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

Revision as of 22:49, 30 July 2016

Revision as of 22:51, 30 July 2016

Line 34:

* '''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 is the extension of the Darwins theory of evolution to sociology, politics, history and concepts. 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 like "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. Social Darwinists "compare society to a living organism and argue that, just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes.". Hence, 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 ICA 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 major 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 wikipediaWikipedia 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 is 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.