## 5 Experimental Results
### Analysis of Results
#### 5.3.3 Compared with Conventional NSGA-III and NSGA-II
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Optimized NSGA-III** & **Conventional NSGA-III** & **NSGA-II** \\ \hline Mean \(f_{1}\) & 2650 & 2745 & 3012 \\ Mean \(f_{2}\) & 270,264.76 & 270,539.06 & 272,255.98 \\ Mean \(f_{3}\) & 33.33 & 33.31 & 32.82 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Objective mean of the three algorithms. Figure 5: Comparison of the mean values of the three algorithms. In the Gantt chart generated by the optimized NSGA-III, the rectangular blocks representing occupied hours are the most densely arranged and occupy the largest area within the planning period. For example, berth 16 (b8) is occupied by ships 27, 35, 39, and 42 under  
Figure 8: The Gantt chart result of the NSGA-II algorithm. Figure 6: The Gantt chart result of the optimized NSGA-III algorithm. Figure 7: The Gantt chart result of the NSGA-III algorithm. the optimized NSGA-III and NSGA-III algorithms, whereas it is occupied by ships 26 and 36 under the NSGA-II algorithm. This indicates the following: (1) The first two scheduling algorithms accommodate more ships than the latter, resulting in a higher turnover rate and berth utilization, thereby maximizing port resource utilization. (2) Although ships 26, 36, and 35 do not have preferred berths, ship 27 prefers berths b6 and b8, ship 39 prefers berth b8, and ship 42 prefers berths a8 and b8. This demonstrates that the NSGA-II algorithm does not sufficiently consider ship berth preferences, leading to higher berth preference costs. Additionally, berth 13 (b5) is more densely occupied under the optimized NSGA-III and NSGA-III algorithms compared to the NSGA-II algorithm. For berth 2 (a2), the optimized NSGA-III algorithm not only has more ship occupancy than the NSGA-II algorithm but also schedules ship 47, meeting its preferred berth requirement at a2. Similarly, for berth 1 (a1), there are more gaps in the NSGA-II chart compared to the other two algorithms. The NSGA-II algorithm schedules ships 31, 39, and 42 at a1. While ship 31 has no preferred berth, the preferences of ships 39 and 42 are disregarded. Additionally, in the NSGA-II algorithm, berth 5 (a5) and berth 7 (a7) are occupied by ships 27 and 32, and ship 38, respectively, none of which have these berths as their preferences. Furthermore, these three ships have already been scheduled in the other two algorithms within the planning period. The optimized NSGA-III algorithm not only accommodates more ships during the planning period compared to the other two algorithms but also better meets the specific berth preferences of individual ships. This leads to increased ship turnover rates and improved berth utilization efficiencies. These results are attributed to the optimized NSGA-III, which uses mixed initial populations, providing a solid foundation and direction for subsequent optimization search iterations, clearly defining the scope of the optimization process. By dynamically adjusting the crossover probability and mutation probability, the algorithm selects the most suitable Pc and Pm values based on current running results, preventing premature convergence or local convergence.