Laplace. Our first hypothesis (H1) is satisfied (Table XVII), i.e. GA performing better than RT in refining the solution. However, the difference between accuracy rates is not as obvious as it was for the ‘real’ data from experiment 1. This is explainable, since in the latter case (only ‘real’ data) the starting solution has relatively low accuracy rates (80–90%) and it could have been easily improved, whereas in this experiment (centralized data) we have some starting solutions with high accuracy rates (95–98%) that would be difficult to improve whatever the training mechanism used
Table XIII. Three-way ANOVA for training
Source |
Type III sum of squares |
DF |
Mean square |
F |
Sig. |
Partial η2 |
Model |
979 340.512 |
30 |
32 644.684 |
6 322 228.263 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
PREPROC |
540.706 |
2 |
270.353 |
52 358.680 |
0.000 |
0.999 |
DISTRIB |
148.280 |
4 |
37.070 |
7179.276 |
0.000 |
0.997 |
TECHNIQ |
6.396 |
1 |
6.396 |
1238.708 |
0.000 |
0.943 |
PREPROC × |
138.900 |
8 |
17.362 |
3362.559 |
0.000 |
0.997 |
DISTRIB PREPROC × |
9.486 |
2 |
4.743 |
918.554 |
0.000 |
0.961 |
TECHNIQUE DISTRIB × |
1.426 |
4 |
0.356 |
69.036 |
0.000 |
0.786 |
TECHNIQUE PREPROC × |
2.574 |
8 |
0.322 |
62.310 |
0.000 |
0.869 |
DISTRIB × TECHNIQUE Error |
0.387 |
75 |
0.005 |
|||
Total |
979 340.899 |
105 |
||||
Table XIV. 3- |
way ANOVA for t |
esting |
||||
Source |
Type III sum of squares |
DF |
Mean square |
F |
Sig. |
Partial η2 |
Model |
844 172.942 |
30 |
28 139.09 |
506 683.910 |
0.000 |
1.000 |
PREPROC |
1296.821 |
2 |
648.411 |
11 675.541 |
0.000 |
0.997 |
DISTRIB |
904.441 |
4 |
226.110 |
4071.431 |
0.000 |
0.995 |
TECHNIQUE |
3.537 |
1 |
3.537 |
63.695 |
0.000 |
0.459 |
PREPROC × |
605.016 |
8 |
75.627 |
1361.771 |
0.000 |
0.993 |
DISTRIB PREPROC × |
10.714 |
2 |
5.357 |
96.461 |
0.000 |
0.720 |
TECHNIQUE DISTRIB × |
5.432 |
4 |
1.358 |
24.454 |
0.000 |
0.566 |
TECHNIQUE PREPROC × |
10.002 |
8 |
1.250 |
22.511 |
0.000 |
0.706 |
DISTRIB × TECHNIQUE Error |
4.165 |
75 |
0.056 |
|||
Total |
844 177.107 |
105 |
||||
Table XV. Pairs’ comparison for ‘preprocessing’ factor |
PREPROCa PREPROCa Mean difference SE Sig. 95% confidence interval
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.