Talk:Genetic algorithm/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Messy Genetic Algorithms

What about Messy Genetic Algorithms ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.63.95 (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

true - I will have a go over the next cpl days but editing on my mobile at the moment which is pretty slow --Chaosdruid (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cluster structure optimization

In the "Variants" section, the sentences starting with "The GEGA program is an ab initio gradient embedded GA, a program for finding the global minima of clusters..." and ending with "based on the so called kick technique" look somewhat strange to me, for at least two reasons: (1) The remainder of the "variants" section is about algorithmic variations on GAs, whereas this provides an application, so this text is out of place. As far as I can tell from the original research papers (the one cited, and others by the same authors), there are no new algorithmic aspects in this GEGA program. (2) Even as an application, this contribution is neither new nor in other ways outstanding; many similar papers of this kind have been published in this area, since almost 20 years. I should add that I know rather well what I am talking about, because this is one of the areas I am working in professionally. I suggest deleting these sentences (in the present form, they are rather misleading) or supplying different contents and citations. Bxh (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Merging Genetic algorithms in economics

I recently noticed that there is an article Genetic algorithms in economics with about a paragraph of information. Rather than have it sit alone in a stub, why not just merge it into this article considering it the article is basically a subtopic of this article. It seems like it would be more appropriate to have it as a section in this article than in its own article. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth Genetic Algorithm will be merged with this? GA is purely CS which has applications in real life. Almost everything in CS has applications in real life, that doesn't mean that it has to be merged with some economics related articles.- [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riyad parvez (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Genetic Algorithm is certainly a standalone topic. No question, no debate. It is a screwdriver, hammer, pick your favorite tool, for solving problems. It does not work in all cases, but where it does work, it is a wonderful tool. And tying it to some specific implementation, such as economics, doesn't seem proper.

However, if you want to create a section on implementations, and include the economics page on that, then I would have no objection. But this section would need to be huge to include all sorts of other implementations. But perhaps that would be ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.67.218 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The economics field is big enough to support a stand-alone article. Besides which, if we merge every possible application area into GA or List of genetic algorithm applications, they'd be badly bloated. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are so many advanced mathematical and CS applications evolving in economics that this is not a matter of concern. If someone is employing a GA in economics, then they would very likely be using fitness-based objective functions, crossover, selection, mutation, preventing elitism, etc. There should be no real reason to have application-specific articles on GA in e.g. economics, bioinformatics, etc. - thus, it would be better to merge the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydataengine (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Applications of GAs, as in economics, should be linked to from the GA topic, but certainly not merged. If they were merged readers, especially those not familiar with Genetic Algorithms, might become confused as to how GAs are useful. That is, they might erroneously think GAs are applied in only the noted special fields, like economics. Spinlock55 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism"

"Criticism" is a strange title for the section that lists/describes the limitations and the disadvantages of applying some technique to certain problems. Why not "Limitations" or some other more proper title for that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.240.117 (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of BBH

This section has several problems.

It is a technical argument about methods that have not been explained in the rest of the article. The ordinary reader will not distinguish single/multi/uniform crossover.

There is an underlying point of view. There is a statement about sharply criticized.

The section abuses the Wright quotation by dropping its following sentence and over generalizing Wright's conclusion.

see Cited page

The conclusion of the experimental evidence does not follow. That different crossover algorithms have differing performance metrics does not speak directly to accepting or rejecting BBH.

Glrx (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, lets just make it clear what you are proposing as there are two options. There is a section on criticisms Genetic_algorithm#Criticisms and a paragraph (subsection) on criticism in the section Genetic_algorithm#The_building_block_hypothesis which has been marked as FAD.

Which you are saying should go - should it not just be added to the criticism section if it is proved reliable?Chaosdruid (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This talk section is about Genetic algorithm#Criticism subsection that I marked as FAD and linked here. The above comments are specific to the Building Block Hypothesis ("BBH"). I did not mark the CriticismS section.

Moving the challenged subsection elsewhere would not fix its problems. I'm not challeging the location, I'm challenging the content and whether it is appropriate for the article.

Glrx (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Related algorithms is a mess!

The related algorithms section was once a huge, rambling list of unsorted, often obscure methods. I have attempted to tidy up the section as best as I can by using sub-headings to put each method into context. I have deleted nothing so far, but the section needs a good purge. Problems include:

• Too many algorithms listed that are very weakly related to GA
• Too many obscure algorithms - it seems that some researchers are perhaps self-promoting their work? Such methods should be deleted until the methods have wider acceptance in the community (and the linked wiki pages are updated consequently)
• I think it's okay to have a short description by each algorithm in this section, but nothing more than a short sentence. More information on each algorithm should be obtained on the algorithm's main page.

Overall this section should really be no more than about 15 lines. Thoughts? Jr271 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

An invitation to experiment

Another editor and I have reverted an insertion that includes an invitation to experiment.[2] The URL in the first link leads to directory where one should presumably download a demo to try out some poor computational bounds. The references are primary, do not seem to be on point, and seem to be more about promoting a particular author.

Please get a consensus before reinserting this material. Glrx (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, not sure how an ordinary reader reader will know or care about this BRD thing? I'd just want a quick 'pedia reference. BTW, the URL appears to lead to an online experiment, not to a site to download a demo. 2401:7400:E800:C601:A5F9:65C3:533B:49F0 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep it out. An easily accessible, interactive demonstration might be a useful external link, but this doesn't appear to be one, nor should it be added in the body of the article as it was. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I would go for the new version, as it gives useful references. These editors who reverted this new version seem not to have a real interest in Genetic Algorithms or know this stuff in depth. Sometimes I wonder what the best way would be for people to work seamlessly on useful references or information to benefit the Wikipedia reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.220.41 (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To readers who happen to land on this consensus page

What is this consensus about? It is about a proposed addition for an updated Wikipedia of 'Genetic Algorithm', which tries to address the flag by providing a Java Applet online for the reader to experiment the upper and/or lower bounds for the mutation/combination and/or crossover parameters, although these parameter rates depend on whether or not to utilise direct inheritance. The website does not provide experiments on direct heredity, but a reference on it is made available in this updated version.

If you think that the new version offers a quick or useful reference, especially in the age of electronic encyclopaedia, or otherwise, do feel free to make your views known here (and then click on the 'save page' button below). 2401:7400:E800:7CCD:8538:484D:FEE0:E308 (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the user can select various crossover and mutation rates before start to experiment easily on the effects and bounds of these parameters, as well as on the effect of an 'elite', by following the 'Background evolve' after 'Start'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.139.134 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why good tutorials are now missing from the current page? Was it because of the discussions here? I think the EA Demo tutorial and the new references here give details that fill the gap in the present version. Who are allowed to restore the previous page? Can we have the better page which is discussed here, please.

Another example to add?

An evolving mechanical arm. It uses genetic algorithms to train a neural network. http://www.e-nuts.net/en/genetic-algorithms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.26.90.227 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Added to external links. 82.81.159.224 (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

GA and natural selection

An anonymous user (IP 24.62.24.89) apparently dislikes the analogy between natural selection and genetic algorithms, and has been adding gratuitous comments at the end of the first sentence. I have already reverted one only to see a similar comment added back. I do not want to engage in a "revert war", so I'm just pointing it out as vandalism.

Piotr Gasiorowski (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for monitoring the page and reverting. I will watch list it as well. --Mark viking (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)