Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 668

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Choosing Mutation and Crossover Ratios for Genetic Algorithms—A Review with a New Dynamic Approach

Open access
Hassanat, Ahmad, Almohammadi, Khalid, Alkafaween, Esra’a, Abunawas, Eman, Hammouri, Awni, Prasath, V. B. Surya·2019·Information

Abstract

Genetic algorithm (GA) is an artificial intelligence search method that uses the process of evolution and natural selection theory and is under the umbrella of evolutionary computing algorithm. It is an efficient tool for solving optimization problems. Integration among (GA) parameters is vital for successful (GA) search. Such parameters include mutation and crossover rates in addition to population that are important issues in (GA). However, each operator of GA has a special and different influence. The impact of these factors is influenced by their probabilities; it is difficult to predefine specific ratios for each parameter, particularly, mutation and crossover operators. This paper reviews various methods for choosing mutation and crossover ratios in GAs. Next, we define new deterministic control approaches for crossover and mutation rates, namely Dynamic Decreasing of high mutation ratio/dynamic increasing of low crossover ratio (DHM/ILC), and Dynamic Increasing of Low Mutation/Dynamic Decreasing of High Crossover (ILM/DHC). The dynamic nature of the proposed methods allows the ratios of both crossover and mutation operators to be changed linearly during the search progress, where (DHM/ILC) starts with 100% ratio for mutations, and 0% for crossovers. Both mutation and crossover ratios start to decrease and increase, respectively. By the end of the search process, the ratios will be 0% for mutations and 100% for crossovers. (ILM/DHC) worked the same but the other way around. The proposed approach was compared with two parameters tuning methods (predefined), namely fifty-fifty crossover/mutation ratios, and the most common approach that uses static ratios such as (0.03) mutation rates and (0.9) crossover rates. The experiments were conducted on ten Traveling Salesman Problems (TSP). The experiments showed the effectiveness of the proposed (DHM/ILC) when dealing with small population size, while the proposed (ILM/DHC) was found to be more effective when using large population size. In fact, both proposed dynamic methods outperformed the predefined methods compared in most cases tested.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/info10120390

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Cited by

See all 668

Metadata

Authors
Hassanat, A., Almohammadi, K., Alkafaween, E., Abunawas, E., Hammouri, A., & Prasath, V. B. S.
Venue
Information
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-12-10
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
390
ISSN
2078-2489 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2993471286
Cited by
668
References
41
FWCI
24.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Choosing Mutation and Crossover Ratios for Genetic Algorithms—A Review with a New Dynamic Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/info10120390
The paper
Hassanat, A., Almohammadi, K., Alkafaween, E., Abunawas, E., Hammouri, A., & Prasath, V. B. S. (2019). Choosing Mutation and Crossover Ratios for Genetic Algorithms—A Review with a New Dynamic Approach. Information. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10120390

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.