Comparative Assessment of Genetic and Memetic Algorithms: H. A. Sanusi, A. Zubair, R. O. Oladele

VOL. 2, NO.
10, October 2011
ISSN 2079-8407
Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences

2009-2011 CIS Journal. All rights reserved.
http://www.cisjournal.org
Comparative Assessment of Genetic and Memetic Algorithms

H. A. Sanusi, A. Zubair , R. O. Oladele
Department of Computer Science University of Ilorin, P. M. B 1515 Ilorin, NIGERIA ahmedsanusi@gmail.com, ahmzu2@yahoo.co.uk, roladele@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
This work investigates the performance of two Evolutionary Algorithms Genetic Algorithm and Memetic Algorithm for Constrained Optimization Problem. In particular, a knapsack problem was solved using the two algorithms and their results were compared. Two selection techniques were used for both algorithms. The results of comparative analysis show that Roulette-Wheel selection method outperforms Ranking and scaling method by 4.1% in term of the accuracy of the optimal results obtained. Furthermore, Memetic Algorithm converges faster than Genetic Algorithm even as it also produces more optimal results than Genetic Algorithm produces by a factor of 4.9% when the results obtained from Roulette Wheel selection were compared for both algorithms. It is however pertinent to state that the time taken by an iteration in Genetic Algorithm is 35.9% less than the time taken by an iteration in Memetic Algorithm.
Keywords: Optimization, Accuracy, Convergence, Evolutionary Algorithm, Iteration
498
VOL. 2, NO. 10, October 2011
ISSN 2079-8407

1.0 INTRODUCTION
At some point in time, it is entirely necessary to use some mathematical models to help make decisions from a list of possible alternate solutions subject to a constraint. When we use such mathematical models to select the best alternative out of a large number of possibilities, then we call such a model a constrained optimization model. Constrained Optimization is performed by the operating system kernel in scheduling policies such as the Shortest Job First, Round Robin, Highest Response Ratio Next, Shortest Job Next etc where the trade off is to reduce starving of jobs with smaller processing time. Optimization algorithm can be deterministic or probabilistic. Deterministic optimization algorithms are most often used if a clear relation between the characteristics of the possible solution and their utility for a given problem exists. This includes state space search, branch and bound, algebraic geometry. Probabilistic methods, on the other hand, may only consider those elements of the search space in further computations that have been selected by the heuristic. Global optimization is a branch of applied mathematics and numerical analysis. The goal of global optimization is to find the best possible elements x from a set X according to a set of criteria F = {f1, f2, ..., fn} called objective functions. An abstract formulation of such problem is to maximize/minimize f(x), x S R,
Where the value of Xi is restricted to either 0 or 1, the problem is termed 0/1 knapsack. Subject to the constraints Qi. The problem is an example of NP (Non deterministic Polynomial) hard problem in which no known algorithms that are guaranteed to run in a polynomial time. Examples include: Travelling salesman problem, Hamilton Circuit Problem, Bin Packing Problem, Clique Problem and the knapsack Problem: Techniques such as Greedy algorithm, backtracking technique, dynamic programming technique etc. are not best suited for such problems. Evolutionary Algorithms have shown to be well suited for high-quality solutions to larger NP problems and currently they are the most efficient methods for finding approximate optimal solution for optimization problems. They do not involve extensive search algorithms and do not try to find the best solution, but they simply generate candidate solution, check in polynomial time whether it is a solution or not and how good a solution it is. In handling constraints in this kind of optimization problem, different strategies are available for use. They include: Rejecting Strategy, Repairing strategy and Penalizing strategy. Rejecting Strategy discards all infeasible chromosomes created throughout an evolutionary process. This is a popular option in many GA. The method may work reasonably well when the feasible search space is convex and it constitutes a reasonable part of the whole search space. However, such an approach has serious limitations. For example, for many constrained optimization problems where the initial population consists of infeasible chromosomes only, it might be essential to improve them. In Repairing Strategy, Repairing a chromosome means to take an infeasible chromosome and generate a feasible one through some repairing procedure. It depends on the existence of a deterministic repair procedure to converting an infeasible offspring into a feasible one. The weakness of the method is in its problem dependence. For each particular problem, a specific repair algorithm is designed to repair infeasible solution.
iWi
M and 0 Xi
where R denotes a space of real n component vectors x, and f is a real valued function defined on S. If S consists only of vectors whose elements are integer, then the problem is one of integer programming. One of the common examples of integer programming problem is the Knapsack Problem. The knapsack problem is concerned with a knapsack that has positive integer weight (or capacity) W. There are n distinct items that may potentially be placed in the knapsack. Item i have a positive integer weight Wi and positive integer benefit Bi. In addition, there are Qi copies of item i available, where quantity Qi is a positive integer satisfying 1 Qi . Let Xi determines how many copies of item i to be placed into the knapsack. The goal is to: Maximize
iXi
499
ISSN 2079-8407

