On Dec 29, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Liviu Panait wrote:
>> I set the minimum to zero in the belief that fitnesses have to be
>> nonnegative. Is this true?
> SimpleFitness may have arbitrary values as of the previous version (I
> believe, or if not the current version does not complain about that
Yes, I guess there would be no need to "normalize" the values if we
use tournament selection.
> I am not sure I follow the reasoning. Even if an individual won
> against early competitors in initial generations, that says little
> about how good he is against better opponents found at later
> generations. I would treat this on a per-generation basis and ignore
> information about wins or loses from previous generations.
I had thoughts about accumulating fitness information so I didn't
have to play a lot of games each round, but in retrospect I see that
this is already taken into account by the GA.
> Again, I encourage you to look into the single-elimination
> tournament, which we found to work nicely. There is also a version
> of double-elimination-tournament somewhere, though we have not tested
> it that much.
I read your GECCO paper, and I'm convinced by your argument. Back to
the bit mines with me!
Assistant Professor of Computer Science
Lewis & Clark College