I had exactly this problem (where it wasn't obvious that the sigma parameter needed to be normalized to [0-1]), a few days ago. I think your second solution is the more user friendly.
Bruce On Nov 7, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying to use CMA-ES optimizer with simple boundaries. > It seems the inputSigma parameter should be normalized as it is checked > against the [0; 1] range in the checkParameters private method and as > its value defaults to 0.3 if not not set in the initializeCMA private > method. > > I would have expected this value to be in the same units as the user > parameters and to be normalized as part of an internal processing step > instead of relying to the user doing this. I think the method need > normalized values internally, as per the encode/decode methods in the > inner class FitnessFunction suggest. > > What do you think about it ? Should we keep normalized inputSigma (end > hence improve documentation so people know they have to normalize the > value) or should we accept values in the same units as the other > parameters and use "encode" to do the normalisation ? > > As far as I am concerned, I would prefer the second solution, i.e. keep > normalization an internal implementation detail. > > Luc > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