The strategies explained above have the advantage that they never generate infeasible solutions but have the disadvantage that they consider no points outside the feasible regions. For highly constrained problem, infeasible solution may take a relatively big portion in population. In such a case, feasible solutions may be difficult to be found if we just confine genetic search within feasible regions.
CROSSOVER Crossover is the process of combining the bits of one chromosome with those of another. This is to create an offspring for the next generation that inherits traits of both parents. Crossover randomly chooses a locus and exchanges the subsequences before and after that locus between two chromosomes to create two offspring. For example, consider the following parents and a single crossover point at position 3 Parent 1 100|0111 Parent 2 111|1000 Offspring1 100 1000 Offspring 2 111 0111 The crossover methods implemented and compared in this paper is the Random Point Crossover. MUTATION Mutation is performed after crossover to prevent all solutions in the population to fall into a local optimum of solved problem. Mutation changes the new offspring by flipping bits from 1 to 0 or from 0 to 1. Mutation can occur at each bit position in the string with some probability, usually very small (e.g. 0.001). For example, consider the following chromosome with mutation point at position 2: Not mutated chromosome: 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 Mutated: 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 The 0 at position 2 flips to 1 after mutation. Mutation probability is the percentage of total number of genes in the population. The mutation probability controls the probability with which new genes or memes are introduced into the population for trial. If the probability is too low, many genes that would have been useful are never tried out, while if it is too high, there will be much random perturbation, the offspring will start losing their resemblance to the parents and the algorithm will lose the ability to learn from the history of the search. However, several mutation operators for integer encoding have been proposed which includes: inversion mutation, insertion mutation and displacement mutation. The operator implemented in this paper is the insertion mutation.
2.0 METHODS USED

2.1 OPERATORS IN GA AND MA
SELECTION The selection process is based on fitness. Chromosomes that are evaluated with higher values (fitter) will most likely be selected to reproduce, whereas, those with lower values will be discarded. The fittest chromosomes may be selected several times, however, the number of chromosomes selected to reproduce is equal to the population size, therefore, keeping the size constant for every generation. This phase has an element of randomness just like the survival of organisms in nature. The selection methods implemented and compared in this paper are: 1. Roulette Wheel Selection It is proposed by Holland. The basic idea is to determine selection probability or survival probability for each chromosome proportional to the fitness value. Then a model roulette wheel can be made displaying these probabilities. The selection process is based on spinning the wheel the number of times equal to population size, each selecting a single chromosome for the new procedure. Ranking and Scaling Selection They are proposed to mitigate these problems. The scaling method maps raw objective function values to positive real values, and the survival probability for each chromosome is determined according to these values. Fitness scaling has a twofold intention: To maintain a reasonable differential between relative fitness ratings of chromosomes. To prevent too-rapid takeover by some super-chromosomes to meet the requirement to limit competition early but to stimulate it later.
2.
500
ISSN 2079-8407

