This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ther is a bunch of algorithm examples here. Please provide references which describe them as SWINT otherwise this constitutes WP:SYNTH. -M.Altenmann >t
You asked: "(where is the rationale on the talk page?) (undo | thank)" - the talk page is extremely small. And the rationale is right there: WP:SYNTH. It is your job to provide references which explicitly say that rivers are swarm intelligence, not mine to engage with you in theoretical discussions about AI. -M.Altenmann >t 08:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Altenmann: I see you have now deleted the gravitational search algorithm as well, claiming there is "nothing to discuss". Here are some recent reviews on swarm intelligence that do not agree with you: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Please disengage from editing this article unless you are willing to familiarise yourself somewhat with the topic. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It is very interesting that I have been accused by the editor (@Epipelagic:) that I have conflict of interest with the paper entitled Grey Wolf Optimizer. It seems you have no idea about the field that this algorithm has been cited more than 110 times in the literature and this evidently shows that this algorithm has achieved the notability among other algorithms. Have a look here: https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=grey+wolf+optimizer&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
Okay I gave up and will never edit a page in Wikipedia since it seems that such pages are patrolling by non-expert who has written many articles in sea foods and biology !!! This is ridiculous. Now I feel why our lecturers keep saying that Wikipedia pages are not reliable at all. Because someone in the street from the seafood market can edit a page in Artificial Intelligence :))))))
The editor is right in removing GWO many years ago and Seyedali Mirjalili comments here, because, in 2020, it is proven that there is no novelty in GWO, and it just based on SPSO-2011 and velocity free PSOs and "self-organizing hierarchical PSO with time-varying acceleration coefficients" HPSO-TVAC method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.82.9.123 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
User Ruud Koot according to his profile "a Ph.D. student in computer science" has made several changes to pages related to the Swarm Intelligence area. He removed a lot of material, and numerous references and links from many Wikipedia pages on metaheuristics. He removed nearly all sub-sections on nature-inspired metaheuristics from the Swarm intelligence page, and grouped them in a new page List of metaphor-based metaheuristics, after a long section on “Criticism of the metaphor methodology”. According to his view, nature-inspired metaheuristics hide “their lack of novelty behind an elaborate metaphor”. He also copied and pasted the following statement at the beginning of many metaheuristics pages.
“Nature-inspired metaheuristics in general have started to attract criticism in the research community for hiding their lack of novelty behind an elaborate metaphor.[5][6][7][8][9] In response, Springer's Journal of Heuristics has updated their editorial policy to state that:[10] Implementations should be explained by employing standard optimization terminology, where a solution is called a "solution" and not something else related to some obscure metaphor (e.g., harmony, flies, bats, countries, etc.).”
Amongst the pages affected by his changes there are those related to the Bees algorithm, Artificial bee colony algorithm, Harmony search, Cuckoo search, Glowworm swarm optimization, and Firefly algorithm (I suspect many more).
Whilst I am not against scientific debate and criticism, I believe that Koot’s pervasive and arbitrary changes are a clear attempt to bias the debate according to his views. The statement about Nature-inspired metaheuristics is at best disrespectful, and ignorant of the impact of such techniques (over 6000 citations on the topic only this year according to WoS). His re-editing of the Swarm Intelligence page shows a very partial view of the subject, and discarded some of best known and widely used metaheuristics in the field. For example, the first article on the Bees Algorithm (Pham et al., 2006) was cited so far 927 times, the first article about Artificial Bee Colony (Karaboga, 2005) was cited 3090 times, Cuckoo search (Yang 2009) 1652 times, Firefly algorithm (Yang 2009) 1248 times. There is no way to undo the changes, as he promptly rolls back his version. He semi-protected the ‘Swarm Intelligence’ page to protect his changes. I hereby ask him to roll back his changes, on this page and related ones. I have no objection about him adding an extra section with his personal views about the algorithms, but I believe he should respect the contributions of many experts in the field. Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Evolutionary algorithms (EA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), ant colony optimization (ACO) and their variants dominate the field of nature-inspired metaheuristics.
