Content deleted Content added
→Questioning the no assumption statement: new section |
Tag: |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject
{{
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Computer science |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology |importance=Low }}
}}
== In artificial intelligence ==
Line 14 ⟶ 17:
:If using co-evolution, you may be able to say it's optimizing on a moving fitness landscape. The sorts of selection such as gladitorial tournament selection (you pick a couple of genes, pit them against each other, usually the winner reproduces deleting the loser) makes your fitness depends heavily on what's around you. And yes it's probably not rigorous right now, and people are trying to duplicate the genotype-phenotype distinction in biology and other things. I can't say whether it's completely loosely based right now. [[User:Obscurans|Obscurans]] 22:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:I think it's accurate to say that "an evolutionary algorithm is not intended to be an accurate simulation of an actual biological evolutionary process." We could add something like this. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 07:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be part of the series on evolutionary biology? If I knew how to add it to it I would. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.170.147.56|50.170.147.56]] ([[User talk:50.170.147.56|talk]]) 09:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Reversion because of alleged copyright refringement==
Line 29 ⟶ 34:
Wikipedia is intended to be accessible to the general public (or at least the typical, well-educated person). This article can only be understood by the contributors to its content, therefore serving no purpose. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.138.129.155|74.138.129.155]] ([[User talk:74.138.129.155|talk]]) 22:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
In the context of the comments of the above contributor, could a brief explanation of how algorhythms can correspond with biological/environmental models, the relative strengths/possible weaknesses (if any) of the analogy, etc., be added ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.77.99.158|109.77.99.158]] ([[User talk:109.77.99.158|talk]]) 21:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Minor Optimization Methods ==
Line 40 ⟶ 47:
The statement that I am talking about is in the second para. I am finishing up a Ph.D in EC and AI with specific focus on the biases in optimization algorithms. I do not believe evolutionary algorithms make no assumptions or have no biases about the search space. In fact, as per the No free lunch theorem, it would be impossible for an algorithm to outperform the extremely rudimentary random sampling algorithm if the biases are useless. Moreover, only this random sampling is an algorithm with no biases.
The core bias in evolutionary computation is the binary search space which is typical. Without this bias, the search space will simply be a set of numbers with no relationships between them. The binary search space introduces the bias of correlation between fitness and hamming distance, whether true or not. This is why problems for which this is true such as Gen 1-MAX are easy with O(n log n) for EAs (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.10.5599). Another way of saying this is that the fact that you talk about a fitness landscape at all is a bias. If you truly had no bias, there would not be any landscape to speak of. It would just be a S -> R map. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gost80|Gost80]] ([[User talk:Gost80|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gost80|contribs]]) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Moreover, the primary reason EC has enjoyed a lot of success is not just because its base bias is nothing more than a multi-dimensional search space. It is also because it acts as a framework for inserting a large number of biases though custom selection operators and custom mutation operators and representations. Its relative lack of primary bias reduces interference with custom biases allowing it to specialise in a wider variety of fields. But this happens only with the effort of scientists who build in custom biases into the EA though operators and such. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gost80|Gost80]] ([[User talk:Gost80|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gost80|contribs]]) 19:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I donit really know what this article is about but it seems like it addresses [[Evolutionary biology]]. [[User:Soranoch|Soranoch]] ([[User talk:Soranoch|talk]]) 19:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
== Including Quality Diversity algorithms ==
Quality Diversity (QD) algorithms has been increasingly studied in the past few years. Hence, I added it as a type of evolutionary algorithm, including some prominent works. Another user MrOllie seems to think "Still inappropriate external links, still predatory publisher sourcing". It is very valuable for QD algorithms to be introduced here. If others have better citations to add, I would definitely be glad to change to those! Instead of removing valuable information. [[User:Tinkerbrain|Tinkerbrain]] ([[User talk:Tinkerbrain|talk]]) 03:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
:You shouldn't be including external links in wikipedia mainspace, they can go in an "External Links" section only, see [[WP:EL]]. I think the predatory journal that MrOllie is opposed to is Frontiers. They do participate in some predatory practices, although I don't think they can be necessarily be deemed unreliable. In any case, you provided other references, including Nature. I will edit your contribution so that it doesn't include an external link in mainspace. <small>'''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]]''''' ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])</small> 08:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you! [[User:Tinkerbrain|Tinkerbrain]] ([[User talk:Tinkerbrain|talk]]) 19:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||