An Investigation into the Performance of Particle Swarm Optimization with Various Chaotic Maps

Table 11

Average ranking of the performance of RIW-PSO relative to the various chaotic maps.

Chaos maps	Problem dimension = 30					Problem dimension = 50
	Mean fitness	Standard deviation	Success rate	Function evaluation	Average performance	Mean fitness	Standard deviation	Success rate	Function evaluation	Average performance
None	11	10.8	5.8	11	9.65	11	10.8	6.2	11	9.75
Logistic	4.2	4.6	2	8	4.70	6.2	6.2	3.8	9.6	6.45
Tent	5.8	5.8	2.8	6.4	5.20	5.2	3.4	3.8	6.4	4.70
Skew Tent	6	5.2	2.8	4.6	4.65	6.6	3.6	4.4	6	5.15
Sine	5.6	5	2.4	6.2	4.80	4.8	6.8	2.8	7	5.35
ICMIC	6	5.6	2.4	5.4	4.85	4	6.2	2.8	5.6	4.65
Circle	6	5.4	3.6	2.8	4.45	5.8	6.4	2.4	2.4	4.25
Piecewise	5	5	2.8	7.2	5.00	4.6	4.4	2.2	4.2	3.85
Gaussian	5.6	5.8	3	3.2	4.40	5.4	5.2	3.2	3.8	4.40
Intermittency	4.8	6	3.2	2.8	4.20	6.2	6.2	3.4	2.8	4.65
Cubic	6	6.8	3	8.4	6.05	6.2	6.8	2.4	7.2	5.65

The values in bold are the best results obtained by the algorithms using the corresponding chaotic map incorporated into it compared with others.