Talk:Genetic algorithm: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(63 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Talk header |search=yes }}
{{WikiProject Computingbanner shell|class=BC|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Computer science|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Robotics|class=start|importance=high}}
{{SysWikiProject rating|class=startSystems|importance=mid|field=Cybernetics}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 8 ⟶ 13:
|archive = Talk:Genetic algorithm/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |dounreplied=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Computing|class=B|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Computer science|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Robotics|class=start|importance=high}}
{{Sys rating|class=start|importance=mid|field=Cybernetics}}
}}
 
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
== Cluster structure optimization ==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-10-29">29 October 2018</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-12-05">5 December 2018</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/George_Washington_University/AmWriting_Fall_2018_M_84_(Fall_2018)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Jtumina|Jtumina]].
 
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 22:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Intro ==
 
It seems odd to me that GA should only be inspired by "natural selection" and other evolutionary algorithms by "evolution". Crossover, reproduction, mutation are distinct features of GAs as well. --[[User:Robin to Roxel|Robin to Roxel]] ([[User talk:Robin to Roxel|talk]]) 16:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 
== Removed content about genetic algorithms for Monte Carlo integration ==
 
 
 
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.
[[User:Bxh|Bxh]] ([[User talk:Bxh|talk]]) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_algorithm&oldid=675712198 This version] of the article contained text about [[Monte Carlo]] methods and signal processing, that were removed with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_algorithm&diff=next&oldid=675712198 this edit]. I link them here per [[WP:PRESERVE]]. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 21:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
== Merging [[Genetic algorithms in economics]] ==
: I completely agree that this unbalanced the article. [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] ([[User talk:Stuartyeates|talk]]) 09:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 
::From the probabilistic and statistical point of view, Genetic Algorithms with mutation and selection transitions can be interpreted as a natural acceptance rejection simulation technique equipped with a interacting recycling mechanism. Introduced in the 1950s these genetic type evolutionary Monte Carlo methods are used to sample complex and high dimensional probability distributions. '''When the number of individuals (and the computational power) tends to infinity, it can be proved that the occupation measures of the individuals converge to a Feynman-Kac measure on path space'''. These distributions arise in Bayesian inference, nonlinear filtering, rare event simulations, as well as in molecular chemistry, and stochastic optimization. In contrast to heuristic like genetic algorithms discussed in the literature on genetic algorithms, the genetic type Monte Carlo methods discussed in this article are mathematically well founded, and they allow to solve complex Monte Carlo integration problems. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/14.200.118.120|14.200.118.120]] ([[User talk:14.200.118.120|talk]]) 00:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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. — [[User:Parent5446|Parent5446]] [[User talk:Parent5446|☯]] <sup class="plainlinks">([{{fullurl:User talk: Parent5446|action=edit&preload=User:Parent5446/MediaWiki/TalkPageMessage&section=new}} msg] [[Special:Emailuser/Parent5446|email]])</sup> 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.- [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riyad_parvez]] <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Riyad parvez|Riyad parvez]] ([[User talk:Riyad parvez|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Riyad parvez|contribs]]) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_algorithm&oldid=675712198 This version] of the article contained essential informations on the use of genetic algorithms for solving [[Monte Carlo]] integration problems arising in physics, chemistry, risk analysis, and signal processing. This article not only emphasize an avenue of new application domains of evolutionary computation, it also provides rigorous mathematical foundations of genetic algorithms with selection and mutation transitions as the size of the population tends to infinity. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pierre-delmoral|Pierre-delmoral]] ([[User talk:Pierre-delmoral|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pierre-delmoral|contribs]]) 04:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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.
 
