ECJ-INTEREST-L Archives

December 2005

ECJ-INTEREST-L@LISTSERV.GMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced 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 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
Sender:
ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:50:03 -0800
Reply-To:
ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Peter Drake <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Comments:
To: ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
On Dec 29, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Sean Luke wrote:

> Liviu is our coevolution man, but I believe this will do the
> following:
>
> For each individual i in the population
>        If the individual has not yet had GROUPSIZE evaluations
>                Pick a random individual j from the population that
>                        has not yet had GROUPSIZE evaluations
>                evaluate i and j together once, assigning fitness to
> each
>
> Sometimes it happens that there's no one on left to evaluate against,
> in which case a random person j is chosen and his fitness is not
> assigned.

Okay, that would explain some things.  Is an individual ever matched
against itself?

> During breeding, except for a few GP modifiers which had a bug in
> them, individuals modified to the next generation should be marked as
> not evaluated.  Individuals which are direct copies will be marked as
> evaluated.  However CompetitiveEvaluator will evaluate individuals no
> matter how they're marked.

In other words, individuals will always be marked as not evaluated?

If so, how can I set the initial fitness of an unevaluated individual
just once?

> Your GoProblem example is odd though: it appears in
> postprocessPopulation you're just trimming fitnesses to between 0 and
> 100.  Why would you want to do that?

I set the minimum to zero in the belief that fitnesses have to be
nonnegative.  Is this true?

I set the maximum to 100 so that an individual could not build up a
huge fitness by winning many early games, then never be knocked down
by later losses.

Is this bad reasoning?

Peter Drake
Assistant Professor of Computer Science
Lewis & Clark College
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2