🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul27.035416.7414@u.washington.edu>,
charlie@ernie.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes:

>We just had a talk here last week that said that GAs had essentially no
>theory -- the "fundamental theorem" isn't even a theorem, and so forth.
>I haven't looked at the literature myself, but the speaker seemed to make
>a reasonable case.  So two questions:
>
>  1. Do GAs have any real theory?
>
>  2. Is there any problem in which GAs beat simulated annealing?
>
>-- 
>Charles Geyer
>School of Statistics
>University of Minnesota
>charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu


You might want to contact

     Lester Ingber (ingber@umiacs.umd.edu)
     Bruce Rosen (brosen@cis.udel.edu)

who co-authored the paper

     Genetic Algorithms and Very Fast Simulated Re-Annealing:  A Comparison

The paper asserts that

     - VFSR is statistically guaranteed to find the function optima
     - tests suggest that VFSR is orders of magnitude more efficient than GA
-- 

o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|  Frederick W. Chapman, User Services, Computing Center, Lehigh University |
|    Campus Phone:  8-3218     Preferred E-mail Address:  fc03@Lehigh.Edu   | 
|  "I do comedy and magic; what you don't find funny -- that's the magic."  |
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o