[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH867?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:commenttabpanel&focusedCommentId=13466297#comment13466297
]
Nikolaus Hansen edited comment on MATH867 at 9/30/12 7:52 AM:

{quote}
Revision 1391840 contains modified "encode" and "decode" functions. Both unit tests now pass
(for "testConstrainedRosen" I had to move the initial guess closer to the solution).
{quote}
if the test does not pass with initial point at 0.1, something is wrong (and it doesn't look
like a good idea to change the test to make the code pass).
I found at least one problem:
{code}
private double[] repair(final double[] x) {
double[] repaired = new double[x.length];
for (int i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
if (x[i] < 0) {
repaired[i] = 0;
} else if (x[i] > 1.0) {
repaired[i] = 1.0;
} else {
repaired[i] = x[i];
}
}
return repaired;
}
{code}
must read
{code}
private double[] repair(final double[] x) {
double[] repaired = new double[x.length];
if (boundaries == null) {
for (int i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
repaired[i] = x[i];
}
} else {
final double[] bLoEnc = encode(boundaries[0]);
final double[] bHiEnc = encode(boundaries[1]);
for (int i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
if (x[i] < bLoEnc[i]) {
repaired[i] = bLoEnc[i];
} else if (x[i] > bHiEnc[i]) {
repaired[i] = bHiEnc[i];
} else {
repaired[i] = x[i];
}
}
}
return repaired;
}
{code}
I am not sure whether or not this is the reason why the test fails.
was (Author: jolievie):
{quote}
Revision 1391840 contains modified "encode" and "decode" functions. Both unit tests now pass
(for "testConstrainedRosen" I had to move the initial guess closer to the solution).
{quote}
if the test does not pass with initial point at 0.1, something is wrong (and it doesn't look
like a good idea to change the test to make the code pass).
I found at least one problem:
{code}
private double[] repair(final double[] x) {
double[] repaired = new double[x.length];
for (int i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
if (x[i] < 0) {
repaired[i] = 0;
} else if (x[i] > 1.0) {
repaired[i] = 1.0;
} else {
repaired[i] = x[i];
}
}
return repaired;
}
{code}
must read
{code}
private double[] repair(final double[] x) {
double[] repaired = new double[x.length];
if (boundaries == null) {
for (int i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
repaired[i] = x[i];
}
} else {
final double[] bLoEnc = encode(boundaries[0]);
final double[] bHiEnc = encode(boundaries[1]);
for (int i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
if (x[i] < bLoEnc[i]) {
repaired[i] = bLoEnc[i];
} else if (x[i] > bHiEnc[i]) {
repaired[i] = bHiEnc[i];
}
}
}
return repaired;
}
{code}
I am not sure whether or not this is the reason why the test fails.
> CMAESOptimizer with bounds fits finely near lower bound and coarsely near upper bound.
> 
>
> Key: MATH867
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH867
> Project: Commons Math
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Frank Hess
> Attachments: MATH867_patch, Math867Test.java
>
>
> When fitting with bounds, the CMAESOptimizer fits finely near the lower bound and coarsely
near the upper bound. This is because it internally maps the fitted parameter range into
the interval [0,1]. The unit of least precision (ulp) between floating point numbers is much
smaller near zero than near one. Thus, fits have much better resolution near the lower bound
(which is mapped to zero) than the upper bound (which is mapped to one). I will attach a
example program to demonstrate.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
