Newsgroups: comp.ai.genetic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news.ner.bbnplanet.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!matilda.vut.edu.au!rhh
From: rhh@matilda.vut.edu.au (Robert Hinterding)
Subject: Re: Crossover vs Mutation
Message-ID: <DnBHuv.4r7@matilda.vut.edu.au>
Organization: Victoria University of Technology
References: <4gfvv5$d7r@soleil.uvsq.fr>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 05:56:55 GMT
Lines: 31

Olivier Chocron <chocron> writes:

>-- Hello, EAs users,..let the war....begin....

>Following the discussion about crossover and mutation (which is legitime?)
>under the precedent subject name :Classification of an evolutionary computation
>algorithm, I will respond to some interlocutors as D.Fogel,T.Dunning &
>T.Belding

	[ much verbage deleted]

Argueing about what happens in nature or who said what seems rather pointless
as evolutionary computation algorithms are only rather loosely based on nature.
What is more important is which of the many operators and their variations
are useful for different problem types.  It fairly simple to modify your favorite
algorithm so that for example it produces only one child and uses only crossover
or mutation to produce the child, not both.  If you leave all the other 
parameters constant and vary the probability of using either crossover or
mutation and do lots of runs, then you will have the answer for the problems
you used.  Not nearly as much fun as argueing about it, but brings out 
interesting results.
Downunder we call that the "suck it and see" approach.
Cheers,
Robert


-- 
Robert Hinterding
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY       Email: rhh@matilda.vut.edu.au 
P.O. Box 14428, Melb Mail Centre        Fax:   +61 3 688 4050
AUSTRALIA 3000                          Phone: +61 3 688 4686              
