![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The timeline includes lots of developments that relate more to genetic algorithms than metaheuristics. I don't think advances in genetic algorithms are necessarily relevant. And the timeline doesn't even include Eurisko! - 24.17.243.81 ( talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of works on heuristic search in Artificial Intelligence which are not mentioned in the article and definitely belong in it, including A* and its extensions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.165.77 ( talk) 06:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi All, I've an undergrad degree in Computer Science. It is incorrect to redirect heuristic algoritm to this page. A heuristic algorithm is any algorithm that one believes typically comes up with a good solution. I'm not sure about this particular term but in context, this discusses a broad class of heuristic algorithms. Heuristic algorithm don't have to be iterative. For example, my undegraduate thesis was on standard bin packing algorithms and the class I was looking at produced a packing in the order that packets arrived. First Fit would be such an algorithm. Its not really the type of algorithm discussed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.93.18 ( talk) 02:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Diomidis Spinellis believes this page would be better off at
metaheuristic. I agree. However, the approach
Diomidis Spinellis took, by cut and paste, is not the right one, since that destroys the page history.
I would like to ask an admin to delete the redirect now at metaheuristic, then move this page there. The links to this page were already taken care for. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov 17:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi All. It is unclear whether some of the text in the article is the writers’ thoughts, or generally accepted fact. As an encyclopedia, citation is necessary to back up arguments. -- Daleh 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The opinions in the text are clearly not generally accepted. In fact, they seem to come from someone who hates metaheuristics. Evolutionary computation researchers such as myself take serious issue with statement such as that no particular class of metaheuristics does better than any other for particular problem classes. Also, many of us are not very convinced of the wide-ranging implications of the no free lunch theorem. Daleh
Hi Daleh, I'm confused why somebody would "hate" metaheuristics. Assuming that this is a correct term for said class of heuristic algorithms, its a valid approach to a great deal of problems. I'm really annoyed that somebody seems to have "merged" heuristic algorithms into this; that was dumb. Its like having a topic "dogs" and merging it into the German Shephard entry. Most obviously a lot of people who don't have computer science degrees have played with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.93.18 ( talk) 02:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This article contains a clear bias against metaheuristic based approaches. I find the language used is especially emotive and far from an objective description or assessment of the concept.
I also find the final paragraph of the "General criticisms" section to be highly misleading. Whilst the paragraph is factually correct in its statements regarding continuous non-linear optimisation, it implies these methods should be easily applicable in metaheuristics. Given that metaheuristics are primarily used for combinatorial optimsation and constraint satisfaction problems where the solution space is discrete I find this to be a highly dubious and un-supported inference.
Axiomaticus
03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
A heuristic has been developed for achieving a minimum makespan schedule for the shop. The heuristic considers both jobs in a given queue and those yet to arrive at any machine, to sequence the operations to be processed on all machines. It is a singlepass procedure and creates a feasible, near-minimum makespan schedule
With regard to the comments about spaces deceptive to metaheuristic algorithms, and to the no-free-lunch theorem. The no free lunch theorem applies to all algorithms and all problems, the it is as easy to find a function to fool a second order method, or to cause slow convergence as it is to for any algorithm.
-- 87.192.57.3 12:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Conor
I agree with Axiomaticus, this article is presented in a very biased manner that would seem to me to be founded in the authors limited perspective on metaheuristic methods. In addition it is not, in my opinion, even factually correct. For instance evaluating the hessian at a particular point in space to obtain a good search direction works very well on some problems, but for others where the search space is non-smooth or discontinuous or for some other reason cannot be approximated using for instance, a taylor series expansion about a point or using some other perturbation methods, the hessian will be difficult to evaluate and may be a very misleading.
