Talk:Firefly algorithm
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
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted content
A large amount of content and references was removed with this series of edits. Diego (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Criticism
I have removed the boilerplate criticism section that appeared in the lede of this article (and in many others). I have replaced it with a section that covers only the criticism specific to this algorithm, and refers the reader to the more general criticism of nature-inspired metaheuristics at List of metaphor-based metaheuristics. Since I have made similar removals or replacements on other pages, if anyone has an issue with this one, it's best to start an omnibus discussion at Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.