LOCAL SEARCH A local search is a heuristic for solving optimization problems. There are two common forms of genetic local search. One features Lamarckian evolution and the other features the Baldwin effect [1]. They both use the metaphor that an individual learns (hillclimbs) during its lifetime (generation).
V. VI.
VII.
ALLELE An allele is a value of specific gene. LOCUS The locus is the position where a specific gene can be found in a genotype. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION An objective function f: X Y with Y R is a mathematical function which is subject to optimization. The co domain Y of an objective function as well as its range must be a subset of the real numbers (Y R). The
2.2 GA AND MA VOCABULARY The vocabulary is the basic elements of GA and MA representing the smallest unit of information in which genetic operators are applied. The elements include: I. CHROMOSOME The chromosomes in genetic algorithms represent the space of candidate solutions. Possible chromosomes encodings are binary, permutation, value, and tree encodings. In binary encoding of the chromosomes, the chromosomes of composed are BITS (Binary Digits): 0s and 1s. Problems that can be formulated using this encoding scheme are often referred to as 0-1 problems. Value encoding scheme are problems that take the value of the parameters being encoded. An example of optimization problem using the value encoding is the time table scheduling using genetic algorithm. PHENOTYPE Phenotype is a decoded string. It is the direct representation of the problem. The phenotype of a problem is in most cases the input to the algorithm and also the output of the algorithm. GENOTYPE The elements g G of the search X.
domain X of f is called problem space and can represent any type of elements like numbers, lists, construction plans, and so on. It is chosen according to the problem to be solved with the optimization process. Objective functions are not necessarily mere mathematical expressions, but can be complex algorithms that, for example, involve multiple simulations. Global optimization comprises all techniques that can be used to find the best elements x in X with
respect to such criteria f VIII. PROBLEM SPACE
F.
II.
IX.
III.
space G of a given optimization problem are called the genotypes. The genotype is an encoding of the problem from its phenotypic representation. It is known as a coded string. The algorithm processes the genotypic representation of the problem. IV. GENE The distinguishable units of information in a genotype that encode the properties of a phenotype are called genes.
The problem space X of an optimization problem is the set containing all elements x which could be its solution. The problem space is often restricted by logical constraints and physical constraints. CANDIDATE SOLUTION A solution candidate x is an element of the problem space X of a certain optimization problem. In evolutionary algorithm a candidate solution is sometimes called a phenotype. SOLUTION SPACE The union of all solutions of an optimization problem is solution space S.X* S X. Where X* is the global optimal set
and S is the candidate solutions in the problem space. XI. SEARCH SPACE The search space G of an optimization problem is the set of all elements g which can
501
ISSN 2079-8407

XII.
be processed by the search operations. In Genetic Algorithm search space is often referred to as Genome. Genome was coined by the German biologist Winkler as a portmanteau of the words gene and chromosome. The genome is the whole hereditary information of organisms. SEARCH OPERATIONS The search operations are used by optimization algorithms in order to explore the search space G. GENETIC ALGORITHM
3. Create a new population: a. Selection: According to the selection method implemented, select 2 chromosomes from the population. b. Crossover: Perform crossover on the 2 chromosomes selected. c. Mutation: Perform mutation on the chromosomes obtained. 4. Replace: Replace the current population with the new population. 5. Test: Test whether the termination condition is satisfied. If so, stop. If not, return the best solution in current population and go to Step 2. Algorithm 2.3: Genetic Algorithm for Solving Knapsack Problem. 2.4 MEMETIC ALGORITHM
2.3
Genetic algorithms (GAs) are a subclass of evolutionary algorithms introduced by John Holland at the University of Michigan based on Darwins theory of natural selection where the elements of the search space G are binary strings (G = B*) or arrays of other elementary types. GA is a stochastic global search method that simulates the metaphor of natural biological evolution. GA operates on a population of potential solutions applying the principle of survival of the fittest to produce (hopefully) better approximations to a solution. At each generation, a new set of approximations is created by the process of selecting individuals according to their level of fitness in the problem domain and breeding them together using operators (crossover and mutation) borrowed from natural genetics. This process leads to the evolution of population of individuals that are better suited to their environment than the individuals that they were created from, just as in natural adaptation. GA is used to perform global exploration among a population while heuristic methods are used to perform local exploitation around the chromosomes. The behaviors of GA are characterized by the balance between exploitation and exploration in the search space. The balance is strongly affected by the strategy parameters such as population size, maximum generation, crossover probability and mutation probability. In an iteration or generation in genetic algorithm, the selection, crossover and the mutation only operator operates on the population to produce new population that constitute the new generation. An outline of the algorithm is given below: 1. Start: Randomly generate a population of N chromosomes. 2. Fitness: Calculate the fitness of all chromosomes.
Memetic algorithm (MA) is motivated by Dawkinss notion of a meme as a unit of information that reproduces itself as people exchange ideas [2]. A key difference exists between genes and memes. Before a meme is passed on, it is typically adapted by the person who transmits it as that person thinks, understands and processes the meme, whereas genes get passed on whole. Moscato and Norman linked this thinking to local refinement, and therefore promoted the term memetic algorithm to describe genetic algorithms that use local search heavily [3]. Radcliffe and Surry gave a formal description of memetic algorithms [4], which provided a homogeneous formal framework for considering memetic and GA. According to Radcliffe and Surry, if a local optimizer is added to a GA and applied to every child before it is inserted into the population, then a memetic algorithm can be thought of simply as a special kind of genetic search over the subspace of local optima. Recombination and mutation will usually produce solutions that are outside this space of local optima, but a local optimizer can then repair such solutions to produce final children that lie within this subspace. An outline of memetic algorithm is given below: 1. Start: Randomly generate a population of N chromosomes. 2. Fitness: Calculate the fitness of all chromosomes. 3. Create a new population: a. Selection: According to the selection method, select 2 chromosomes from
502
ISSN 2079-8407

