Table 1.
Parameter settings and values for GA.
Table 2.
Optimal values of unknown constants acquired by GA for example 1.
Table 3.
Numerical solutions of generalized Burgers′-Fisher equation by the proposed scheme for different values of α, β, δ and comparison with exact solutions for time t = 0.1.
Table 4.
The absolute errors for example 1 for different values of α, β, δ and for time t = 0.1.
Table 5.
Comparison of numerical solutions and absolute errors for α = 2, β = 5, δ = 3/2.
Table 6.
Comparison of numerical solutions and absolute errors between the proposed scheme, OHAM[10] and ADM [11] for α = β = 0.001 and δ = 1.
Table 7.
Comparison of numerical solutions and absolute errors between the proposed scheme, OHAM [10] and ADM [11] for α = β = 1 and δ = 2.
Table 8.
Comparison of numerical solutions and absolute errors between the proposed scheme and HPM [12] for δ = 1 at different values of α and β.
Table 9.
Optimal values of unknown constants acquired by GA for example 2 for different values of δ.
Table 10.
Numerical solutions of generalized Burgers′ equation by the proposed scheme and comparison with exact solutions, ADM [11], and RBF [13] for β = 0, α = 1, and δ = 1.
Table 11.
Numerical solutions of generalized Burgers′ equation by the proposed scheme and comparison with exact solutions, ADM [11], and CBRBF [13] for β = 0, α = 1, and δ = 2.
Table 12.
Numerical solutions of generalized Burgers′ equation by the proposed scheme and comparison with exact solutions, ADM [11], and CBRBF[13] for, α = 1, β = 0, and δ = 3.
Table 13.
Numerical solutions of generalized Burgers′ equation by the proposed scheme and comparison with exact solutions, and CBRBF [13] for α = 1, β = 0, and δ = 3.
Table 14.
Comparison of approximate solutions with different values of c and d at t = 0.1.
Table 15.
Effect of change in c and d on the accuracy and computational time of the proposed scheme.