3 ms·
The trouble with genetic algorithms is that they are hardly worth it. It's just one of metaheuristics [1], and despite being "biology-inspired" and good-soundin
by lambdadmitry 8y ago
The trouble with genetic algorithms is that they are hardly worth it. It's just one of metaheuristics [1], and despite being "biology-inspired" and good-sounding, it does perform worse than simpler alternatives like tabu search [2] or, even better, LAHC [3]. One of the reasons for that is that for local search the speed of neighborhood exploration is paramount, so theoretical advantages of GA get swamped by slower neighborhood iteration. In addition, LAHC or global annealing are way simpler to implement, they are literally just a few lines of code.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaheuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaheuristic
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabu_search https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabu_search
[3]: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-41019-2_13 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-41019-2_...
- scottlocklin 8y agoIt's been a while since I needed one, but do you know a decent Tabu search package for R or Python (or C)?
- jmmcd 8y agoI've a fair bit of experience with both GAs and LAHC and in my opinion the results are mixed. LAHC wins for fewer hyperparameters (1 versus a minimum of, say, 3), but in terms of implementation simplicity there isn't that big a difference -- say, 6 lines of Python against 12. People might get a false impression from big EA implementations like ECJ being compared against bare-bones LAHC implementations.