4 ms·

Point taken on NIPS. I agree its focus has shifted in recent years. Venues like GECCO/WCCI/CEC tend to be better if you're looking for nature-inspired algorithm

by tansey 16y ago

Point taken on NIPS. I agree its focus has shifted in recent years. Venues like GECCO/WCCI/CEC tend to be better if you're looking for nature-inspired algorithms. The theoretical foundation debate is ancient and probably not worth getting into. However, there are many benchmarks for each class of algorithms. For instance, the double pole balancing task for neural network controllers is considered a standard metric. More general benchmarks, like keepaway soccer, are also available. Also, in fairness, the whole AI field is balkanized. Look at statistical relational learning algorithms for example. The closer you look, the more fractures you'll find in any community.

another 16y ago
Absolutely---it's a matter of degree, and judgments thereof are bound to be subjective. That said, I'd still claim that the EC community, broadly taken, appears particularly prone to tribalism. I'm far from a zealot on the "theoretical foundation" question, and it's possible to point to fields that have been, perhaps, even harmed by their possession of such a foundation (eg, reinforcement learning). That said, you need at least one or the other---theory or methodology. You mention DPB, and it's a good example: a lot of value was gained from one line of research centered on that single benchmark, despite its flaws. Pull together a curated suite of such problems, release a common implementation, get it widely used, and the field would benefit immensely. Some equivalent of Caruana's grand comparison, from the supervised ML world, could also do much good. In any case, it's an interesting topic, but we could go back and forth on it forever. GAs and their progeny (including ACO and NEAT) are fun to consider and lend themselves to accessible explanations, so they get a fair amount of press. Whether or not that's justified is something we'll likely disagree on---but I wanted to push back a bit against the implication, intended or not, that they're where the action is in AI today.

by tansey 16y ago

another 16y ago

Absolutely---it's a matter of degree, and judgments thereof are bound to be subjective. That said, I'd still claim that the EC community, broadly taken, appears particularly prone to tribalism. I'm far from a zealot on the "theoretical foundation" question, and it's possible to point to fields that have been, perhaps, even harmed by their possession of such a foundation (eg, reinforcement learning). That said, you need at least one or the other---theory or methodology. You mention DPB, and it's a good example: a lot of value was gained from one line of research centered on that single benchmark, despite its flaws. Pull together a curated suite of such problems, release a common implementation, get it widely used, and the field would benefit immensely. Some equivalent of Caruana's grand comparison, from the supervised ML world, could also do much good. In any case, it's an interesting topic, but we could go back and forth on it forever. GAs and their progeny (including ACO and NEAT) are fun to consider and lend themselves to accessible explanations, so they get a fair amount of press. Whether or not that's justified is something we'll likely disagree on---but I wanted to push back a bit against the implication, intended or not, that they're where the action is in AI today.