the population. b. Local search: search for the best chromosomes c. Crossover: Perform crossover on the 2 chromosomes selected. d. Local search: search for the best chromosomes e. Mutation: Perform mutation on the chromosomes obtained with small probability. 4. Replace: Replace the current population with the new population. 5. Test: Test whether the termination condition is satisfied. If so, stop. If not, return the best solution in current population and go to Step 2. Algorithm 2.4: Memetic Algorithm for solving knapsack problem.
objective function, the value of the Constrained function (i.e. the size of the knapsack filled) and other parameters as explained below: TIME This is the average time a generation takes to execute the genetic or memetic operators within the defined population size. It is measured in milliseconds (ms). CONVERGENCY RATIO This is the number of converged chromosome multiplied by one hundred and then divided by the total number of chromosomes in the population. It is measured in percentage (%). MAXIMUM FITNESS FOUND This is the phenotype equivalent of a particular chromosome that gives the optimal solution at a particular generation. NUMBER OF GENERATION This is the number of iterations the algorithm takes before it converges at the termination condition. ACCURACY OF RESULT The accuracy of the results obtained is a measure of variation between the observed optimal result and the expected optimal result. Mathematically, accuracy of results obtained can be calculated as the observed result divided by the expected results multiplied by 100 in percentage (%). The two algorithms were written in JAVA programming language and run on Toshiba Computer System with Windows 7 operating system.
3.0 EXPERIMENT DESCRIPTION

This section discusses the experimental setup that is used to assess the performance of the two algorithms as they are applied to the knapsack problem. The algorithms implemented (algorithm 2.2 and 2.3) are as explained in section 2 above of this paper. The algorithms were implemented using different test cases and test data. The population sizes are properly selected in order to explore and exploit the search space. In order to get representative computing times, it is necessary to generate many problem instances for a fixed n and obtain computing times for these instances, and the average computed. The problem instance is designed for 4, 5, 6 and 7 items and the size of the initial population carefully selected. The instances are shown on table 3.1 3.4 below representing 4, 5, 6 and 7 items respectively. The problem instance for each item size has weight and point as two parameters associated with the object. The weight is measured in kilograms while the benefit is measured in points. The performance parameters used for assessing the performance of the two algorithms include the capacity of the knapsack, the optimal value of the
4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The results of the experiments are shown in tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 representing the results obtained from the problem instance given above in section 3.0 tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. The main objective of the experiment was to measure the performance of each algorithm for varying data set n, in terms of the optimal value of the objective function, that is the maximum profit obtained,
iXi
and the constrained function value, that is,

iWi
the maximum capacity of knapsack filled,
and the average time taken to complete an iteration where Bi and Wi are benefits and weights respectively. The table of results is as given below.
503
ISSN 2079-8407

