INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS
Alternative Mathematical
Approaches to Shade Sorting
J. R. Aspland,1 K. D. Balasaygun,2
J. P. Jarvis,3* T. H. Whitaker3
1
School of Textiles, Fiber and Polymer Science, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
2
AT&T Laboratories, 200 Laurel Ave., Middletown, NJ 07748
3
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Received 6 November 1998; accepted 8 November 1999
Abstract: Shade sorting is the process of assigning samples
of the same nominal color into groups having no significant
color variation. Use of modern spectrophotometers and
color measurement technology make it possible to obtain
precise color differences between samples. When these
color differences are viewed as distances between points,
the shade sorting problem is seen to be equivalent to the
clustering problem in the mathematical literature. Several
mathematical techniques for clustering— complete linkage
clustering, vertex labeling, and set covering—are explained
and compared for their efficiency when applied to shade
sorting. A particular implementation of complete linkage
clustering called Clemson Color Clustering (CCC) is found
to perform well as compared to the other reviewed
methods. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Col Res Appl, 25, 368 –375,
2000
Key words: shade sorting; clustering; color measurement;
Clemson Color Clustering; CCC
INTRODUCTION
A common quality problem in cut and sew operations is
variation in color from one roll of fabric to another. If
* Correspondence to: Prof. James P. Jarvis, Department of Mathematical
Sciences, Martin Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634 (e-mail:
jpjrv@clemson.edu)
© 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
368
garment parts are cut from different rolls and sewn together
without considering this variation, the end product may be
unsatisfactory.
One method used to avoid this problem is a process
known as shade sorting. This operation is often performed
by trained color sorters, who visually group the rolls of
fabric to assure that those rolls cut together are similar
enough in shade to be sewn into adjacent panels of a single
garment.1 However, advances in technology have produced
color measurement instruments with sufficient accuracy and
reliability to be used to measure color for numerical shade
sorting. Numerical shade sorting refers to quantitative, ob-
jective methods for grouping rolls of fabric of similar color.
It avoids the subjective aspects of visual shade sorting.
Several different mathematical techniques can be used for
numerical shade sorting. These techniques fall under the
general category of clustering. Three common approaches
to the clustering problem— complete linkage clustering,
vertex labeling, and set covering—are explained below.
These methods are then compared for their usefulness in
numerical shade sorting for the apparel industry.
NUMERICAL SHADE SORTING METHODS
In the apparel business, the goal of numerical shade sorting
is to divide a set of samples into a minimum number of
groups (cutting lots) such that the color range of each group
is no larger than a specified maximum color difference, the
cut tolerance.2 This tolerance is the maximum permissible
COLOR research and application
color difference between adjacent panels in a garment. The
same principles also apply to any industry producing a
multiplicity of colored products that might end up adjacent
to one another—for example, rolls of wallpaper.
Measuring Color Differences
Any color space and color difference equation can be
used to calculate the color difference between colored sam-
ples (data points). The mathematical procedures described
below require only that the color difference between pairs of
points be known. The procedures operate independently of
how the difference is calculated. Of course, to ensure sat-
isfactory results, the color difference equations used should
give color differences that correspond well with human
visual perception.
One method for calculating color difference that has
performed well in the past is the CMC(ᐉ:c) color difference
equation. 3 To correct for the nonuniformity of color space,
CMC determines a set of scaling factors for lightness,
chroma, and hue from a given standard color so that an
equal distance in any direction for that standard is equally
acceptable for color. These scaling factors determine an
elliptical region around the standard, whose surface consists
of points in color space that are equally acceptable as the
standard. The points contained in this ellipsoid of color
space correspond to goods that are close in color to the
standard.
Again, using the apparel cutting and sewing industry as
an example, a single cut tolerance is generally not accept-
able for all applications of color sorting due to differences in
the material, customer acceptance levels, visual perception,
