[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-867?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13463628#comment-13463628
]
Gilles commented on MATH-867:
-----------------------------
bq. That they are mixed in the code/interface I would indeed consider as a bug.
Is this "bug" in the original code?
bq. Generally, the boundary handling can be done without any variable
transformation [...]
But isn't this variable transformation part of the original code? At least,
that's how it looked like from my perspective since [~docdwo] contributed the
port while in contact with you.
Do you mean that the "encode" and "decode" steps can be simply dropped from the
code without any ill side-effects?
Another issue (MATH-868) also seems related to the default transformation.
> CMAESOptimizer with bounds fits finely near lower bound and coarsely near
> upper bound.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MATH-867
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-867
> Project: Commons Math
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Frank Hess
> Attachments: 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