From the results of the experiment, as shown in the tables above, the tables show that Ranking and Scaling Algorithm converges after smaller number of iterations for both memetic and genetic algorithms compared to the Roulette-wheel algorithm. But when timing is the bottleneck, the Roulette wheel selection algorithm takes lesser time to complete an iteration compared to the Ranking and Scaling algorithm. Since we are more interested in getting an optimal value of the objective function within a reasonable amount of time, then the Roulette wheel selection algorithm is much more efficient than the Ranking and Scaling algorithm. In the comparative analysis between the genetic and memetic algorithm, the Roulette wheel results are then compared together since they produce the best optimal solution for the two algorithms. The justification below explains the conclusion obtained from the two comparisons. The two algorithms (genetic and memetic) converge to the optimal results with 100% accuracy when the population size is about 2.5 times the number of items available in the knapsack. When the population size is greater than 2.5 times the number of items, the accuracy of the optimal results obtained becomes stable at the global optimum but this requires more iterations since the size of the search space will increase for both algorithms. Also, a major difference between the algorithms is that the time it takes to complete iteration in memetic algorithm is much more than the time it takes genetic algorithm to complete the same iteration. This is because of the local search algorithm that is embedded in memetic algorithm. However, it is safe to state that memetic algorithm is more efficient and better than genetic algorithm since it is guaranteed to converge to an optimal result within a reasonable amount of iterations regardless of the initial population size.
Results of the experiments show that Roulette wheel selection outperforms the Ranking and Scaling selection by for GA and MA respectively by 4.1% in terms of the accuracy of the optimal result. The results also show that memetic algorithm is more efficient than the genetic algorithm in terms of accuracy and the optimal value of objective function. Consequently, memetic algorithm is better suited to handling the NP hard problems.
REFERENCES
[1] P.B Shola (2003), Logic and Program Verification and Development, pp 82. [2] Belanger, N., Desaulniers, G., Soumis, F. & Desrosiers, J. (2006). Periodic airline fleet assignment with time windows, spacing constraints, and time dependent revenues, European Journal of Operational Research, 175(3), 1754-1766. [3] Belanger, N., Desaulniers, G., Soumis, F., Desrosiers, J. & Lavigne, J. (2006). Weekly airline fleet assignment with homogeneity, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 40(4), 306-318. [4] Stojkovic, M.,& Soumis, F. (2001). An OptimizationModel for the Simultaneous Operational Flight and Pilot Scheduling Problem, Management Science, 47(9), 1290-1305 [5] Darrell, W, A Genetic Algorithm Tutorial, Computer Science Department, Colorado State University. [6] Deitel P.J. and H.M. (2007), JAVA How to Program, Seventh Edition. Pearson International Edition. [7] Edemenang E. and Ahmed M. (1994), Algorithm Design Techniques: Case Study the Knapsack Problem. The Journal of Computer Science and its Applications (JCSA). 5(1):57-65. [8] Francis A. (2007), Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species, pp 2-94. [9] Hristakeva M. and Shrestha D., Solving the 0-1 Knapsack Problem with Genetic Algorithms Computer Science Department, Simpson College [10] Kim, K. H. & Kim, H. (1998). The optimal determination of the space requirement & the number of transfer cranes for import containers, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 35, 427430. [11] Mitsuo G., Runwei C., Lin L. (2008), Network Models and Optimization Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm Approach, pp 1-44. [12] Thomas Weise Version: (2009), Global Optimization Algorithms Theory and Application, pp 1-88.
5.0 CONCLUSION
Two Evolutionary Algorithm techniques, that is, Genetic Algorithm and Memetic Algorithm have been applied to solve knapsack problem. Their performances were measured against metrics such as the optimal value of the objective functions, convergence rate, and accuracy.
504
ISSN 2079-8407