etc. Setting tolerances is often achieved by trial and error.
Record keeping can be used to set provisional tolerances, or
the CMC(ᐉ:c) color difference formula can be used to set
starting values. Once the shade sorting system is put to use
in a practical application, tolerances can be adjusted as
needed.4
The shade sorting results presented in the following ma-
terial employ CIELCH 1976 colorimetric values5 and use
the CMC (2:1) color difference formula in the calculation of
the color differences. For simplicity of exposition in the
remainder of this article, lightness, chroma, and hue are
scaled by their associated color-scaling factors so that color
ellipsoids can be pictured as spheres.
Numerical Shade Sorting
Until 1985, numerical shade sorting was most often based
on a fixed-grid method for subdividing a volume of color
space into smaller volumes. This was called the 555 meth-
od.1 In fixed-grid methods, the smaller volumes that contain
data points represent shade groups and are fixed shapes that
partition the acceptable volume of color space. Such a
division of color space depends on the coordinates of the
standard, but does not take the positions of sample data into
account.6,7
Numerical shade sorting can also be formulated as a
Volume 25, Number 5, October 2000
mathematical problem known as the clustering problem.8
The formal statement of the clustering problem is: Given a
finite set of points X, an integer distance function defined on
pairs of points from X, a positive integer k, and a positive
integer D, is there a partition of X into k sets, each of which
has diameter of at most D. (The diameter of a set is defined
to be the maximum distance between two elements of that
set.)
Intuitively, clustering attempts to group objects so that
items in the same group tend to be similar to each other.
Specifically, the objective is to partition a given set of n
entities into homogeneous and well-separated subsets called
clusters.
The clustering problem is contained in a class of prob-
lems that are called NP-complete.8 No known efficient
solution procedures exist for such problems. Generally,
heuristic algorithms must be employed to obtain good,
although not necessarily optimal, solutions, since all known
methods for solving such problems require exponentially
increasing time as problem size increases.
The numerical shade sorting methods discussed here at-
tempt to solve the clustering problem. All are equivalent and
each comes from a different mathematical discipline. Com-
plete linkage clustering is a statistical method; vertex label-
ing is an approach from graph theory; and set covering is an
operations research technique. Each of these methods is a
general heuristic that is adapted here to the shade sorting
problem.
Clemson Color Clustering
In 1985, Aspland et al.6 introduced a clustering procedure
called Clemson Color Clustering (CCC), which uses a tech-
nique known as hierarchical complete linkage clustering.9
In this method and those discussed below, distance and
color difference are used interchangeably. Complete linkage
refers to the property that the distance between two clusters
is defined to be the maximum color difference between any
two rolls, one from each cluster. The diameter of a cluster is
defined to be the maximum color difference over all pairs of
rolls in that cluster.
To cluster a given set O ⫽ {O1, O2, . . . , On} of n objects
using this technique, O is initially partitioned into n single-
roll clusters, denoted Pn. Each iteration involves merging
two clusters that produce a new cluster of minimum diam-
eter. This process continues until all rolls have been merged
into a single cluster or until no more clusters can be com-
bined without exceeding the cut tolerance. In this way, a
hierarchy {Pn, Pn⫺1, . . . , Pk} of partitions of O into n, n ⫺
1, . . . , k clusters is produced such that for each pair of
partitions Pi⫹1 and Pi, each cluster of Pi⫹1 is a cluster of Pi,
except that a pair of clusters of Pi⫹1 is merged to a new
single cluster of Pi. When two clusters are merged, they are
permanently joined.
Figure 1 illustrates how this method successively groups
the closest clusters to obtain larger clusters. Four clusters
are successively combined to ultimately produce a single
369
 In stage 1, a graph is constructed. The graph consists of
vertices that represent samples to be shade sorted, with an
edge between each pair of vertices whose distance in color
space exceeds the specified color tolerance. Each vertex is
assigned a label such that no two adjacent vertices receive
the same label. This labeling partitions the points into a
minimal number of groups, each with diameter less than the
cut tolerance.
In stage 2, new edges are added to the graph in order of
decreasing color difference, starting at the cut tolerance.
After the addition of each edge, an attempt is made to

