🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bs4pAH.2AI@research.canon.oz.au>, enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
> Does anybody know about any serious study about performances of Simulated
> Annealing (SA) compared to Genetics Algorithms (GA) ?
> Personal opinions and experience are welcome as well.
> I know that there's a book called "Simulated annealing and Genetic Algorithms"
> or something like that but I've never had any chance to read it.
> I have some experience with SA, but none with GA and the only person I know who
> tryed both is extremely pessimistic about GA.
> If there's any interest I'll summarize.
> Thanks in advance.

The book you are referring to is "Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing",
edited by Lawrence Davis, published by Pitman.  I don't know how much comparison
between the two will be in there, but I do know that it is a collection of papers on
the two topics (most of which [all of which?] focus on one technique or the other).

GAs are more robust than SAs, there has been much more research done on GAs,
and there is much more software available for GAs (The robustness comment is from
a GA conference held this week.  The research and software comments are my own
observations after looking at the literature.)  Although I haven't actually coded and run
an SA, I have ran several GAs with much success.  I wouldn't call myself "extremely
pessimistic" about SAs, but I *know* GAs work well from my own experience (and others
experience as evidenced from the GA literature and personal communication).

Kelly
-- 
Kelly D. Crawford             | Amoco Production Research | These are my own
kcrawford@trc.amoco.com       | 4502 East 41st Street     | opinions, not
phone: (918) 660-4043         | Tulsa, OK  74102          | Amoco's...
          >>> *** This line intentionally left blank *** <<<