Table 3.1: 4 Items table Items Weight Benefit 1 32 76 2 46 90 3 3 139 4 20 60
Knapsack Capacity = 100 Kilograms Optimal Result Expected = 1101 Result Interpretation = Items 1, 2 and 4 Constraint Function Value = 98 Kilograms Optimal Value of the Objective Function = 226 Table 3.2: 5 Items table Items Weight Benefit 1 30 60 2 45 70 3 45 30 4 60 60 5 30 50
Knapsack Capacity = 95 Kilograms Optimal Result Expected = 11000 Result Interpretation = Items 1 and 2 Constraint Function Value = 75 Kilograms Optimal Value of the Objective Function = 130 Table 3.3: 6 Items table Items Weight Benefit 1 54 92 2 59 93 3 40 80 4 67 25.1 5 31 71 6 35 57
Knapsack Capacity = 145 Kilograms Optimal Result Expected = 110010 Result Interpretation = Items 1, 2 and 5 Constraint Function Value = 144 Kilograms Optimal Value of the Objective Function = 256 Table 3.4: 7 Items table Items Weight Benefit 1 80 129 2 76 100 3 82 63 4 53 131 5 10 18 6 40 100 7 63 150
505
ISSN 2079-8407

Knapsack Capacity = 130 Kilograms Optimal Result Expected = 0001101 Result Interpretation = Items 4, 5 and 7 Constraint Function Value = 126 Kilograms Optimal Value of the Objective Function = 299 Table 4.2.1: Result Obtained from test data on table 3.1 with GA ROULETTE-WHEEL SELECTION Pop Size 8 12 16 No of Gen 11 15 48 Max Fit. 226 226 226 Items Chosen 3,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 C/R atio 100 91.7 93.8 28 18 18 88 100 100 Time Acc RANKING AND SCALING SELECTION No of Gen. 6 7 13 Max Fit. 226 226 226 Items Chosen 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 C/R atio 100 100 100 16 16 16 100 100 100 Time Acc
Table 4.2.2: Result Obtained from test data on table 3.2 with GA ROULETTE-WHEEL SELECTION Pop Size 8 16 32 No of Gen 19 25 13 Max Fit. 130 120 130 Items Chosen 1,2 1,2 1,2 C/R atio 100 93.8 93.8 Time Used 13 16 38 100 92 100 Acc RANKING AND SCALING SELECTION No of Gen. 7 5 38 Max Fit. 130 130 130 Items Chosen 1,2 1,2 1,2 C/R atio 100 100 95 11 15 35 100 100 100 Time Acc
Table 4.2.3 Result Obtained from test data on table 3.3 with GA ROULETTE-WHEEL SELECTION Pop Size 12 16 24 No of Gen 180 684 1710 Max Fit. 229 229 256 Items Chosen 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 C/R atio 91.7 93.8 92.7 Time Used 16 16 21 89 89 100 Acc RANKING AND SCALING SELECTION No of Gen. 23 28 35 Max Fit. 229 229 229 Items Chosen 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 C/R atio 93 100 100 25 25 42 89 89 89 Time Acc
Table 4.2.4: Result Obtained from test data on table 3.4 with GA ROULETTE-WHEEL SELECTION Pop Size 14 No of Gen 136 Max Fit. 300 Items Chosen 4,5,7 C/R atio 93 Time Used 15 100 Acc RANKING AND SCALING SELECTION No of Gen. 6 Max Fit. 300 Items Chosen 4,5,7 C/R atio 93 18 100 Time Acc
506
ISSN 2079-8407