FIG. 1. Example of groupings produced by complete link-

age method for 100 samples of a green knit fabric. Top
number indicates number of sample points and bottom
number indicates maximum color difference within each
cluster.

cluster. The final clusters produced by the complete linkage

algorithm determine the shade sorting groups.
The major criticism of complete linkage cluster analysis
is that clusters tend to recede upon growth. As the size of a
cluster increases, the effective color difference between that
cluster and any entity not contained in that cluster also
increases. Hence, the probability of a cluster obtaining a
new member becomes smaller as the size of the cluster
increases.10 This property is an asset in terms of shade
sorting, because it tends to produce groups uniform in size
as opposed to a few large clusters and many small clusters.

Vertex Labeling Approach

A graph consists of a vertex set (points or objects) and an
edge set (pairs of objects). Each edge is thought of as
joining a pair of vertices. Two vertices are called adjacent if
and only if they are joined by an edge.8 Vertex labeling
attempts to label each vertex of a graph with a minimum
number of labels so that no two adjacent vertices have the
same label.
Vertex labeling, with an appropriately defined graph, is
equivalent to the clustering problem defined previously. The
rolls to be sorted are represented by the vertices of the
graph. An edge is placed between vertices for which the
color difference is greater than the cut tolerance. Labels are
assigned to all vertices such that all adjacent vertices have
different labels. In this way, labeling the vertices of the
graph serves to partition the rolls of fabric into shade
groups, each with diameter less than or equal to the cut FIG. 2. Vertex labeling algorithm applied to a set O of four
tolerance. Vertices with a common label correspond to a entities. (a) Color difference between each pair of entities. (b)
single shade group. In stage 1: the partial graph G2.5 is labeled with three labels.
Hansen and Delattre11 have shown that this problem is (c) In stage 2: add the next largest edge to G2.5 and relabel.
(d) Create G2.0. (e) Add the next largest edge to produce
reducible to the problem of optimally labeling a sequence of graph G1.0 that cannot be labeled using only three labels.
graphs. The 2-step procedure that follows is a modified G2.0 yields a minimal diameter partition of the set O into
version of their algorithm. three groups.

370 COLOR research and application

relabel the new graph using the same number of labels.
Vertices must be relabeled, if an edge joins two vertices in
the same group. If the graph can be relabeled, the maximum
diameter of the resulting groups is reduced. This process
continues until the graph cannot be labeled without increas-
ing the number of labels. This stage tends to produce groups
uniform in size as opposed to one large group and several
small groups.
The vertex labeling algorithm is illustrated in Fig. 2. A set
O of 4 entities is to be clustered, allowing a maximum
diameter (cut tolerance) of 2.5 within a group. The distance
matrix D shows the color difference between each pair of
entities [Fig. 2(a)]. In stage 1, the associated graph G2.5 is
formed. Applying the vertex labeling algorithm to the graph
produces the labels indicated [Fig. 2(b)]. Three labels are
required, yielding a maximum diameter of 2.0. Hence, the
entities are sorted into three groups. The second stage of the
algorithm performs the diameter reduction. First, edge (c, a)
with a weight of 2.0 is added to the graph, producing the
graph G2.0 [Fig. 2(c)]. Since vertices c and a both have label
2, relabeling is necessary. Vertex c cannot be relabeled,
because it is already adjacent to vertices of all three labels.
Vertex a, however, is adjacent to only two of the three
labels and is reassigned the label 3 [Fig. 2(d)]. The new
partition has a maximum diameter of 1.0. Adding the next
largest edge (d, a) to the graph G2.0 produces the graph G1.0,
which cannot be labeled with only three labels [Fig. 2(e)].
Therefore, the final labeling of the graph G2.0 yields a
minimal diameter partition of the 4 entities into 3 groups.

