Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplified swarm optimization

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Content may be restored and merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified swarm optimization

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was tempted to tag this for speedy as "no context" but I believe it is something in computer science. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Swarm_intelligence until it matures enough to stand on it's own like Particle_swarm_optimization --DeVerm (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep and clean up, or merge to Particle swarm optimization. The optimization algorithm described in this article appears to be a simplification of the particle swarm optimization algorithm, so it might be worthwhile to cover this subject within the PSO article. Maybe the original author of this article should be notified of this discussion and given the chance to edit it to give it some context. In fact, the original author should have been notified, regardless. WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT isn't really a good deletion reason. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are dozens of variants of PSO, most of them not very notable. I'll have to look closer into this on, but as WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT isn't a very good reason for deletion, it shouldn't be a very good reason to keep either. —Ruud 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable variation of Particle swarm optimization (PSO). Of the 5 references, only one relates to the subject, and it's an unrefereed and uncited report. There has indeed also been a 2011 journal paper by Yeh, but it has not yet been cited at all, so there is no indication that this variation of PSO is notable. In addition, the term "Simplified Swarm Optimization" also appears in a number of publications by Noorhaniza Wahid, but in those cases it refers to a different method of the same name, which makes this a poor article title. -- 202.124.74.243 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the IP care to elaborate on these (incorrect afaik) statements? You first say that only one of the 5 references relates to the subject, only to follow up explaining that others are also related but you don't like them?! I just read through the linked reference from Kennedy and Eberhart and it is about this article, no matter how they call it (mostly "simplified version" etc.) Also, I do not follow your requirements for reports... it sounds like you only accept reports from scientists when they have references for their findings? Would be history instead of science imho. --DeVerm (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he means is that 4 of the references are about Particle swarm optimizations in general and were published many years prior to Yehs. Looking at the dates of the publications, I would have to agree. The only reference I see that is directly related was the one published by the author. That isn't to say that subject couldn't eventually become notable, but I can't find any other 3rd party work citing this work or any website/conference/journal/etc that mention the paper besides Wikipedia and http://ieemweb.ie.nthu.edu.tw/project/index.php?num=7 (which appears to be the university page where Yeh attends or attended). snaphat (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one reference is directly related to the article in question. The other 4 are related to Particle swarm optimizations in general and were published many years before the variant in question existed. Moreover, The one citation that is directly related is from the author and is simply a research grant proposal title with no information. The citation is written such that it looks like a report, but is simply taking the funding duration for the project and using that as the dates mentioned. See http://ieemweb.ie.nthu.edu.tw/project/index.php?num=7 . If anyone has access to the report mentioned or can verify its existence do share as I cannot find any 3rd party information or even verify the content of the article without a primary/secondary/tertiary source. snaphat (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand that he looked at the title of the documents. I have actually read them and found descriptions of the simplified form inside. Sources do not require a title that is an exact match... they require to have the matching content described in detail, but it does NOT need to be the main subject. --DeVerm (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The sources you refer to were written prior to the simplified forms existence according to what the article states. So either the article is incorrect or something else is up. I will check the sources myself tomorrow. snaphat (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these dates are suspect. I appreciate it that you check the sources too, tnx. --DeVerm (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I took a look at each reference and none are specifically related to SSO. They contain algorithms similar to the one mentioned in the article, but do NOT contain the one mentioned in the article. As for what the references contain:

Reference 2 - formulates the PSO method.
Reference 3 - formulates a version of PSO that works on descrete binary variables (DPSO).
Reference 4 - is simply an emperical study of the performance of the PSO method.
Reference 5 - is a book on the subject of particle swarms in general.

The SSO of the article is a variant of the DPSO mentioned in reference 3. Essentially, the original DPSO is simply a a modification for the PSO to work in discrete ranges. The SSO introduces a special update mechanism for the particle position that doesn't exist in the original DPSO (the original is simply the particle position + particle velocity = particle position in next time step). Other than that, the procedure for computation is the same. Basically, there are many variants based on that first DPSO paper and there is nothing that makes this particular variant notable as per WP:N. snaphat (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone does find an additional independent source. —Ruud 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a description of a personal variant of an algorithm. The text is enough to move me to interpretive dance: The best fitness function value of a specified solution with its own history is called pBest and the solution with the best fitness function value among all solutions is called gBest; both are adapted from PSO. The major difference among all soft computing methods is the UM. The fundamental concept of SSO is that each selected variable value may be generated from the current solution, pBest, gBest, or a random number according to specifics in SSO. The UM of SSO is based upon the following simple mathematically model after Cw, Cp, and Cg are defined. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing as the SSO was devised in 2009 and the other reference all predate that. One technical report does not a notable article make.--Salix (talk): 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like everyone else here I agree that this article doesn't stand up to WP:N, hence the reason I did not go for keeping it. But I do not understand why it should be deleted instead of merged into it's parent article because imho it's clear that this isn't a hoax, as it's clear to most editors that vote to delete here too. I do think that it can be merged into a section of Particle_swarm_optimization --DeVerm (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Now the algorithm may well be an improvement to the PSO or it may not. I'm not qualified to judge. Indeed we only have the authors word that it is better as the technical report has not been peer reviewed which would offers at least a basic check. Further as there are no citations no one else in the academic community has looked at the algorithm. So we are suggesting adding an untested algorithm to PSO article. Potentially this could have serious consequences as we essentially give our recommendation to the algorithm and if it were to turn out to have a serious bug some third party could be badly affected. --Salix (talk): 13:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, besides not having any outside references, there isn't enough new information about this to warrant putting it on the PSO page. The only thing new about it is the method to choose the position. DPSOs in general are more notable and those aren't mentioned either. snaphat (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.