Hi Kish, Yes, a decay factor of zero makes normally no sense. If you want me to, I can change that.
Yes, you are right, there is only one global AFC decay factor. Cheers Christian -- Christian Schulte, KTH, web.it.kth.se/~cschulte/ -----Original Message----- From: users-boun...@gecode.org [mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org] On Behalf Of Kish Shen Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 04:13 AM To: users@gecode.org Subject: Re: [gecode-users] AFC decay with global AFC in search engines Hi Christian, Thanks for this. I decided to change my code to ude INT_VAR_AFC_* with a decay argument, and then I tried to rerun the test. However, I now get a Gecode exception "AFC: Illegal decay factor" for a factor of 0.0 with IntAFC afc(*solver, vars, 0.0); while previously, I was able to set the decay factor to 0 with afc_decay(0.0). I assume this is because of a > vs >= test for the valid value. Should this be changed? It seems 0 should be a legal value (even if it is not too sensible). On a related note, from the description in the MPG, I assume there is only a single AFC decay factor, so setting the decay factor with IntAFC afc(*solver, vars, decay) will also change the "global" decay factor, i.e. the one obtained by afc_decay(). Is this correct? Cheers, Kish _______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list users@gecode.org https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users _______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list users@gecode.org https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