Set Covering Approach

The shade sorting problem can also be modeled as a set
covering problem.12 For shade sorting, the goal is to posi-
tion a minimum number of spheres in color space such that
these spheres collectively contain (cover) all sample points.
Each sphere is centered at a sample point. Hence, this
method determines a minimal number of sample points to
serve as centers of spheres, so that each sample point is
contained in at least one sphere. In set covering terms, the
rolls of fabric correspond to the entities to be covered. The
radius of each covering sphere is half the cut tolerance, so
that the maximum color difference between any two points
covered by a sphere does not exceed the cut tolerance. The
sample points contained in a sphere define a shade group.
First, the color difference of each pair of sample points is
calculated and the coverage matrix A ⫽ (aij) is formed. The
rows of A correspond to possible centers of spheres, and the
columns correspond to sample points to be covered by the
spheres. Initially, each sample point is considered a poten-
tial center for a covering sphere. A sample point is covered
by a potential center, if the color difference between this
point and the point corresponding to the potential center
does not exceed half the cut tolerance. Hence, the (i, j) entry
in the coverage matrix is a 1, if point j is covered by
potential cover i. Otherwise, entry (i, j) is a 0. This problem
can be solved using general integer linear programming, but
FIG. 3. Set covering algorithm applied to four sample
points. (a) The coverage matrix for the given data points. (b)
Reduction 1 applied to the coverage matrix. (c) Reduction 2
applied to the coverage matrix. (d) Solution: centers at
points w and z.
this method is computationally expensive.13 An effective
heuristic procedure is given below.
The algorithm that follows uses a series of logical reduc-
tions12 to produce successively smaller problems (reducing
the size of A) until a final solution is obtained. Each reduc-
tion is performed until it is no longer possible to use that
reduction. The entire set of reductions is repeated until none
can be applied.
Reductions:
1. If there is a sample point covered by only one potential
center, then a sphere must be centered at this point. This
row is eliminated, and each column corresponding to a
point covered by this sphere is eliminated.
2. If sample i is covered whenever sample j is covered,
then point i can be ignored. Eliminate column i.
3. If a potential center j covers at least the same points as
a potential center i, then potential center j is preferred.
Eliminate row i.

