Talk:Genetic algorithm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computer science (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Robotics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Genetic algorithm is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Cybernetics.
 

"Criticism"[edit]

"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[edit]

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![edit]

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)

Another example to add?[edit]

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)

An invitation to experiment[edit]

Another editor and I have reverted an insertion that includes an invitation to experiment.[1] 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[edit]

What is this consensus about? It is about a proposed addition for an updated Wikipedia of 'Genetic Algorithm', which tries to address the [citation needed] 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.

GA and natural selection[edit]

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)