Content-Type: |
multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30363fa1614cf704e72d8550 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:16:44 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Using maximize.1 fixed it.
The resulting Pareto front is significantly different than it was when I
use the reciprocal fitness to hack minimization. I'll have to think about
that.
Good that you updated the manual. I looked there first (in an old
version), but hadn't seen it.
Thanks a bunch!
Siggy
PS: Yes, I'm using the SVN, but a somewhat outdated version.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> First things first: are you using the SVN version? BTW, I just updated
> the manual to make clear how maximize/minimize works.
>
> Next...
>
> On Sep 24, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Eric 'Siggy' Scott wrote:
>
> > I have tried this:
> >
> > multi.fitness.0.maximize=true
> > multi.fitness.1.maximize=false
> > multi.fitness.2.maximize=false
> >
> > And this:
> >
> > pop.subpop.0.species.fitness.0.maximize=true
> > pop.subpop.0.species.fitness.1.maximize=false
> > pop.subpop.0.species.fitness.2.maximize=false
>
> It's maximize.1, not 1.maximize. Any chance this is the issue?
>
> If we've got further concerns with per-objective maximization and
> minimization, time to call in Khaled, who was instrumental in updating ECJ
> to handle it.
>
> Sean
>
>
>
--
Ph.D student in Computer Science
George Mason University
http://mason.gmu.edu/~escott8/
|
|
|