You have made extensive changes to several Wikipedia pages concerning the general Swarm Intelligence topic, removing a lot of scholarly material and presenting the topic under your very personal slant. You seem to over-rely on a very selective list of sources, which you have copied and pasted all over Wikipedia. The scholarly debate on the usefulness, originality, and merits of metaheuristics is at least 30 years old; you have chosen one very narrow stance and biased the entire presentation of the field on Wikipedia. You have removed a lot of information and references (e.g. applications of the Bees Algorithm to real world complex problems) which give the reader examples of the usefulness of such techniques, and replaced this information with your own personal negative view of the topic. Whilst I don't object to your freedom to express your views in a respectful manner, I do object to the fact that you biased the entire presentation on Wikipedia of a very large and complex topic. I also do object to the fact that you removed a large amount of contributions of many other authors, effectively vandalising several pages. Whilst I don't object to your idea of moving to a dedicated page the list of nature-inspired metaheuristics, I do object to the way you presented these algorithms, preceding them with a long critical text copied and pasted from your favourite authors. Again, based on your very personal and negative point of view, you have presented the whole field of nature-inspired metaheuristics under a very negative slant. What you have left on the Swarm Intelligence page is also not a sound representation of the field. Differential Evolution does not belong to the Swarm Intelligence family, but is one implementation of Evolutionary Algorithms. Clonal selection belongs to the family of Artificial Immune Systems. There are fundamental differences between these classes of algorithms (i.e. decentralisation), and I don't think they should be mixed together. From the point of view of accuracy, the page was far more sound before your modifications. Before it presented 'Swarm Intelligence' as 'nature-inspired metaheuristics' (improper but widely used), now it is a jumble of heterogeneous algorithms. In any case, I do not want to engage with your personal ideas on the subject. I question your behaviour. When one user removes a significant portion of material, links, and references on several Wikipedia pages to push forward his personal negative view of a topic, I believe we have a 'democracy' problem. From your profile, I understand you are a doctoral student in a field which is not even related to the topic you have hijacked. In this case, I believe we have also an authoritativeness problem. Whilst I am aware of the fact that Wikipedia is based on a horizontal structure where all contributions are valuable, I believe you should exercise some prudence before criticising respected professors for "hiding their lack of novelty behind an elaborate metaphor". You can append your views at the end of the topics, possibly in a more succinct and respectful fashion, without removing the contributions of other authors. Therefore, for the sake of neutrality and objectivity, I ask you once again to restore the old pages, eventually adding your views in a separate section at the end.Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you agree, I ask you to restore the material you have removed from the various pages, and present the topic under a fair and impartial point of view. Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the new changes have biased the discussion completely. This page has been improved in the past by a lot of contributors and used to reflect a completely neutral perspective. The fact that the user Ruud Koot has made the article protected shows that he is well-aware of his biased and inappropriate changes in this page as the main page of swarm intelligence. The user Marco castellani has made valid objections about your changes and I highly support him. This does not mean that I do not agree that there are metaphor-based algorithm and even worse artificially made metaheuristics. I believe that your ignorance of a neutral point of view and contributions of contributors in the past is not appropriate. Please restore the old pages and write your point of view as a new section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheedar (talk • contribs)
I confirm that the current presentation on Wikipedia of Swarm Intelligence presents a very one-sided and questionable view of the topic. A lot of material documenting successful application of nature-inspired metaheuristics has been removed from the articles of various metaheuristics and substituted with inaccurate interpretation of scholarly articles (see also points raised in Talk:List of metaphor-based metaheuristics). The rationale for moving some of the sections to List of metaphor-based metaheuristics and leaving others in Swarm Intelligence is not scientifically sound.
The overall presentation is negatively slanted against nature-inspired metaheuristics.
The entire presentation of the Swarm Intelligence topic on Wikipedia needs extensive fact checking from an expert administrator.
Marco castellani 1965 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Swarm intelligence. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~lukeman/fish_school_f.pdfWhen 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) 09:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a subject bar should be added instead of a long See Also list? Spannerjam (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The link to a Dutch article leads to an article about AI swarm intelligence, not swarm intelligence in general. X10 (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This article begins Swarm intelligence (SI) is the collective behavior of decentralized, self-organized systems, natural or artificial
while the Colins English Dictionary defines swarm intelligence as having the possible meaning of the collective behaviour of a group of animals...
[10]. From this one might reasonably infer that this article would contain a discussion of social insects. However, there is not a single reference to natural swarms in the article itself (outside of the lede). As such I suggest the article be expanded or renamed. ~ El D. (talk to me) 00:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at College Of Engineering Pune supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from ((IEP assignment))
by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2023 and 19 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): T57fd (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CMA2379.
— Assignment last updated by UndercoverSwitch (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)