Fig 1.
Example of hypothetical online payment.
Fig 2.
(1) Self-pollination with the same flower, (2) Self-pollination from same plant but different flower, and (3) Cross-pollination from different plant.
Fig 3.
FPA strategy for t-way test suite generation.
Table 1.
Averages test suite for CA(N; 2, 46) and CA(N; 2, 105).
Fig 4.
Graphical representation of averages test suite for CA(N; 2, 46) and CA(N; 2, 105) with pollen size = 10, and iteration = 30.
Table 2.
Averages test suite for CA(N; 2, 46).
Table 3.
Averages test suite for CA (N; 2, 105).
Fig 5.
Graphical representation of averages test suite for CA(N; 2, 46) and CA(N; 2, 105) with switch probability pa = 0.7.
Fig 6.
Hybridization variants of FPA.
Table 4.
Parameters for meta-heuristic strategies of interests.
Table 5.
Assessment of hybrid variants of FPA.
Table 6.
Comparison with existing strategies for different CA and MCA configurations.
Table 7.
Comparison with existing strategies using CA (N; t, 210), t varied from 2 to 10.
Table 8.
Comparison with existing strategies CA(N; 4, 5P), P varied from 5 to 10.
Table 9.
Comparison with existing strategies CA(N; 4, v10) with v varied from 2 to 7.
Fig 7.
Convergence rate of hybrid variants of FPA for CA (N; 2, 105) and CA(N; 2, 46).
Fig 8.
General loop structures of the original FPA, eFPA, mFPA, and lFPA.
Fig 9.
Comparison of eFPA with computational-based strategies.
Fig 10.
Comparison of eFPA with meta-heuristic-based strategies.
Fig 11.
Comparison of eFPA with meta-heuristic-based strategies with: (A) t varied from 2 to 10, (B) P varied from 5 to 12, and (C) v varied from 2 to 7.
Table 10.
Wilcoxon signed rank test for experimental results from Table 6.
Table 11.
Wilcoxon signed rank test for experiments results from Tables 7 till 9.