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03
0 1 2 5 0 7 6 5 5 8 1 5 6
S9 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.06
8 5 0 0 6 8 8 0 0 1 1 8 8
52
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
S1 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.07
0 7 7 6 6 3 3 0 3 8 0 0 3 0
C1 C1 C1 C1
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
0 1 2 3
0.27 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.23
T
0 3 7 2 9 5 9 5 5 8 0 3 7
IP
0.32 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.32 0.34 0.35
CR
5 9 8 3 3 3 0 0 3 5 5 9 8
US
AN
M

ED
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13

S1 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03
6 3 0 0 9 6 7 4 1 5 9 0 5
S2 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.07
PT
1 5 6 1 9 3 4 4 6 9 8 1 2
S3 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07
CE
4 5 4 7 4 4 4 3 6 7 2 0 1
S4 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03
3 4 3 4 8 0 8 5 4 5 0 1 3
AC
S5 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04
9 7 3 2 3 9 7 3 1 9 1 3 2
S6 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.07
5 0 8 7 6 4 0 7 1 1 2 9 4
S7 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.09
6 7 9 0 3 2 5 2 9 8 6 1 8
S8 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.04
4 1 9 7 5 5 4 0 5 8 9 7 6
S9 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.07
9 0 7 6 9 2 4 3 9 9 4 2 3
53
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
S1 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.07
0 8 5 3 8 6 4 6 4 9 6 3 5 7

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13
S1 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.08
4 6 6 9 6 7 7 4 9 7 6 9 3
S2 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
T
2 0 8 2 8 1 7 8 6 6 5 3 7
IP
S3 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.03
6 7 5 2 6 8 7 5 2 7 2 3 7
CR
S4 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.09
0 9 3 0 3 4 0 8 8 7 8 8 8
S5 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.05
S6
2
0.05
9
7
0.07
1
3
0.03
6
1
0.05
1
1
0.05
3
4
US
0.05
7
8
0.03
9
4
0.03
4
0
0.05
9
6
0.04
3
4
0.03
3
6
0.02
0
0.03
7
6
AN
S7 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03
9 6 7 9 8 5 6 8 9 9 9 3 3
S8 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.05
6 0 4 3 9 2 6 1 6 4 3 4 2
M
S9 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03
2 5 8 8 5 3 7 2 9 6 9 5 6
ED
S1 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.03
0 8 1 1 6 2 4 4 6 2 0 2 5 6
PT

CE
C1 C1 C1 C1
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
0 1 2 3
AC
0.27 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.23
0 3 7 2 9 5 9 5 5 8 0 3 7
0.32 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.32 0.34 0.35
5 9 8 3 3 3 0 0 3 5 5 9 8
54
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Numerical terms TFNs
60-65 (0.750,0.875,1.000)
66-70 (0.625,0.750,0.875)
71-75 (0.500,0.625,0.750)
76-80 (0.375,0.500,0.625)
81-85 (0.250,0.375,0.500)
T
IP
86-90 (0.125,0.250,0.375)
91-100 (0.000,0.125,0.250)
CR
US
AN

M
Linguistic terms TFNs
Very good (VG) (0.750,0.875,1.000)

ED
Good (G) (0.625,0.750,0.875)
Medium good (MG) (0.500,0.625,0.750)

PT
Medium (M) (0.375,0.500,0.625)

CE
Medium poor (MP) (0.250,0.375,0.500)
Poor (P) (0.125,0.250,0.375)

AC
Very poor (VP) (0.000,0.125,0.250)
(Experiment 2)
55
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
C1 C1 C1 C1
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
0 1 2 3
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
8 8 9 9 8 9 9 8 9 9 8 6 7
3 3 1 6 5 4 1 9 4 2 4 9 7
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 2
T
7 7 9 4 5 6 9 1 6 8 6 1 3
IP
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
9 9 5 2 8 3 5 6 3 4 9 8 3
CR
8 6 2 3 6 5 3 5 7 8 0 2 3
US
AN
Experiment 1 Experiment 2
{(1,0,0), (1,0,0), (1,0,0), (1,0,0), (1,0,0), (1,0,0), (1,0,0),

PIS {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}
M
(1,0,0), (1,0,0), (1,0,0), (1,0,0), (1,0,0), (1,0,0)}
{(0,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,1,0),

ED
NIS {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}
(0,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,1,0)}
PT
{(0.644,0.313,0.698), (0.719,0.230,0.656), (0.738,0.212,0.641),
Fuzzy (0.717,0.246,0.652), (0.700,0.244,0.671), (0.713,0.248,0.656),