-- 87.192.57.3 12:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Conor
I agree with Axiomaticus and the user at 87.192.57.3 , that this article, and especially the "Criticism" section is presented in a very biased manner, that lowers the standard of wikipedia in general. The statement about better thinking and programming is an insult, there are no citations in that section, there are misleading and false assertions (e.g. "no meta-heuristic can be shown to be better for any specific problem than brute force search" - better in what sense?). The whole paragraph about Hessian methods and their comparison to metaheuristics indicate the author does not understand that the class of problems where "Hessian-based methods reach [the optimum] in one step" is not so broad; what happens if derivatives cannot be calculated for example? it is apparent that if the problem under consideration is amenable to a method that is guaranteed to yield a GLOBAL (not local) optimum, that method should be used. If not, either a specialized heuristic that is proved to be more efficient than a meta-heuristic, or if no such algorithm exists, a general meta-heuristic, must be used to find a near-optimal solution; perhaps in conjunction with a relaxed version of the model, to have both upper and lower bounds of the optimal solution. My opinion is that this section is a more of an attack to meta-heuristics than an encyclopedia entry and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.50.97 ( talk) 15:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Something else I cannot understand is the fact, that the inventor of the term "meta-heuristic" with a french quote is linked to an professional NHL player and coach. Sorry, but I cannot believe this. Not because of a lack of intelligence but as a lack of time and interests. So please, fulfill the site of the linked "Fred Glover" with his scientific career or correct the link with the right person. Thanks. -- User: Guest 22:12, 09 May 2009 (MEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.109.84.112 ( talk)
This tag was pasted onto the "Timeline" section:
![]() | This section may contain material
not related to the topic of the article and should be moved to
Genetic algorithm instead. |
In what sense it is "off-topic"? GA is a metheuristic too, right? -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear All,
This page has had a major update to make it more informative and scientific.
Several items have been removed from the timeline, not because I want to pass judgment on what is a significant contribution and what is not, but because the newer and as of yet unestablished contributions to the research field should at least have proper Wikipedia pages before being added to this list. Please don't use this page as a promotional billboard.
I hope you all like the new page, which took me a long time to make.
Optimering ( talk) 13:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The page was way better before...... and less biased. BTW who the fuck is pedersen??? Your brother?
The article contains original research, which is contrary to wikipedia guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
The relevance of the time-line history can be very easily debated (for me, it is "original research"). The criticism section also does not seem to cite too many references. While almost any wikipedia page could contain such a section, criticism sections do not seem to be very encouraged by the policy of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.98.0.99 ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I am currently doing a dissertation on metaheuristics and have generally found the 'related pages' section on relevant wiki pages to be largely confusing and poorly organised. Now I have a greater understanding, I have been going around the various pages, this one in particular, and edited the sections to be more uniform, helping the reader to place the topic within its greater context. I hope my edits will be found to be beneficial. Talk or edit otherwise :) Jr271 ( talk) 17:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You write "the work by Trelea,[57] amongst others, for analysis of particle swarm optimization". However Trelea is explicitely starting from
[59] Clerc, M. & Kennedy, J. The particle swarm - explosion, stability, and convergence in a multidimensional complex space IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 2002, 6, 58 - 73
Another important work is the thesis
[60] Van den Bergh, F. An Analysis of Particle Swarm Optimizers Department of Computer Science, University of Pretoria, 2002 which also quotes [59], which indeed seems to be the very first one (and which has been awarded by IEEE TEC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.229.106.132 ( talk) 07:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Heuristic (computer science) redirects here but I'm not convinced this is the only thing that can be meant by a heuristic. Opinions on removing the redirect and placing an article at Heuristic (computer science)? RJFJR ( talk) 22:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
According to the "Local Search" entry in wikipedia, Tabu Search and Simulated Annealing are subfields of Local Search, according to this page they are not (I'm specially referring to the image containing a classification of the techniques).
Honestly, I think the whole of metaheuristics is a subfield of Local Search, and not the other way around, but since it's just a matter of labeling, I think it's fine either way. But at least the inconsistency I point out should be sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.184.238 ( talk) 15:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed metaheuristics as a whole is a subfield of local search. Having genetic algorithms as a disjoint set form local search (as in the diagram) seems to be very misleading (for not using a stronger word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.108.46 ( talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the placement of "local search" in the figure is definitively incorrect. Local search should encompass the whole figure. Perhaps it's better to just remove the figure until it is fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:2:5280:F03F:5906:EAA0:522D ( talk) 19:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not find any sources for the suggested dichotomy of local versus global search, and think the paragraph misrepresents local search in itself. Citing Russel and Norvig's 2010 "Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach", p.121: "Local search algorithms operate using a single current node (rather than multiple paths) and generally move only to neighbors of that node. Typically, the paths followed by the search are not retained. [...] local search algorithms are not systematic [...]".
