|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetic algorithm article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"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 22.214.171.124 (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.
- 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.
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.
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
An invitation to experiment
Another editor and I have reverted an insertion that includes an invitation to experiment. 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.
- 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)
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 188.8.131.52 (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 184.108.40.206 (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
An anonymous user (IP 220.127.116.11) 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.