18 21
2216 161
300 300
4,5,7 4,5,7
100 90.5
17 22
100 100
46 21
300 300
4,5,7 4,5,7
100 93
24 28
100 100
4.3 RESULTS FROM MA IMPLEMENTATION The results obtained when memetic algorithm is implemented for same type of knapsack problem are depicted in the tables below: Table 4.3.1 Result Obtained from test data on table 3.1 with MA ROULETTE-WHEEL SELECTION Pop Size 8 12 16 No of Gen 11 7 15 Max Fit. 226 226 226 Items Chosen 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 C/R atio 100 100 93.8 Time (ms) 10 20 22 Acc( %) 100 100 100 RANKING AND SCALING SELECTION No of Gen. 6 6 10 Max Fit. 226 226 226 Items Chosen 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 C/R atio 100 100 93.8 16 26 36 100 100 100 Time Acc
Table 4.3.2: Result Obtained from test data on table 3.2 with MA ROULETTE-WHEEL SELECTION Pop Size 8 16 32 No of Gen 8 25 74 Max Fit. 130 130 130 Items Chosen 1,2 1,2 1,2 C/R atio 100 100 93.8 Time (ms) 9 13 40 100 100 100 Acc RANKING AND SCALING SELECTION No of Gen. 3 11 28 Max Fit. 130 130 130 Items Chosen 1,2 1,2 1,2 C/R atio 100 100 96.9 14 15 45 100 100 100 Time Acc
Table 4.3.3: Result Obtained from test data on table 3.3 with MA ROULETTE-WHEEL SELECTION Pop Size 12 16 24 No of Gen 30 217 174 Max Fit. 256 256 256 Items Chosen 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 C/R atio 93.8 91.6 90.6 Time Used 24 26 43 100 100 100 Acc RANKING AND SCALING SELECTION No of Gen. 6 22 39 Max Fit. 256 256 256 Items Chosen 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 C/R atio 100 100 92.3 26 23 44 100 100 100 Time Acc
Table 4.3.4: Result Obtained from test data on table 3.4 with MA ROULETTE-WHEEL SELECTION Pop Size 14 No of Gen 7 Max Fit. 300 Items Chosen 4,5,7 C/R atio 100 Time (ms) 18 100 Acc RANKING AND SCALING SELECTION No of Gen. 3 Max Fit. 300 Items Chosen 4,5,7 C/R atio 100 29 100 Time Acc
507
ISSN 2079-8407

18 21
29 118
300 300
4,5,7 4,5,7
95 93.3
23 28
100 100
22 81
300 300
4,5,7 4,5,7
96 96
34 39
100 100
Table 4.4.1: Result Obtained from test data on table 3.1 with GA and MA GENETIC ALGORITHM Pop Size 8 12 16 No of Gen 11 15 48 Max Fit. 226 226 226 Items Chosen 3,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 C/R atio 100 91.7 93.8 Time Used 18 18 18 88 100 100 Acc No of Gen. 6 6 10 MEMETIC ALGORITHM Max Fit. 226 226 226 Items Chosen 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 C/R atio 100 100 93.8 16 26 36 100 100 100 Time Acc
Table 4.4.3: Result Obtained from test data on table 3.3 with GA and MA GENETIC ALGORITHM Pop Size 8 16 32 No of Gen 19 25 13 Max Fit. 130 120 130 Items Chosen 1,2 1,2 1,2 C/R atio 100 93.8 93.8 Time Used 13 16 38 100 92 100 Acc No of Gen. 8 25 74 MEMETIC ALGORITHM Max Fit. 130 130 130 Items Chosen 1,2 1,2 1,2 C/R atio 100 100 93.8 9 34 40 100 100 100 Time Acc
GENETIC ALGORITHM Pop Size 16 24 32 No of Gen 180 684 1710 Max Fit. 229 229 256 Items Chosen 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 C/R atio 91.7 93.8 92.7 Time Used 16 16 21 89 89 100 Acc No of Gen. 6 22 39
MEMETIC ALGORITHM Max Fit. 256 256 256 Items Chosen 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 C/R atio 100 100 92.3 26 23 44 100 100 100 Time Acc
Table 4.4.4: Result Obtained from test data on table 3.4 with GA and MA GENETIC ALGORITHM Pop Size 10 20 30 No of Gen 136 2216 161 Max Fit. 300 300 300 Items Chosen 4,5,7 4,5,7 4,5,7 C/R atio 93 100 90.5 Time Used 15 17 22 100 100 100 Acc No of Gen. 3 22 81 MEMETIC ALGORITHM Max Fit. 300 300 300 Items Chosen 4,5,7 4,5,7 4,5,7 C/R atio 100 96 96 29 34 39 100 100 100 Time Acc
508

Comparative Assessment of Genetic and Memetic Algorithms: H. A. Sanusi, A. Zubair, R. O. Oladele

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Comparative Assessment of Genetic and Memetic Algorithms: H. A. Sanusi, A. Zubair, R. O. Oladele

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

VOL. 2, NO.

10, October 2011

Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences