[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-867?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13466310#comment-13466310
]
Gilles commented on MATH-867:
-----------------------------
Thanks for looking into this. Unfortunately, a copy/paste of your version of
"repair" (which I totally agree with) makes the tests fail again!
And we can also worry that the tests pass with the wrong version...
bq. if the test does not pass with initial point at 0.1, something is wrong
(and it doesn't look like a good idea to change the test to make the code pass).
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...
> 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
