Author
Listed:
- Tania Pencheva
(Institute of Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
Authors contributed equally.)
- Maria Angelova
(Institute of Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
Authors contributed equally.)
- Evdokia Sotirova
(Laboratory of Intelligent Systems, Faculty of Public Health and Health Care, Burgas University, 1, 8010 Burgas, Bulgaria)
- Krassimir Atanassov
(Institute of Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria)
Abstract
Intuitionistic fuzzy logic is the main tool in the recently developed step-wise “cross-evaluation” procedure that aims at the assessment of different optimization algorithms. In this investigation, the procedure previously applied to compare the effectiveness of two or three algorithms has been significantly upgraded to evaluate the performance of a set of four algorithms. For the first time, the procedure applied here has been tested in the evaluation of the effectiveness of genetic algorithms (GAs), which are proven as very promising and successful optimization techniques for solving hard non-linear optimization tasks. As a case study exemplified with the parameter identification of a S. cerevisiae fed-batch fermentation process model, the cross-evaluation procedure has been executed to compare four different types of GAs, and more specifically, multi-population genetic algorithms (MGAs), which differ in the order of application of the three genetic operators: Selection, crossover and mutation. The results obtained from the implementation of the upgraded intuitionistic fuzzy logic-based procedure for MGA performance assessment have been analyzed, and the standard MGA has been outlined as the fastest and most reliable one among the four investigated algorithms.
Suggested Citation
Tania Pencheva & Maria Angelova & Evdokia Sotirova & Krassimir Atanassov, 2021.
"How to Assess Different Algorithms Using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Logic,"
Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(18), pages 1-11, September.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:18:p:2189-:d:630993
Download full text from publisher
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:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:18:p:2189-:d:630993. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.