:::Pierre. Thank you for contributing here, but please bear in mind that we aim for our articles to be accessible to lay-people rather than being rigorous academic sources. The content you added is impenetrable to the average reader who comes here wanting to know what a genetic algorithm is. Additionally, per [[WP:SELFCITE]] it is recommended that editors don't cite their own research as this creates problems, particularly in relation to our policy on [[WP:NOR|no original research]]. If you wish to improve the article, please use sources such as text books or reviews. Thanks [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 09:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/166.147.67.218|166.147.67.218]] ([[User talk:166.147.67.218|talk]]) 05:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
* '''Oppose''' The economics field is big enough to support a stand-alone article. Besides which, if we merge every possible application area into [[Genetic algorithm |GA]] or [[List of genetic algorithm applications]], they'd be badly bloated. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 
:::Smartse. The removed article doesn't describe any type of mysterious evolutionary algorithm nor any heuristic type impenetrable genetic algorithm. We have been working on the first rigorous mathematical foundations of genetic algorithms for Monte Carlo integration and their refined analysis since more than 20 years. So we were obliged to cite these pioneering studies, we also gave free accessible reviews, precise and verifiable links to related subjects, complementary reviews and works by other authors, as well as links to equivalent algorithms currently used in other scientific disciplines. The removed article also provides a more detailed history on the use of genetic algorithms in computational sciences. Of course, the reader who want to know about rigorous mathematical foundations need to have some knowledge on Monte Carlo integration and the law of large numbers. A reader with some basic background in these two subjects will understand without any difficulties the mathematical aspects of genetic algorithms when the size of the population tends to infinity. I thought an article on genetic algorithms should at least explain what happens when the computational power and the size of the population tends to infinity. I didn't knew it was preferable to have only a text describing all the heuristic cooking rules that can be used in practice. I would like to add that I will not insist anymore here in explaining the importance of genetic algorithms in Monte Carlo integration. I wrote the removed article only to improve the understanding of genetic algorithms when the size of the population tends to infinity, to give an avenue of new application domains, and indicate other scientific disciplines using genetic algorithms to solve integration problems. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pierre-delmoral|Pierre-delmoral]] ([[User talk:Pierre-delmoral|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pierre-delmoral|contribs]]) 20:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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.
 
== "Criticism" ==
 
== "Criticism" section ==
"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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/189.83.240.117|189.83.240.117]] ([[User talk:189.83.240.117|talk]]) 14:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
There are algorithms out there that prove exactly the contrary of what the algorithms mentioned here are supposed to show. And these do not only come from YECs. So my question is: would you allow to create a section where these algorithms are at least mentioned or maybe even discussed? I know, most of the users who created this page are deeply convinced evolutionists. This is why I ask before inserting such a section in order to prevent myself from wasting my time: are you sufficiently impartial to allow others to express their disagreement with your views? Remember that the servers of Wikipedia stand on American ground and liberty of expression is defended and granted by the US constitution... [[User:EternalAsker|EternalAsker]] ([[User talk:EternalAsker|talk]]) 18:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 
: I see you are a new editor; welcome to Wikipedia. In general, content to be added to articles must be verifiable. See [[WP:VERIFY]] for an explanation. That means that content must come from summarizing reliable sources in a neutral manner. Reliable sources are described in [[WP:RS]]. In the context of this topic, RS include peer-reviewed review articles and textbooks. Neutrality is described in [[WP:N]]. Adhering closely to reliable sources without injecting our own opinions is a good start toward neutrality.
== Criticism of BBH ==
: Regarding your particular question, I don't understand what you are proposing (for example, what is a YEC?). Whatever algorithms or theorems you are considering to add, probably a good start is to list here the reliable sources that discuss those topics.
: Regarding liberty of expression, Wikipedia does not engage in censorship, see [[WP:CENSORSHIP]]. But with respect to the US constitution, Wikipedia is a public charity and thus has the right to determine what content is appropriate for the encyclopedia. See [[WP:FREE]] for a discussion. Good luck, --[[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 20:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 
YEC = Young Earth Creationist. I am not one of them and don't agree with them. However, I think it is not correct to not allow them in the discussion and exchange of ideas. You say only peer-reviewed articles are allowed. I see a problem here because also creationists from all colors publish peer-reviewed articles. However, I don't see any links to such sources, from which I conclude that they are removed... So where is the neutrality in all this? What I see is not neutrality but propaganda in favor of evolutionary concepts (from which especially natural selection) under the cover of neutrality. Not a single mention of any criticism, problems to be solved with regard to the origins of species, etc. This is not neutral if only an atheist minority has its word to say. [[User:EternalAsker|EternalAsker]] ([[User talk:EternalAsker|talk]]) 21:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This section has several problems.
 
