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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Ant colony system: a cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem
Dorigo, M., & Gambardella, L. M. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.585892 · Cited by 8,081
Bäck, T. (1996) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195099713.001.0001 · Cited by 5,113
Whitley, D. (1994) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/bf00175354 · Cited by 4,522
Introduction to Evolutionary Computing
Eiben, A. E., & Smith, J. E. (2003) · Natural Computing Series · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-05094-1 · Cited by 4,176
Optimization of Control Parameters for Genetic Algorithms
Grefenstette, J. (1986) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tsmc.1986.289288 · Cited by 2,854
TSPLIB—A Traveling Salesman Problem Library
Reinelt, G. (1991) · ORSA Journal on Computing · doi:10.1287/ijoc.3.4.376 · Cited by 2,616
Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Optimization
Gen, M., & Cheng, R. (1999) · doi:10.1002/9780470172261 · Cited by 2,548
Adaptive probabilities of crossover and mutation in genetic algorithms
Srinivas, M., & Patnaik, L. M. (1994) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/21.286385 · Cited by 2,512
Srinivas, M., & Patnaik, L. M. (1994) · Computer · doi:10.1109/2.294849 · Cited by 2,180
Parameter control in evolutionary algorithms
Eiben, A. E., Hinterding, R., & Michalewicz, Z. (1999) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.771166 · Cited by 1,980
Cited by
A review on genetic algorithm: past, present, and future
Katoch, S., Chauhan, S. S., & Kumar, V. (2021) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-020-10139-6 · Cited by 4,655
Black hole attack detection in vehicular ad-hoc network using secure AODV routing algorithm
Kumar, A., Varadarajan, V., Kumar, A., Dadheech, P., Choudhary, S. S., Kumar, V. D. A., Panigrahi, B. K., & Veluvolu, K. C. (2021) · Microprocessors and Microsystems · doi:10.1016/j.micpro.2020.103352 · Cited by 138
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.