Volume 25, Number 5, October 2000 371

FIG. 4. Number of shade groups produced by complete
linkage clustering (CCC), vertex labeling, and set covering
when applied to 100 rolls of a green knit fabric.
If the matrix is completely reduced (to a 0 ⫻ 0 matrix) by
these steps, the solution obtained is optimal. Otherwise,
another procedure must be used so that the reductions can
be applied again. One reasonable procedure is to choose the
center that covers the largest number of remaining sample
points and designate it as a cover, then eliminate the corre-
sponding row and all columns corresponding to points cov-
ered by this sphere. This heuristic allows the matrix to be
fully reduced, although the solution so obtained is not
necessarily optimal. The set covering algorithm is illus-
trated in Fig. 3.
The exact number and position of the covering spheres
depend on the particular sample data. Although the diameter
of each covering sphere is fixed and equal to the cut toler-
ance, the actual diameter of the shade group produced by a
covering sphere may be considerably less than the cut
tolerance. For instance, in the previous example, the diam-
eter of the group containing only point a is zero.
EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON OF ALGORITHMS
Datasets from actual textile inventories are used to compare
shade sorting by complete linkage clustering, vertex label-
ing, and set covering. Using the color inventories, the shade
groups produced by each of the three methods are compared
for their number, anomalies, and uniformity in size and
color range. The methods themselves are compared for
computational complexity of the algorithms, execution
time, and ability to combine production lots for color in-
ventory management.
Number of Groups
One basis for experimentally comparing the different
shade sorting methods is the number of groups produced for
a given color tolerance. The three approaches— complete
linkage clustering, vertex labeling, and set covering— have
been used to analyze three color inventories. Results are
given in Figs. 4 – 6. These figures show the number of
372
FIG. 5. Number of shade groups produced by complete
linkage clustering (CCC), vertex labeling, and set covering
when applied to 149 rolls of a beige fabric.
groups produced by each of the three methods over a range
of color tolerances.
Some general patterns are evident from these inventories.
With few exceptions, the vertex labeling approach produces
the smallest number of groups for a given color tolerance,
while set covering performs consistently worse than com-
plete linkage clustering and vertex labeling. Hence, in terms
of number of groups, vertex labeling appears to be some-
what superior for shade sorting.
Uniformity in Size and Color Range
A goal of shade sorting is to produce groups that are
uniform in size and color consistency in order to utilize all
goods and minimize waste in a cutting spread. To be used
for processing a cut, a shade group must be large enough to
meet the yardage requirement of the desired cut. Hence, the
relative size of the groups produced by a shade sorting
method is important. In addition, it is desirable to sort the
samples into groups of minimum diameter. These two char-
acteristics tend to work together. As the size of a shade
group increases, its diameter also tends to increase. Ideally,
FIG. 6. Number of shade groups produced by complete
linkage clustering (CCC), vertex labeling, and set covering
when applied to 88 rolls of a gray fabric.
COLOR research and application
TABLE I. Complete linkage clustering (CCC), vertex labeling, and set covering applied to 149 rolls of a beige
fabric using a cut tolerance of 0.700. Diameter and number of samples are given for each group.
CCC Vertex labeling Set covering
Diameter Size Diameter Size Diameter Size

0.564 35 0.677 43 0.670 43

0.537 26 0.673 30 0.677 41
0.497 16 0.677 23 0.646 40
0.456 16 0.685 11 0.636 37
0.660 15 0.673 8 0.653 36
0.480 9 0.649 8 0.620 15
0.569 7 0.676 7 0.630 12
0.481 7 0.591 7 0.638 11
0.353 7 0.679 6 0.558 7
0.555 4 0.212 6 0.591 7
0.465 4 0.278 6
0.557 2 0.533 5
0.000 1 0.296 2
0.000 1
0.000 1

if n points were partitioned into m groups, each group would Note that some additional processing of shade groups
contain n/m points. might be advantageous after the initial clustering is per-
A comparison of the three shade sorting methods— com- formed. For example, consider the groups indicated in Fig.
plete linkage clustering, vertex labeling, and set cover- 7. Suppose that eight rolls of fabric are needed to process a
ing—is shown in Table I. A cut tolerance of 0.70 was used cut. Group A does not contain enough rolls, while Group B
to shade sort an inventory consisting of 149 rolls of a beige contains more than eight. By examining the data, we see
fabric. This table indicates the diameter and size (number of that the cut can be processed by taking the rolls from Group
rolls) of each group produced. These results are typical of A along with three rolls from Group B. As this example
those obtained with other fabrics and cut tolerances. In illustrates, relatively small groups are not necessarily a
Table I, only a slight difference can be seen in the number problem. Although it is easier to use groups containing a
of groups produced by the methods. Set covering produced large number of rolls, small groups can be used efficiently,
two singleton groups, as opposed to only one singleton if the data are examined after shade sorting is completed.
group in complete linkage clustering and none in vertex
labeling. All three methods tend to distribute the samples
Complexity of the Algorithms
well resulting in good colorimetric uniformity within the
shade sorting groups. Each of the three shade sorting algorithms— complete
In general, the hierarchical complete linkage algorithm linkage clustering, vertex labeling, and set covering—re-
used in Clemson Color Clustering may group very similar quires space in the order of n2 to store the color difference
entities in the same cluster only at a late stage in the data for a problem of size n (n rolls). The worst case
algorithm. Occasionally, this can lead to inhomogeneity in theoretical complexity of sorting n entities is of the order n3
some clusters. for complete linkage clustering and of the order of n4 for
The vertex labeling method also tends to produce groups both vertex labeling and set covering.7
that are relatively uniform in size and color range. In large
part, this is a result of stage 2 of the vertex labeling algo-
rithm, which attempts to reduce the maximum diameter of
the groups. By distributing the points more evenly through-
out the groups, the maximum color variation within a shade
group is reduced without increasing the number of groups.
Unlike complete linkage clustering and vertex labeling,
the sole objective of the set covering method is the mini-
mization of the number of groups produced. The set cover-
ing approach ensures that the diameters of the covers do not
exceed the cut tolerance, but the algorithm is not designed
to minimize these diameters. The set covering method does
not uniquely assign points to groups. Each sample is con-
tained in at least one group, possibly more. As a result, the
FIG. 7. Shade groups A and B. The circles represent the
diameters and sizes of the individual groups tend to be maximum diameter of a cluster allowed by the cut tolerance.
larger than those produced by the other methods, which The rolls in the intersection of the circles could actually
partition the points into mutually exclusive groups. reside in either group.