Russel & Norvig (2010, p.120) instead contrast local search with systematic search, which they charaterize as trying to visit all states in the search space using systematic construction rules, like breadt-first or depth-first search.
This can be corroborated by Blum and Roli's 2003 "Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: Overview and conceptual comparison" (which is already references as source [3] at the beginning of the paragraph in question, where: "Among the basic approximate methods we usually distinguish between constructive methods and local search methods. Constructive algorithms generate solutions from scratch by adding—to an initially empty partial solution- components, until a solution is complete. [...] Local search algorithms start from some initial solution and iteratively try to replace the current solution by a better solution in an appropriately defined neighborhood of the current solution [...]" (p. 269). Here the dichotomy is local vs constructive. In both of these cases, approaches like Ant Colony Optimization, Genetic Algorithms or Particle Swarm Optimization are clearly instances of local search, while this Wikipedia article introduces them as "Other global search metaheuristic that are not local search-based".
Summarizing: the paragraph in question and its image cotradict the source that they reference, as well as an established introductory book on AI. I would strongly encourage to update the dichotomy to "local vs. constructive search", update the classification of the misrepresented meta-search algorithms in the text, and remove the source-less image. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zakum (
talk •
contribs)
18:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Some (many) of the methods in the section "Main contributions" are not the main contributions. Many of them are not even cited by ten other papers in the area of Metaheuristics. It seems that every paper which is published in this area is listed in this wiki page. For example "galaxy-based search algorithm", in two years, have been cited by three other papers, two of which are by the author of the original paper. How can this be a main contribution?
This list should contain those algorithms and methods that are accepted by the other researchers and have something like more than 100 citations. Every paper published about Metaheuristic algorithms is not a main contribution.
One alternative solution is to change the title of the section and call it "All of the contributions" instead of "Main contributions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.242.169 ( talk) 18:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
including a quotation of an unknown researcher in the main page of metaheuristic and act according to his guidelines is totally ridiculous. Who is this Sorensen, someone with papers that almost nobody cites and this paper of him you have included in the page has been published in a journal with impact factor less than 0.7. Somebody seems to desire very much to play the role of dictator in this big field of science.
Unsigned comment by User:Hoodaan (KW)
You did not get my point. The point is acting based on a single paper which is just published does not seem scientific. As you mentioned earlier at least 100 citations are needed. How many citations does this paper have? If you read the paper, you see that it is void of mathematical proofs or any experiments and the idea in the paper is totally based on his personal view. I just mention that double standard is not an academic procedure. Moreover, my comments were in no purpose to insult anybody. Thanks Hoodaan ( talk) 11:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
In the past there used to be a large list of metaheuristics, most of which were reputable (like the ant/bee based one).
Rather than add those back into this article, I am adding a link in the also see section for: List of metaheuristics. I merely copied and pasted an older draft from 2013 to preserve much of what was already there. Please help the article in progress ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/List_of_Metaheuristics).
I've moved the page out of Draft and into Talk space, as a subpage of this one at Talk:Metaheuristic/List_of_Metaheuristics. The list of references is a useful resource for editors interested in this topic, and it could be used to add relevant facts into the article, so it doesn't make sense to review every six months whether it should be deleted. Diego ( talk) 11:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This English version is largely obsolete, and even sometimes wrong. For example, in the Applications section, it is written: "Metaheuristics are used for combinatorial optimization ". The reader may easily believe that this is the only kind of applications, which is wrong. Many metaheuristics can cope with continuous problems. Moreover, the most "recent" reference, if I dare say, is 1995, about the No Free Lunch theorem. And not even a pertinent one, as already pointed out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.229.106.132 ( talk) 16:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metaheuristic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)