ECJ-INTEREST-L Archives

September 2013

ECJ-INTEREST-L@LISTSERV.GMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Eric 'Siggy' Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:27:01 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1042 bytes) , text/html (2374 bytes)
ECJers,

I am working with a 3-objective problem where some objectives are to be
maximized and some are to be minimized with NSGA-II and SPEA2.  However I
set my parameters, however, all three appear to be maximized.

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


The result still shows pairs like this in the Pareto front, which shows
that objective 1 is being maximized:

Objective 0 Objective 1 Objective 2
0.2715239 0.28555658 4.0
403 0.2809572 0.26017603 4.0


I'd like to know if I should hunt for a bug in ECJ, or if I'm setting the
parameters wrong.  Uday told me he observed the same problem some time ago.

For now I'm just converting all my objectives to maximization problems
manually as a workaround (i.e. by taking the reciprocal of the true
fitness).

Siggy

-- 

Ph.D student in Computer Science
George Mason University
http://mason.gmu.edu/~escott8/


ATOM RSS1 RSS2