[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-867?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13466317#comment-13466317
]
Nikolaus Hansen commented on MATH-867:
--------------------------------------
I have corrected the repair: the last assignment
{code}
} else {
repaired[i] = x[i];
{code}
was missing (sorry). Now there is some chance that it might pass...
{quote}
I certainly agree. But since there was something wrong before in the code, one
could also imagine that it was because of the problem that it passed before...
{quote}
that seems somehow irrelevant: it is an absolute statement about the algorithm,
that an implementation of it must pass this test. It's not related to the
question when and why it has already been past or not.
otherwise, the code was, AFAICS, not wrong before unless with boundary values
as large as 1e16 in absolute value.
> 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: 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