Volume 25, Number 5, October 2000 373

TABLE II. Computation time (s) required for shade
sorting on a personal computer. Three datasets were
used: a gray corduroy inventory containing 88 rolls, a
green knit inventory containing 100 rolls, and a beige
inventory containing 149 rolls t (The same data are
used in Fig. 4 – 6.) Each inventory is sorted at a cut
tolerance of 1.0 using the complete linkage clustering,
vertex labeling, and set covering methods.
Time required (s)
Sorting method n ⫽ 88 n ⫽ 100 n ⫽ 149
CCC 4 5 11
Vertex labeling 9 11 22
Set covering 108 113 259
Each algorithm has been implemented on a personal
computer to compare their execution times empirically. To
estimate the efficiency of each algorithm, the same three
sets of textile data as described above were shade sorted
with the computer programs. The computation times (s) for
each of the inventories over a range of cut tolerances are
given in Table II. In computation time, all these examples
perform significantly better than the predicted worst-case
complexity. The times do not appear to grow in the order of
n3 or n4, as expected. Rather, each method tends to require
a time in the order of n2. Overall, the empirical ratio in run
times between complete linkage clustering and vertex label-
ing is about 1:2, with the time required for set covering
being considerably larger than the other two methods. Note
that the ratio between times is probably more significant
than the absolute times, which depend on the characteristics
of the particular personal computer being used.
Clustering Anomalies
The vertex labeling and set covering methods can actu-
ally produce a larger number of groups for a dataset as the
maximum allowable color range is increased. This is be-
cause the vertex labeling algorithm is applied to a different
graph and the set covering algorithm is applied to a different
coverage matrix when the cut tolerance is increased. Such a
situation cannot occur in complete linkage clustering, be-
cause the clustering procedure is hierarchical. In complete
linkage clustering, pairs of clusters are merged until the cut
tolerance is exceeded. Increasing the cut tolerance corre-
sponds to simply terminating the algorithm at a later stage.
The same intermediate clusters are formed.
Combining Production Lots
The shade groups produced by these methods are based
on the color difference between samples, not the actual
location of samples in color space. Consequently, the shade
groups are not fixed from one production lot to another.
Samples grouped together do not necessarily remain to-
gether after the addition or deletion of inventory and the
subsequent resorting. Similarly, these methods do not form
374
groups that are fixed relative to the standard. However, the
center of each shade group can be calculated to provide an
indication of the locations in color space of the shade groups
relative to the standard.
In many situations, the color relative to the standard is not
a major concern. One of the most important uses of shade
sorting is to incorporate unused fabric from one lot into
another lot of the same production standard. In complete
linkage clustering, colorimetric data from a new lot may be
added to the data for unused fabric from previous lots and
simply reclustered. In the vertex labeling method, a vertex
may be added to the graph for each new sample point and an
edge added between this vertex and each existing vertex
whose corresponding color difference exceeds the cut tol-
erance. Relabeling the resulting graph yields the new shade
groups. In set covering, the new colorimetric data points are
added to the existing data. If the new data points lie entirely
