Research Article
An Investigation into the Performance of Particle Swarm Optimization with Various Chaotic Maps
Table 6
Average ranking of the performance of LDIW-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 | 8.6 | 7.2 | 3.6 | 11 | 7.60 | 8.4 | 6.8 | 3.8 | 10.2 | 7.30 | | Logistic | 5.6 | 6.8 | 2.2 | 6.8 | 5.35 | 6.4 | 5.4 | 3.8 | 7 | 5.65 | | Tent | 5.4 | 5.4 | 2.6 | 8.2 | 5.40 | 5.4 | 6.4 | 3 | 5.6 | 5.10 | | Skew Tent | 6.8 | 5.8 | 2.2 | 5.4 | 5.05 | 5 | 4.6 | 4 | 5.8 | 4.85 | | Sine | 4.8 | 7.2 | 2.2 | 7 | 5.30 | 8.2 | 9 | 2.6 | 7 | 6.70 | | ICMIC | 5.8 | 5.4 | 2.4 | 6.2 | 4.95 | 8.4 | 9.2 | 4 | 7.2 | 7.20 | | Circle | 5.8 | 6.2 | 3 | 2.4 | 4.35 | 4.8 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 3.85 | | Piecewise | 5.4 | 5.8 | 3 | 7.2 | 5.35 | 4.6 | 5.2 | 2.4 | 4.2 | 4.10 | | Gaussian | 6 | 5.6 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 4.40 | 3.6 | 4.2 | 2.6 | 3.2 | 3.40 | | Intermittency | 5.4 | 4.6 | 2.6 | 1 | 3.40 | 5.4 | 5.8 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 4.50 | | Cubic | 6.4 | 6 | 2.2 | 7.6 | 5.55 | 5.6 | 5 | 3.4 | 7.6 | 5.40 |
|
|
The values in bold are the best results obtained by the algorithms using the corresponding chaotic map incorporated into it compared with others.
|
