Re: Particle Swarm Optimization

mhx@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Marcel Hendrix) writes:
>Triggered by a (German) C't article, last week I experimented a bit 
>with Particle Swarm Optimization.
....
>Unfortunately, I found the results quite unconvincing. The number of
>calculations needed for successful completion far exceeds the number
>that would be needed by simulated annealing (the method I finally
>selected for an HF amplifier optimization job at work). 

Yes.  Maybe I missed something, but the particle swarm stuff seems to
be similar to ant algorithms to me; and that fails to convince me, too
(but maybe I miss the point of that, too): We know the best path yet
after the first ant walks it, no need to simulate multiple ants
walking the same path.  Such algorithms may have a place if you have
massive parallelism, and very limited communication bandwidth compared
to computation, but not in settings that most of us use.

>STRUCT
>  dfloat% FIELD .myBestResult
>  dfloat% FIELD .myBestX
>  dfloat% FIELD .myBestY
>  dfloat% FIELD .myX
>  dfloat% FIELD .myY
>  CELL%   FIELD .myName
>  CELL%   FIELD .bestNeighbor
>END-STRUCT node%        

Nice to see that you picked up my STRUCT syntax (although it's too
late for Forth200x).

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2008:
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef08.html