Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperialist competitive algorithm


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Of note is that a policy- or -guideline-based rationale for deletion was not provided by the nominator, and no other users have opined for deletion. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator also stated in a later comment, "This would be a good candidate for a merge or redirect". North America1000 07:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Imperialist competitive algorithm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

More metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft. —Ruud 15:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why Imperialist Competitve Algorithm article should be kept in Wikipedia?

I think the removal of this page from WikiPedia is not a good decision. First of all, Imperialist Competitive Algorithm is a widely used and cited algorithm. The first paper that introduced this algorithm has been cited more than 1,000 times. Also in Google Scholar there are more than 3,000 papers that have used or referred to this algorithm. So by just attaching a label "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" and deleting an article from WikiPedia, I think a decision is beeing made on behalf of a whole community of researchers.

Before making a decision, we should first bring a scientific definition and criteria for calling the work thousands of researchers, "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft". Let's first ask this question: What makes an algorithm to be called "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft"? What is the criteria?

'''Some suggestions: '''
 * 1) Is that the age of and algorithm? So Genetic Algorithm can be called novel because it was proposed in 1950s and another algorithm proposed in 2,000 is not? If yes, then what is the specific year at which we should cut and label all the newer algorithms "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft"? In this case, how should we label "Particle Swarm Optimization" and "Ant Colony"?
 * 2) Is that the performance of the algorithm on a set of benchmark problems?
 * 3) Or there is something else?
 * 1) Or there is something else?

As we see, calling an algorithm "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" is not a personal decision we make for ourselves. It is a claim that requires expertise and level of research that leads to coming up with a list of "scientific criteria".

I have been the reviewer of tens of papers in the area of evolutionary computation. So let me share my experience with you. The result is not a set of comprehensive criteria, but using this you can easily identify more than 90% of "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic crufts". The criteria is simple: any algorithm that fits into one the following categories can be labeled as "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" (the definition does not claim that if an algorithm does not satisfy any of the following conditions, it is definitely novel).


 * Criterion 1) The source of inspiration is a subgroup of a previously proposed algorithm. For example, after ant colony, another algorithm that uses "American Ant", "Europian ant" and so on, will not be a new algorithm and will be "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft".
 * Criterion 2) The source of inspiration comes from a scientific fact that does not include "gradual improvement and solution finding (optimization) in nature". For example, Ant Colony has a source of inspiration that comes from the real process that ants apply to find the "optimal" path. However, on the other hand, there are algorithms that model some laws in Pysics. For example "A Gravitational Search Algorithm" which is said to be "based on the Newtonian gravity and the laws of motion" is not using a valid source of inspiration for the algorithm design, even if at the end there is an algorithm that works. The optimization algorithms should be based on a source of inspiration that actually does optimization in nature (E.g. the Evolution is actually optimizing the nature and it is a valid source of inspiration for an algorithm and ants really and really run an optimization process in their daily work and that is the reason they can be the valid source of inspiration for an algorithm - ACO).

Here it is not claimed that the above-mentioned criteria are comprehensive and enable us to easily find and label "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft". However, using just the mentioned two criteria you can find and filter many of the "cruft"s. Then use other methods to work on the few remaining ones. As you see, here instead of labeling this and that, we are talking about criteria and treat everything by defined rules, not words and phrases.

Now that we have at least a simple definition of the word "cruft", for a few reasons, Imperialist Competitive Algorithm is different from many of the proposed algorithms.


 * Criterion 1) The source of inspiration is not a new labeling of a previously proposed source of inspiration. It is based on the theory of social Darwinism which is the extension of the Darwins theory of evolution to sociology, politics, history and concepts. It is the first and the only major algorithm that is based on a source of inspiration that is not in the category of natural science and still has a strong connection with scientific theories. So the source of inspiration of the algorithm is totally new. The way GA, in the reverse application, is used to simulate artificial life, ICA can be used to model artificial history and social evolution. Giving life to virtual concepts like "country" and "nations" (based on the theories of socio-political evolution), the source of inspiration of ICA is unique and deserves attention and is one of the reasons behind its widespread adoption and success.


 * Criterion 2) Unlike many of the "crufts", ICA is not enforcing a fake connection between the algorithm (optimization) world and the source of inspiration to just make things look fancy, without a valid natural-conceptual optimization process behind it. It is actually based on a process that is basically doing optimization in nature and human history (not a personal belief, but a theory behind it). As mentioned, ICA is based on Social Darwinism. Social Darwinists "compare society to a living organism and argue that, just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes.". Hence, the source of inspiration for ICA is based on an "actual optimization process", something that is hard to find in many of the so-called "nature-inspired cruft"s. What makes it hard for some to understand ICA and see its somewhat strange inspiration source as a forced fake metaphor is that the source is not categorized in natural science which is the case with many of the major works in evolutionary computation, and that are easier to understand and agree with for computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. But ICA is simply GA of history and concepts (even concepts like algorithms!) with a totally different point of view that is based on socio-political evolution. There are many people who do not agree with the theory of social Darwinism, much more than those who do not believe in Darwin's Theory of evolution itself. As the number of people disagreeing with the Darwins theory does not make it less valid, the same is with the Evolution of Concepts which is much harder to describe. Because one should first understand and believe in the natural evolution and then get to a belief that nature is a concept itself and even the "theory of evolution" as a "living concept" is under the law of evolution itself! (how ICA sees the world in a much general framework)! Such a unique source of inspiration with hundreds of books written about it, is not a 250-word page from Wikipedia or a chart in a book or the name of a flower or an animal in a powerpoint file, that is then colored as the "inspiration source" for an algorithm that actually does not need it. There is much more theory and published books and papers behind ICA's inspiration source than behind Ant Colony and Particle Swarm Optimization. It is the computer simulation of a process that actually is the optimization process of concepts (as living species) which is something much beyond the theory of natural evolution.

