IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijdsrm/v10y2021i1-2p32-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Finally, which meta-heuristic algorithm is the best one?

Author

Listed:
  • Elham Shadkam
  • Samane Safari
  • Saba Saberi Abdollahzadeh

Abstract

This paper is conducted to rank the six meta-heuristic algorithms such as the genetic, ant colony optimisation, tabu search, particle swarm optimisation, imperialist competitive, and simulated annealing algorithm and choose the most efficient algorithm among them, concerning collected information. Accordingly, three multi-criteria decision-making methods, including the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), TOPSIS, and AHP-TOPSIS methods are used. Criteria for comparing algorithms are selected based on the capability of each algorithm and the issues that are necessary to solve each problem. The result of the TOPSIS method indicates the superiority and efficiency of the tabu search algorithm. However, the analytical hierarchy process presents the ant colony algorithm as the best algorithm. Also, in the AHP-TOPSIS method, the best meta-heuristic algorithm is genetic. Finally, according to the results obtained from all three methods and the use of the combined compromise solution method (CoCoSo), the genetic algorithm is selected as the best algorithm.

Suggested Citation

  • Elham Shadkam & Samane Safari & Saba Saberi Abdollahzadeh, 2021. "Finally, which meta-heuristic algorithm is the best one?," International Journal of Decision Sciences, Risk and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1/2), pages 32-50.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijdsrm:v:10:y:2021:i:1/2:p:32-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=117555
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijdsrm:v:10:y:2021:i:1/2:p:32-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=254 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.