查看文章

Much controversy has been lately risen around the design and performance of modern bio-inspired optimization methods, in particular due to the alleged lack of algorithmic novelty in their definition with respect to traditional heuristic solvers. In this work we present a first attempt at shedding empirical evidence over this debate, for which results of a benchmark with unprecedented scales in terms of problems and algorithms are reported and discussed. Specifically, informed conclusions are held in what refers to the claimed superior performance of these bio-inspired solvers and their competitiveness when compared to competition-winning alternatives. Finally, we prove that the tailored selection of a subset of problems and techniques can unfairly bias the comparisons favoring any of such algorithms, ultimately arriving at illusory conclusions about their comparative performance.