Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperialist competitive algorithm: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:38, 30 July 2016

Revision as of 22:49, 30 July 2016

Line 18:

# Is that the age of and algorithm? So Genetic Algorithm can be called novel because it was proposed in 1950s and another algorithm proposed in 2,000 is not? If yes, then what is the specific year at which we should cut and label all the newer algorithms "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft"? In this case, how should we label "Particle Swarm Optimization" and "Ant Colony"?

#

# Is that the performance of the algorithm ofon a set of benchmark problems?

# Or there is something else?

As we see, calling an algorithm "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" is not a personal decision we make for ourselves?. It is a claim that requires expertise and level of research that leads to coming up with a list of "scientific criteria".

I have been the reviewer of tens of papers in the area of evolutionary computation. So let me share my experience with you. The result is not a set of comprehensive criteria, but using this you can easily identify more than 90% of "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic crufts". The criteria is simple: any algorithm that fits into one the following categories can be labeled as "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" (the definition does not claim that if an algorithm does not satisfy any of the following conditions, it is definitely novel).

* '''Criterion 1)''' The source of inspiration is a subgroup of a previously proposed algorithm. For example, after ant colony, another algorithm that uses "American Ant", "Europian ant" and so on, will not be a new algorithm and will be "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft".

* '''Criterion 2)''' The source of inspiration comes from a scientific fact that does not include "gradual improvement and solution finding (optimization) in nature". For example, Ant Colony has a source of inspiration that comes from the real process that ants apply to find the "optimal" path. However, on the other hand, there are algorithms that model some laws in Pysics. For example "A Gravitational Search Algorithm" which is said to be "based on the Newtonian gravity and the laws of motion" is not using a valid source of inspiration for the algorithm design, even if at the end there is an algorithm that works. The optimization algorithms should be based on a source of inspiration that actually does optimization in nature (E.g. the Evolution is actually optimizing the nature and it is a valid source of inspiration for an algorithm and antants really and really run an optimization process in their daily work and that is the reason they can be athe valid source of inspiration for an algorithm - ACO).

Here it is not claimed that the above-mentioned criteria are comprehensive and enable us to easily find and label "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft". However, using just the mentioned two criteria you can find and filter many of the "cruft"s. Then use other methods to work on the few remaining ones. As you see, here instead of labeling this and that, Iwe amare talking about criteria and treat everything by defined rules, not words and phrases.

Now that we have at least a simple definition of the word "cruft", for a few reasons, Imperialist Competitive Algorithm is different from many of the proposed algorithms.

* '''Criterion 1)''' The source of inspiration is not a new labeling of a previously proposed source of inspiration. It is based on the theory of social Darwinism which expansionis the extension of the Darwins theory of evolution to sociology, politics, history and historyconcepts. It is the first and the only major algorithm that is based on a source of inspiration that is not in the category of natural science and still has a strong connection with scientific theories. So the source of inspiration of the algorithm is totally new. The way GA, in the reverse application, is used to simulate artificial life, ICA can be used to model artificial history and social evolution. Giving life to virtual concepts lifelike "country" and "nations" (based on the theories of socio-political evolution), the source of inspiration of ICA is unique and deserves attention and is one of the reasons behind its widespread adoption and success.

* '''Criterion 2)''' Unlike many of the "crufts", ICA is not enforcing a fake connection between the algorithm (optimization) world and the source of inspiration to just make things look fancy, without a valid natural-conceptual optimization process behind it. It is actually based on a process that is basically doing optimization in nature and human history (not a personal belief, but a theory behind it). As mentioned, ICA is based on Social Darwinism. Extreme Social Darwinists even"compare justifysociety theto warsa living organism and argue that, just as somethingbiological usefulorganisms forevolve optimizationthrough humannatural civilizationselection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes.". TheHence, the source of inspiration for ICA is based on an "actual optimization process", something that is hard to find in many of the so-called "nature-inspired cruft"s. What makes it hard for some to understand itICA and see its somewhat ''strange'' inspiration source as a forced fake metaphor is that the source is not categorized in natural science which is the case with many of the similarmajor works in evolutionary computation, and that are easier to understand and agree with for computer scientists, engineers and mathematicians. But ICA is simply GA of history and concepts (even concepts like algorithms!) with a totally different point of view that is based on socio-political evolution. There are many people who do not agree with the theory of social Darwinism, much more than those who do not believe in Darwin's Theory of evolution itself. As the number of people disagreeing with the Darwins theory does not make it less valid, the same is with the Evolution of Concepts which is much harder to describe. Because one should first understand and believe in the natural evolution and then get to a belief that nature is a concept itself and even the "theory of evolution" as a "living concept" is under the law of evolution itself! (how ICA sees the world in a much general framework)! Such a unique source of inspiration with hundreds of books written about it, is not a 250-word page from wikipedia or a chart in a book or the name of a flower or an animal in a powerpoint file, that is then colored as the "inspiration source" for an algorithm that actually does not need it. There is much more theory and published books and papers behind ICA's inspiration source than behind Ant Colony and Particle Swarm Optimization. It is the computer simulation of a process that actually is the optimization process of concepts (as living species) which something much beyond the theory of natural evolution.

On the other hand, ICA has been trusted and used and tested by thousands of researchers in solving thousands of problems that are published in a few thousand papers. Actually, ICA is among the few algorithms that have a unique real source of inspiration and has been widely used and tested by the researchers.

Any decision to delete this article (or any article) is something that should be made based on a set of criteria. We might agree or disagree with the defined set of criteria. We might also add new conditions. As long as we use criteria, not the names and words, to make decisions, then the decision is fine. A good criterion should have the potential to be applied to any algorithm, regardless of the name, age, fame and so onfame. The criteria should be logical and clear.

If we ignore using criteria and just use poetic words and phrases as labels then we are not having a scientific decision, it is indeed a personal belief and then a personal decision based on that belief, on behalf of athe whole community. The criteria must be so clear and precise that even we apply it to the famous algorithms like Genetic Algorithms and Ant Colony Optimization and treat them using the same conditions we have for the others. This is the way science works. Because, science is the area of criteria-based reasoning, not making a decision based on examples and without reaching a criterion. If there is any simple, clear and precise definition that classifies the work of about 36,000 researcherscoauthors as "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft", we should first state it clearly, justify it and then use itthat simple definition to claim that an algorithm is cruft, referencing criterion number X or Y. To separate a good and bad scientific work, the method and reasoning should be scientific itself. We can not help science by approaching it with a non-scientific labeling and without having well-defined criteria.

So if there is any criterion that classifies ICA in "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft"s we should have it first, before making any decision. [[Special:Contributions/66.75.251.213|66.75.251.213]]If ([[Userthat talk:66.75.251.213|talk]])definition 08:41is clearly given, 30and JulyICA 2016is (UTC)one of "crufts", then I agree with you that the article should be deleted as well as all the other algorithm pages that fit into one of the categories defined in our "definition of crufts".

[[Special:Contributions/66.75.251.213|66.75.251.213]] ([[User talk:66.75.251.213|talk]]) 08:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.203.71.82|209.203.71.82]] ([[User talk:209.203.71.82|talk]]) 03:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->