within existing covers, resorting is unnecessary. Otherwise,
the set covering method is applied to the combined data and
new covers are formed.
Resorting does not necessarily produce the same shade
groups as those initially obtained. However, as goods are
produced and consumed, resorting combines the inventory
into new groups that can be used more effectively in pro-
duction. The main problem is not shade sorting, but main-
taining the inventory in such a way that each roll can be
located and selected regardless of its shade group. The
benefit of resorting is the avoidance of a fragmented inven-
tory—many remnant groups are left with only a small
number of rolls after initial use of the group. In fact,
judicious choice of rolls for cutting can actually compact an
inventory into fewer shade groups. Complete linkage clus-
tering, as implemented in CCC software, with color inven-
tory management, implements such techniques.14
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, each of these mathematical methods— complete
linkage clustering, vertex labeling, and set covering—pro-
duces a reasonably small number of groups, good color
uniformity within the groups, and good uniformity in the
number of samples contained in each group. Complete
linkage clustering and vertex labeling are superior to set
covering in the number of groups produced. The three
approaches are similar in the uniformity of groups.
Although complete linkage clustering was slightly infe-
rior to the vertex labeling algorithm in these examples, the
small gain in number, color uniformity, and size of groups
is offset by the more lengthy execution times associated
with vertex labeling. In addition, both vertex labeling and
set covering can generate a larger number of groups for the
same dataset when the cut tolerance is increased, while
complete linkage clustering does not display this anomaly.
Overall, complete linkage clustering and vertex labeling are
efficient mathematical approaches to numerical shade sort-
ing and produce shade groups with a number of desirable
properties.
COLOR research and application
1. Simon FT. Shade sorting by the 555 system. Am Dye Rep 1984;73:
17–26.
2. Li YSW, Yuen CWM, Yeung KW, Sin KM. Instrumental shade
sorting in the past three decades. JSDC 1998;114:203–209.
3. Clarke FJJ, McDonald R, Rigg B. Modification to the JPC79 colour-
difference formula. JSDC 1984;100:128 –132.
4. Aspland JR, Jarvis CW, Jarvis JP. A review and assessment of nu-
merical shade sorting methods. JSDC 1990;106:9 –14.
5. Billmeyer F, Saltzman M. Principles of color technology. New York:
Wiley; 1981.
6. Aspland JR, Jarvis CW, Jarvis JP. An improved method for numerical
shade sorting. Text Chem Colorist 1987;19:21–25.
7. Dunlap KL. Comparison of methods for numerical shade
sorting. Clemson Univ: Dept Math Sci Doctoral Dissertation;
1992.
Volume 25, Number 5, October 2000
8. Garey MR, Johnson DS. Computers and intractability. San Francisco:
WH Freeman; 1979.
9. Kaufman LK, Rousseeuw PJ. Finding groups in data: An introduction
to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley; 1990.
10. Blashfield RK. Mixture model tests of cluster analysis: Accuracy of
four agglomerative hierarchical methods. Pysch Bull 1976;83:377–388.
11. Hansen P, Delattre M. Complete-link cluster analysis by graph color-
ing. J Am Stat Assoc 1978;73:397– 403.
12. Balinski M, Quandt R. On an integer program for a delivery problem.
Opns Res 1964;12:300 –304.
13. Garfinkel RS, Nemhauser GL. Integer programming. New York:
Wiley; 1972.
14. Teel DR, Aspland JR, Jarvis JP, Dunlap KL. Improved methods for
colour inventory management in the apparel industry. Int J Clothing
Sci Tech 1992;4:66 –70.
375