Jump to content

Talk:Neuroevolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revert on 1/27/2008

[edit]

Icanhasnawlidge: the version of this article with changes by 82.82.142.122 (oldid=184755569), seemed like a reasonable improvement. I don't see any significant changes to content, and none that should require removing those changes entirely. Could you justify your revert a bit more? Bryan Silverthorn (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryan. As I stated, adding new information to the article is good. However, the author also removed existing information (information that I believe was was helpful) without any discussion. I believe it is on THAT author to explain his removal, not me to explain my revert. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition by the original 82.82.142.122 editor: I have re-inserted the content that was removed by the previous revert. This time I kept all 4 references to the NEAT articles by Stanley et al., although I would suggest that we cite only the most prominent articles on a particular method, especially since NEAT has a Wikipedia page of its own. Some of the places where these articles were referenced in the first paragraph we not NEAT-specific, therefore I moved these references downwards into the NEAT item. Icanhasnawlidge, do you agree with this version?

I think it's difficult to argue for the removal of information, which is what you did. Yes, I understand that NEAT wasn't being mentioned specifically where some of the references were present. Regardless, the articles cited provided substantial information on neuroevolution in general. They were solid references which were very informative. I think their removal, and relegation to a NEAT-specific section, only harms the article. You have removed information and replaced it with a void - I don't believe this helps anyone. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to join the discussion unasked, but I cannot find the content that was removed, according to your account. Maybe the diff is malfunctioning? I found that the number of references to the Stanley et al articles was reduced, yes. Maybe someone could read the articles and help us identify one or two that contain all the information needed? Usually in a number of scientific articles by the same author group on the same subject there is a lot of overlap.
Best, Ned. 09:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"I found that the number of references to the Stanley et al articles was reduced, yes." That is the information I was referring to (as I made very clear). Those articles would be very useful to those interested in neuroevolution. Removing them reduces the amount of information made readily available to the reader. Having a discussion about replacing the references with something more general would be one thing... but that isn't what occurred... they were simply removed. I won't attempt to make this point any longer. 80.194.146.50 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any major objection to the article as it is now, with all of the references intact? If your concern is with the placement of the Stanley et al references, they can be rearranged... Bryan Silverthorn (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good, except for "A comparison between two such methods applied to robot control can be found here." This should be turned into a reference, like everything else (i.e. replace the above text with [2]). It is out of place in this form. 80.194.146.50 (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building The Article

[edit]

There have been a few back/forths in this article with people changing the text to what they think it should be. I think rather than arguing about who is right or wrong, it's most beneficial to simply find reliable sources and reference them properly.

Currently, this is a very small article, but hopefully it will grow in size in the future as there is much to say on the topic. At a minimum, in my opinion, we need to introduce the concepts of: genome, chromosomes and phenotype. 'Genome' is already used in the article, 'network' is being used in place of 'phenotype' and 'chromosomes' would help to fill out people's knowledge of the subject's fundamentals. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the Direct and Indirect Encodings section to use genetics terminology, and added info about indirect encoding methods and taxonomy. I also added more info to the examples and added more examples.Oliver J Coleman (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems presently that the chart, which is a nice resource, has become a bit cluttered over time, and that the page as a whole has an exaggerated focus on direct versus indirect encodings -- it is the only feature that is discussed in depth. This is an interesting area in neuroevolution, but there are other important features. This focus can probably be remedied by expanding on other aspects of neuroevolution algorithms. Jal278 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Also section

[edit]

Perhaps the See Also section should be removed as the two links in it are duplicates of links in the Examples section? Of course even better would be to link to other relevant material: perhaps other methods of NN training (gradient descent, Hebbian, SOM), and/or a link to evolutionary computation (and perhaps some of its subfields)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver J Coleman (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward wording

[edit]

The following two sentences: "However, this distinction is largely superficial: although they often develop differently in a number of important ways, many of these differences only exist for historical reasons and not because of any intrinsic requirement of either approach. Indirect encoding systems often use aspects of both approaches." are very awkwardly worded, and the first sentence even appears to contradict itself (is the distinction superficial or containing important differences?). It would be wonderful if someone with the appropriate knowledge could rewrite it. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added an edit to address your concern. Overall, I think the section on artificial embryogeny may need further revision because it's overly specific and technical for a general page on neuroevolution as a whole. Jal278 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neuroevolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuroevolution&oldid=1207169594"