Hello,

Zero as default is good. In that case internally it is set to 900 * square of ( 
number of params + 3 ). 

As for Runs you should never go beyond 10 because of exponential growth of 
search space.

Runs 31 means 2^31 (=2147483648 ) times larger search. Makes no sense.

Best regards,
Tomasz Janeczko
amibroker.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Dugas 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [amibroker] CMAE question


  Hi TJ - I read in the ReadMe that the default for MaxEval is 0, and it is 
advised not to change it. If I define it myself as 0, is that different from 
not defining it at all and just accepting the default?

  Yes, I read that it is advised not to go over 10 runs, but in experimenting, 
Runs = 31 and MaxEval = 0 seems to return quite good and consistant results 
whereas 5 or 10 runs seems hit-or-miss and results can vary quite a bit. But 
maybe I am screwing things up by defining Runs as 0?

  Steve 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Tomasz Janeczko 
    To: [email protected] 
    Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 2:29 PM
    Subject: Re: [amibroker] CMAE question


    Hello,

    This is entirely wrong combination of params. 
    MaxEval should be AT LEAST 2000. Runs should NEVER be set to anything 
greater than 10, with 5 being resonable max.

    Best regards,
    Tomasz Janeczko
    amibroker.com
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Steve Dugas 
      To: Yahoo - AmiBroker 
      Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:03 PM
      Subject: [amibroker] CMAE question


      Hi - I am playing around with the CMAE opt engine. MaxEval is set to 0 by 
me (instead of just accepting default). For Runs, if I enter any number up to 
31, it will warn me about taking lots of time, and at 31 runs it says I have 
about 1.5B opt steps. If I enter any any number > 31, it may or may not warn 
me, and when it doesn't warn me, behavior of the progress box appears 
different. Am I overflowing the max allowed opt steps? Is there some limit to 
this algorithm? Any other thoughts why things are different sometimes? Thanks 
very much!

      Steve
   

Reply via email to