Performance Evaluation of the Algorithm With Use of The Fitness Score The fitness scores were the solutions

that determine the optimal solution after every run. The best, average and worst fitness scores were recorded and used in evaluating the performance of the algorithm in generating the solutions for the fitness. After every run, the best fitness score was the local optimum solution. Small-scaled data sets Data sets S1 and S2 were considered in the small-scaled vehicle routing problem with stochastic demand. For data set S1, the solutions after 30 runs were recorded in Table 5. The best fitness score for the solution after 30 runs had an average value of 6.614934269 and standard deviation of 0.341255454. Among the local optimal solutions, the least fitness score of 5.727739945 was generated at the 12th while the worst fitness score of 7.258777911 was generated at the 23rd run. The best fitness scores were plotted and compared with their sample average as depicted in Figure 13. Table 5. Summary of the Solutions of Data Set S1 for 30 runs. Run Time Number of Run # (sec) Iteration Best Fitness Score 78 131 6.660586374 1 101 167 6.418000312 2 83 138 6.651652209 3 85 136 6.936306402 4 80 131 6.665672561 5 90 149 6.027103945 6 88 145 6.649928053 7 82 133 6.744238594 8 76 124 7.047786717 9 83 141 6.914685504 10 80 132 6.818582648 11 85 141 5.727739945 12 85 137 6.330015283 13 90 152 6.390021791 14

Table 5 (cont.). Run # 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Average Standard Deviation Run Time (sec) 90 83 99 79 87 83 85 86 81 72 89 76 78 79 82 81 83.86667 6.257318 Number of Iteration 143 142 164 134 141 142 142 143 134 122 149 127 129 132 137 136 139.1333333 10.13948694 Best Fitness Score 6.569135257 6.395096472 6.210791662 6.797738923 7.077652719 6.740212779 6.533886455 7.058949874 7.258777911 6.15345216 6.541536549 6.873741793 6.680732198 6.573189654 6.172373722 6.828439594 6.614934269 0.341255454

The graph shows how dispersed the solutions are, which is reflected on its standard deviation. The graph only shows the solutions that were generated in each run, which are done independently and thus, does not affect the other solutions. The bound for the mean was calculated with 95% confidence interval, resulting to the value of 6.4875 as its lower bound and 6.7424 as the means upper bound with a standard error of 0.062230 as seen on Table 6. The solutions were plotted using the stem-and-leaf plot as presented in Figure 14. The stem width of 0.10 shows how closely the results were and the difference between each result was ranked in the plot.

Best Fitness Score After 30 runs of Data Set S1

8 7 6 5 Average Fitness Score Best Fitness Score

Fitness Score

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 Solution Run #

Fig. 13. Best Fitness Score Solutions of Data Set S1 after 30 runs. The plot shows that among the 30 solutions, only one instance or solution had resulted to an extreme value which was actually the best global fitness score given that it has the least fitness score.

Table 6. Descriptive Analysis for the Best Fitness Score of Data Set S1. Statistic Best fitness Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 6.6149 6.4875 6.7424 6.6561 .116 .34126 5.73 7.26 Std. Error .06230