Jump to content

Talk:Firefly algorithm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 11:30, 7 December 2013 (Signing comment by Ουδέτερος - "Neutrality: add a bit of information"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconComputer science Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

I am disputing the article's claim that FA is 'clearly superior' to PSO. The claim is based on the Chatterjee et al. reference (10). That paper only states that FA is superior to PSO for their proposed problem. It is fallacious to imply that FA is clearly superior to PSO for other problems based solely on the evidence of that application paper.

How does this compare too Glowworm swarm optimization and are these articles not describing the same algorithm (if not, what is the difference, and there should be a link to each other). patrick (talk)

Link added, comparison welcomed indeed. Utopiah (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

The article is biased. Comparisons to other Metaheuristics imply that the Firefly algorithm was a universal super-algorithm, which is not possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwatzwutz (talkcontribs) 11:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the article is biased, though some of the papers may indicate the algorithm can be superior in their applications. So it's all up to the interpretation of the results. I have working in this area for many years, and I have rewrote that sentence to weaken the claims by that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ουδέτερος (talkcontribs) 11:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]