: Thanks for the clarification. This article is about the computer science concept of genetic algorithm. While the ideas behind genetic algorithms drew inspiration from the biological theory of evolution, it is just an optimization method. As a piece of mathematics, I have never seen strong claims made that the field of genetic algorithms has any relevance to biological evolution, much less spiritual matters. It sounds like you are more interested in the biological theory of evolution. The biological theory is at [[Evolution]]. The sort of criticism content you might be looking for is in articles such as [[Social effects of evolutionary theory]], [[Creation–evolution controversy]], and [[Objections to evolution]]. --[[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 23:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
 
== External links modified ==
There is an underlying point of view. There is a statement about '''sharply''' criticized.
 
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
The section abuses the Wright quotation by dropping its following sentence and over generalizing Wright's conclusion.
: see [http://books.google.com/books?id=zcN2KcCllT0C&pg=PA1516&lpg=PA1516&dq=The+various+claims+about+GAs+that+are+traditionally+made+under+the+name+of+the+building+block+hypothesis+have,+to+date,+no+basis+in+theory+and,+in+some+cases,+are+simply+incoherent&source=bl&ots=V9OZaCME_V&sig=cvSkYN-v8Ze15X72UzdAQyCtY9Q&hl=en&ei=29A1TazwNonUtQPAk8T7BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20various%20claims%20about%20GAs%20that%20are%20traditionally%20made%20under%20the%20name%20of%20the%20building%20block%20hypothesis%20have%2C%20to%20date%2C%20no%20basis%20in%20theory%20and%2C%20in%20some%20cases%2C%20are%20simply%20incoherent&f=false Cited page]
 
I have just modified one external link on [[Genetic algorithm]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=805043418 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
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.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615042000/http://samizdat.mines.edu/ga_tutorial/ga_tutorial.ps to http://samizdat.mines.edu/ga_tutorial/ga_tutorial.ps
 
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
[[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
: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?[[User:Chaosdruid|Chaosdruid]] ([[User talk:Chaosdruid|talk]]) 19:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 18:10, 12 October 2017 (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.
 
== Intro paragraph should be edited ==
:: 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.
 
The following is bad/false in the article and should be removed:
:: [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
"John Holland introduced genetic algorithms in 1960 based on the concept of Darwin’s theory of evolution,
and his student David E. Goldberg further extended GA in 1989."
 
FALSE: John Holland introduced genetic algorithms in 1960
== Related algorithms is a mess! ==
--- There is no paper from 1960 which supports this claim.
Actually, Bremermann (see history section of this article)
introduced GAs in the 1960s before JH started publishing on the subject.
 
UNJUST BIAS: his student David E. Goldberg further extended GA in 1989.
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:
--- This unjustly overemphasized DEG's contribution (which is not disputed
* Too many algorithms listed that are very weakly related to GA
as a valid contribution). As the history section of this article shows,
* 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)
there was a lot of GA research /before/ DEG's stellar rise. It is also
* 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.
unclear /what/ DEG's "extension" actually is and means.
Overall this section should really be no more than about 15 lines. Thoughts?
[[User:Jr271|Jr271]] ([[User talk:Jr271|talk]]) 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 
[[User:LMSchmitt|LMSchmitt]] ([[User talk:LMSchmitt#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LMSchmitt|contribs]]) 00:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
== Another example to add? ==
 
: Good catch. I removed the disputed sentence. I think it is worth mentioning DEG in the History section, as my admittedly inexpert impression is that he did a lot to bring GAs into the applied engineering ___domain. If you know the GA history and have some sources to back it up, please feel free to add to the History section! --<code>&#123;&#123;u&#124;[[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]]&#125;&#125;&nbsp;{[[User talk:Mark viking|Talk]]}</code> 03:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
An evolving mechanical arm. It uses genetic algorithms to train a neural network.
http://www.e-nuts.net/en/genetic-algorithms <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.26.90.227|78.26.90.227]] ([[User talk:78.26.90.227|talk]]) 13:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->