Recently a paper was published which claims “harmony search is equivalent to evolution strategies and because the latter is not popular currently, the former has no future. Also, research community was misguided by the former’s disguised novelty.” This paper is written to rebut the original paper’s claims by saying 1) harmony search is different from evolution strategies because each has its own uniqueness, 2) performance, rather than novelty, is an algorithm’s survival factor, and 3) the original paper was biased to mislead into a predefined conclusion.” Also, the shortcomings of current review system, citation system, and funding system are briefly mentioned.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zong Woo Geem (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: