ECJ-INTEREST-L Archives

August 2007

ECJ-INTEREST-L@LISTSERV.GMU.EDU

Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 1 Aug 2007 09:31:46 -0400
Reply-To:
ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed; boundary="sZUUxzfE.Dkd5X-gR7d)XtLGT6JEkusQ-B+b5L3sHUB89I2IF2,YdARFr3v,(nBdC5'lk("
From:
Comments:
Parts/Attachments:
Hi all, 

I am experimenting at the moment on how various replacement strategies
affect gp evolution. In particular I am examining the so-popular
generational and steady state approaches which are already implemented in
ECJ. Apart from that Ive implemented two other approaches. 
Briefly, in the intermediate approach, a X% of the population is produced 
(0<X<=90) , then the rest of percentage is filled with members from the old
population. In the greater-than-generational approach, similarly, a X%
(200<X<600) is combined with the old population, to allow the fittest part
of them as the new population.There is no multithreading , nor elitism. Even
though the populations seem to be generated and sorted as expected, I
couldnt figure out expected success rates. Anyone that might want to have a
look, I attached the two breeders in this message. Thanks v. much. 

Best Regards,
Marios.



ATOM RSS1 RSS2