```This solves problem 2, but not problem 1.

I added this line to my evaluate() method:

state.output.message("Evaluating " + ind[0].hashCode() + " vs " + ind
[1].hashCode());

When I ran the program (with one generation), I got this:

Evaluating 341584759 vs 202290185
Evaluating 341584759 vs 26376435
Evaluating 54843991 vs 202290185
Evaluating 54843991 vs 26376435
Evaluating 341584759 vs 202290185
Evaluating 54843991 vs 202290185
Evaluating 341584759 vs 26376435
Evaluating 54843991 vs 26376435

In terms of the notation below, it appears that the program did:

aC
bC
bD
aC
bC
bD

Is there a way to avoid the second batch of redundant comparisons?

Thanks,

Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/

On May 19, 2008, at 11:20 PM, Liviu Panait wrote:

> The individuals from the two populations will be sent in order: the
> first individual (individuals[0]) is from the first population,
> while the second one (individuals[1]) is from the second
> population.  Hope that solves both problems.
>
> Liviu.
>
> On May 19, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Peter Drake wrote:
>
>> I have two coevolving subpopulations. As I understand it,
>> evaluation is handled by the evaluate() method in (my class that
>> implements) GroupedProblemForm. For example, if population 0 has
>> individuals a and b and population 1 has individuals C and D, this
>> method will be called with the following pairs of arguments:
>>
>> aC
>> bC
>> bD
>> Ca
>> Cb
>> Da
>> Db
>>
>> I have two problems:
>>
>> 1) I would rather not evaluate both aC and Ca. Is there a way to
>> avoid this?
>>
>> 2) I see no way to tell whether the first individual passed to
>> evaluate is from population 0 or 1. Since my problem is
>> asymmetric, I need this information for evaluation. Is there a way
>> to find it, or do I need to redefine some of the coevolution stuff?
>>
>> Peter Drake
>> http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
>>
>>
>>
>
```