🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul30.102118@trc.amoco.com> zkdc05@trc.amoco.com (Kelly D. Crawford) writes:
>
>GAs are more robust than SAs,

This is as far as I can tell, a commonly accepted falsehood. You can transform
any GA into SA by choosing a funny configuration space topology and annealing
schedule. You can go the other way more transparently, (by multiplexing the
search steps) so most people think that SA is properly included in GA, which I
am certain is false. GA and SA solve the same class of problems, and the optimal
GA for a problem is no better or no worse than the optimal SA for that problem.

So what's the difference? The difference is which one is more convenient for
your purposes, that is, which one is easier to think of for your problem.

The equivalence of GA and SA is much like the equivalence between space and
time averages - which obtains if the system is ergodic. Now this means that
the class of problems which are (statistically) solvable by GA and SA are the
same, however, the failure behaviors of GA and SA can be different.

>there has been much more research done on GAs,

I don't think so. I think that both GA and SA have reasonable profiles in the
literature.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt