A Comparative Performance Analysis of Computational Intelligence Techniques to Solve the Asymmetric Travelling Salesman Problem
Table 3
Comparative experimental results.
ATSP cases
No of cities
Opt
ABO
RAI
Best
Avg
Rel. er %
Time
Best
Avg
Rel. er %
Time
Br17
17
39
39
39.98
0
0.028
39
39
0
0.027
Ry48p
48
14422
14440
14455
0.12
0.037
14422
14543.20
0
1.598
Ftv33
34
1286
1287
1288.4
0.08
0.029
1286
1288.16
0
0.393
Ftv35
36
1473
1474
1475.8
0.07
0.030
1473
1484.48
0
0.508
Ftv38
39
1530
1530
1536.4
0
0.026
1530
1543.12
0
0.674
Ftv44
45
1613
1614
1647.25
0.06
0.032
1613
1643.6
0
1.198
Ftv47
48
1776
1777
1783
0.06
0.029
1776
1782
0
1.536
Ft53
53
6905
6905
6920.25
0
0.028
6905
6951
0
2.398
Ftv55
56
1608
1610
1618.2
0.12
0.029
1608
1628.74
0
2.878
Ftv64
65
1839
1839
1938
0
0.041
1839
1861
0
5.241
P43
43
5620
5645
5698
0.44
0.065
5620
5620.65
0
0.997
Rbg323
323
1326
1326
1417.75
0
2.050
1335
1348
0.68
3874
Rbg358
358
1163
1187
1299.2
0.18
3.040
1166
1170.85
0.26
6825
Rbg403
403
2465
2467
2475
0.08
4.741
2465
2466
0
11137
Rbg443
443
2720
2723
2724
0.11
10.377
2720
2720
0
17126
Total
—
—
—
—
1.32
20.582
—
—
0.94
38979.448
Opt = optimal values as recorded in TSPLIB; Best = best results obtained by a particular algorithm; Avg = average values obtained after 50 runs; Rel. er (%) = relative error percentage; Time = time taken by the CPU to obtain results.