On the other hand, ICA has been trusted and used and tested by thousands of researchers in solving thousands of problems that are published in a few thousand papers. Actually, ICA is among the few algorithms that have a unique real source of inspiration and has been widely used and tested by the researchers.

Any decision to delete this article (or any article) is something that should be made based on a set of criteria. We might agree or disagree with the defined set of criteria. We might also add new conditions. As long as we use criteria, not the names and words, to make decisions, then the decision is fine. A good criterion should have the potential to be applied to any algorithm, regardless of the name, age and fame. The criteria should be logical and clear.

If we ignore using criteria and just use poetic words and phrases as labels then we are not having a scientific decision, it is indeed a personal belief and then a personal decision based on that belief, on behalf of the whole community. The criteria must be so clear and precise that even we apply it to the famous algorithms like Genetic Algorithms and Ant Colony Optimization and treat them using the same conditions we have for the others. This is the way science works. Because, science is the area of criteria-based reasoning, not making a decision based on examples and without reaching a criterion. If there is any simple, clear and precise definition that classifies the work of about 6,000 coauthors as "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft", we should first state it clearly, justify it and then use that simple definition to claim that an algorithm is cruft, referencing criterion number X or Y. To separate a good and bad scientific work, the method and reasoning should be scientific itself. We can not help science by approaching it with a non-scientific labeling and without having well-defined criteria.

So if there is any criterion that classifies ICA in "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft"s we should have it first, before making any decision. If that definition is clearly given, and ICA is one of "crufts", then I agree with you that the article should be deleted as well as all the other algorithm pages that fit into one of the categories defined in our "definition of crufts". 66.75.251.213 (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.71.82 (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Other comments
I added these comments to User talk:Ruud Koot who suggested the AfD. Then I realized that there are some general points here that can help with the decision about AfD for this page. So I am sharing the comments here too.


 * "Hi Ruud! Thaks for your work on making Weikipedis better. I saw your AfD and added my comments. Actually, what you are doing is basically right for the majority of these algorithms. However, we should note that there are many algorithms that their problem is not being inspired from nature. There is a deeper problem. The source of inspiration actually is not an optimization process in nature. It is like getting inspiration from cats to design airplanes that fly. The problem is not the inspiration and metaphor itself. The problem is forcing a fake metaphor that actually does not do optimization itself. So if you are addressing the issue, it should not be just calling anything inspired as "nature-inspired cruft" and deleting it. Because with this labeling, it seems that the problem is inspiration from nature, not the ignorance of people who use birds as a model to design cars and cats to design the airplanes.


 * If you work in the area of evolutionary computation, you will easily notice that majority of the so-called "nature-inspired" algorithms are not really based on a correct and valid metaphor. The problem is NOT that they are using a metaphor. The bigger problem is that they are not based on a right (remarkable) metaphor, and this is the main problem. If we attack every work just because it is "nature-inspired" then we will create a dark situation where good and bad inspirations will be inseparable. So the attack code should be "fake-inspiration" and "wrong-inspiration" not the phrase "nature-inspired". Take the so-called "Cuckoo search" as an example. Is the process described a real optimization process indeed in nature that can be used to design an algorithm? Or the Water Drops. What kind of optimization is behind the Water drops in nature that can be used to create an optimization algorithm? Not at all, and the problem is exactly at this point. The same story with Harmony Search which is using something that has closed-form mathematical solution (Wave Equation) as the source of inspiration. In the majority of these papers, the metaphors are fake (forced) or are just renaming of previously proposed ones.


 * I added my ideas to the AfD page of Imperialist Competitive Algorithm, where by defining a set of criteria, I oppose the deletion of the article, exactly for the same reasons I explained here. Please take a look at the discussion and add your comments and reasons behind your suggestion.


 * Thank you for your work. I believe what you do is great and is something that needed to be done even a few years ago. But we just need to make sure that a good measure is defined to make sure that being "nature-inspired" is not the reason these papers are deleted. The reason is that they are NOT truly inspired from nature."

Hope this helps with the decision. 66.75.251.213 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I can't spot "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" among our reasons for deletion, so I'll assume it's the subject's notability that's in question. The above Google Scholar search, besides showing 995 citations of the original paper, reveals two book chapters with this title which constitute significant coverage in what appear to be independent reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG: . (If there's some close connection between the authors of these chapters and the authors of the original paper that means they're not independent sources, it's not obvious to me.) Qwfp (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A plethora of Google Scholar citations clearly establishes notability in this case. The class or style of the algorithm shouldn't be considered.Callsignpink (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 02:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There is also an entry for this algorithm at . This would be a good candidate for a merge or redirect. —Ruud 14:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.