## 4 Performance Evaluation
### Result of Solutions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \(M\) & \(N\) & Capacity & Random & Greedy & Proposed & Optimal \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1} & \multirow{4}{*}{50} & 10 & 86.46 & 99.10 & 99.10 & - \\  & & 20 & 77.24 & 99.28 & 99.28 & - \\  & & 40 & 75.46 & 99.52 & 99.51 & - \\  & & 80 & 79.01 & 99.66 & 99.66 & - \\  & & 100 & 81.49 & 99.69 & 99.70 & - \\  & & Average & 79.93 & 99.45 & 99.45 & - \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{3} & \multirow{4}{*}{50} & 10 & 82.56 & 95.70 & 96.44 & - \\  & & 20 & 80.44 & 97.21 & 97.62 & - \\  & & 40 & 84.21 & 98.25 & 98.25 & - \\  & & 80 & 95.34 & 99.38 & 99.38 & - \\  & & 100 & 99.59 & 99.92 & 99.92 & - \\  & & Average & 88.43 & 98.09 & 98.32 & - \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{5} & \multirow{4}{*}{50} & 10 & 80.93 & 93.49 & 94.21 & - \\  & & 20 & 82.49 & 95.68 & 95.68 & - \\  & & 40 & 89.39 & 97.94 & 97.95 & - \\  & & Average & 84.27 & 95.70 & 95.95 & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Average} & 84.32 & 98.06 & 98.21 & - \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The closeness to the optimal solution in RI set. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \(M\) & \(N\) & Capacity & Random & Greedy & Proposed & Optimal \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{3} & \multirow{4}{*}{50} & 10 & 0.2496 & 0.2502 & 0.2634 & 0.2755 \\  & & 20 & 0.3977 & 0.4463 & 0.4635 & 0.4760 \\  & & 40 & 0.6314 & 0.7353 & 0.7351 & 0.7606 \\  & & 80 & 0.9426 & 0.9869 & 0.9866 & 0.9911 \\  & & 100 & 0.9970 & 0.9995 & 0.9995 & 0.9998 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{5} & \multirow{4}{*}{50} & 10 & 0.3574 & 0.3693 & 0.3693 & 0.4142 \\  & & 20 & 0.5630 & 0.6284 & 0.6507 & 0.6819 \\  & & 40 & 0.8478 & 0.9308 & 0.9355 & 0.9550 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \(M\) & \(N\) & Capacity & Random & Greedy & Proposed & Optimal \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1} & \multirow{4}{*}{50} & 10 & 95.59 & 98.76 & 98.74 & - \\  & & 20 & 94.08 & 99.11 & 99.11 & - \\  & & 40 & 94.75 & 99.32 & 99.34 & - \\  & & 80 & 96.54 & 99.46 & 99.56 & - \\  & & 100 & 97.12 & 99.52 & 99.54 & - \\  & & Average & 95.62 & 99.23 & 99.26 & - \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{3} & \multirow{4}{*}{50} & 10 & 95.34 & 95.74 & 97.26 & - \\  & & 20 & 96.12 & 97.30 & 98.18 & - \\  & & 40 & 97.50 & 98.21 & 98.78 & - \\  & & 80 & 98.76 & 97.88 & 98.13 & - \\  & & 100 & 99.46 & 99.48 & 99.61 & - \\  & & Average & 97.44 & 97.72 & 9 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(M\) & \(N\) & Capacity & Random & Greedy & Proposed & Optimal \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1} & & 10 & 96.22 & 96.12 & 99.67 & - \\  & & 20 & 88.83 & 96.71 & 99.11 & - \\  & & 40 & 82.24 & 97.90 & 99.13 & - \\  & & 80 & 79.71 & 99.10 & 99.61 & - \\  & & 100 & 80.67 & 99.35 & 99.73 & - \\  & & Average & 85.53 & 97.84 & 99.45 & - \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{3} & & 10 & 90.57 & 90.82 & 95.61 & - \\  & & 20 & 83.62 & 93.75 & 97.38 & - \\  & & 40 & 83.08 & 96.67 & 96.64 & - \\  & & 80 & 95.13 & 99.57 & 99.54 & - \\  & & 100 & 99.73 & 99.98 & 99.98 & - \\  & & Average & 90.43 & 96.16 & 97.83 & - \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{5} & & 10 & 86.32 & 89.20 & 89.20 & - \\  & & 20 & 82.63 & 92.16 & 95.46 & - \\  & & 40 & 88.80 & 97.45 & 97.95 & - \\  & & Average & 85.92 & 92.93 & 94.20 & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Average} & & 87.51 & 96.06 & 97.61 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The closeness to the optimal solution in QI set.