Figure 3

Performance comparison of the four proposed algorithms and 12 existing algorithms in the literature. Performance comparison of our PA1, PA2, PA3 and PA4 and 12 existing algorithms using four existing performance indices. The performance comparison results using (a) index 1, (b) index 2, (c) index 3 and (d) index 4 are shown, where Rj means that the algorithm is ranked j among the 16 compared algorithms. For example, our PA4 is ranked first (R1) using the performance index 1 since our PA4 has the largest score calculated using the performance index 1. (e) The average rank is used to give the overall performance of an algorithm under four different performance indices. The average rank of an algorithm is the average of the ranks of an algorithm under four performance indices. For example, the average rank of our PA4 is 1.75 = (1+4+1+1)/4 and the average rank of Harbison et al.'s algorithm is 5.5 = (3+9+7+3)/4. The smaller the average rank, the better the performance of an algorithm. It can be seen that our PA4 has the smallest average rank. Therefore, the overall performance of our PA4 is the best among all the 16 compared algorithms.