{0.283,0.420,0.370,0.520,0.583,
CE
number
(0.732,0.221,0.644), (0.548,0.425,0.720), (0.657,0.302,0.691) 0.733,0.756,0.795,0.458,0.545,
of
0.382,0.718,0.558}
supplier (0.616,0.348,0.706), (0.442,0.561,0.700), (0.471,0.517,0.715),
AC
(0.222,0.773,0.594)}
11.321 1.728
14.589 2.055
Distance 0.563 0.543
56
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sce 1 Sce 2 Sce 3 Sce 4 Sce 5 Sce 6 Sce 7 Sce 8 Sce 9 Sce 10 Sce 11
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
57
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
List of figures
T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
58
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT

CE
AC
59
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
6
Rank
T
4
IP
3
CR
1
0
S1 S2 S3 S4
US S5 S6
Supplier
S7 S8 S9 S10
AN
Experiment 1 Experiment 2

M
ED
PT
CE
AC
60
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sce 1
10
Sce 11 9 Sce 2
8
7
6
5
Sce 10 Sce 3
4
3
2
1
T
0
Sce 9 Sce 4
IP
CR
Sce 8 Sce 5
Sce 7 US Sce 6
AN
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

M
ED
PT
CE
AC
61

Yu Et Al. - 2019 - A Group Decision Making Sustain

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yu Et Al. - 2019 - A Group Decision Making Sustain

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript

A Group Decision Making Sustainable Supplier Selection Approach

Chunxia Yu , Yifan Shao , Kai Wang , Luping Zhang

To appear in: Expert Systems With Applications

Received date: 27 August 2018

 A group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach using extended

TOPSIS based on IVPFSs is proposed.

 The IVPFSs are used to capture decision maker’s uncertainty information.

 An extended TOPSIS method integrating distance and similarity based on IVPFSs is

A Group Decision Making Sustainable Supplier Selection Approach

using Extended TOPSIS under Interval-Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy

Chunxia Yu1, Yifan Shao1, Kai Wang2*, Luping Zhang3,

Department of Management Science and Engineering, Economics and Management School,

A Group Decision Making Sustainable Supplier Selection Approach

using Extended TOPSIS under Interval-Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy

Techniques for Order Preferences by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) under

of decision makers. Moreover, sustainable supplier selection often involves multiple

contribution of this research is to propose an extended TOPSIS method by integrating

distance and similarity between alternatives concurrently to evaluate performances of

feasibility and efficiency of the proposed sustainable supplier selection approach.

decision makers to select optimal sustainable suppliers. Therefore, the proposed

approach can be applied by managers to evaluate and determine appropriate suppliers

company’s economic, environmental and social objectives in coordination of critical

business processes to improve the company’s long-term economic performance (Carter

2017). How to select suitable sustainable suppliers is critical for an organization’s

success, so sustainable supplier selection has become an important decision making

activity in supply chain management (Song, Xu, & Liu, 2017).

The sustainable supplier selection problem can be defined as the classical

supplier selection problem which considers economic, environmental and social

criteria to select and monitor suppliers’ performances (Gören, 2018). Recently,

considering sustainability in supplier selection process has attracted much attention

makers usually express their subjective preferences on alternatives in advance.

the decision-making process. Consequently, the IVPFS is applicable to capture

uncertain information in sustainable supplier selection process (Rahman, Abdullah,

Ali, & Amin, 2018).

In practice, sustainable supplier selection often involves decision makers from

different groups, such as procurement department, production department, quality

common interest in selecting best suppliers. Therefore, sustainable supplier selection

process should be regarded as a complex group multiple criteria decision making

problem considering a number of alternative suppliers and sustainable evaluation

sustainable supplier evaluation methods just considered distance or similarity between

TOPSIS integrated method to consider the distance and similarity between

Section 3 proposed the novel sustainable supplier selection approach under

interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Experiments are conducted in

Section 4 to demonstrate the application and efficiency of the proposed sustainable

2.1 Sustainable supplier evaluation criteria

One of the main challenges in supplier selection process is to formulate right

aspects known as economic, environmental and social. Economic aspect intends to

Researchers proposed different evaluation criteria for sustainable supplier

Table 1 Sustainable evaluation criteria and illustrations

Table 1 is about here.

2.2 Sustainable supplier selection considering uncertain information

Since the judgments of decision makers on evaluation criteria are subjective,

vague and imprecise, uncertainty is an important challenging problem in sustainable

was incorporated to deal with the uncertain information in sustainable supplier

preferences on criteria and the alternatives. However, membership degrees of fuzzy

(1986) is an extension of ordinary fuzzy sets, which incorporates hesitation degree

along with membership and non-membership degrees. In many situations, determining

an extension of IFS. Elements belonging to an IVIFS are represented by an

interval-valued membership degree.

Recently, Pythagorean fuzzy set (PFS) proposed by Yager (2014) is a new

information (Garg, 2016). IVPFS permits the degrees of membership and

application potentials because of their great ability to address strong fuzziness,

researchers have proposed group decision making approaches for conventional