You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The comment on line 15 states that parameter XX should have shape m x 1. It should actually by m x dim since XX represents inputs to the objective function, which have size equal to the dimension of the problem. I think this should be an easy fix, assuming that I diagnosed the issue correctly.
The comments on lines 13 and 15 collectively state that the dimensions on axis 0 of fX and XX should match (and be equal to m). While this would make sense to me, I have not observed that in practice (see console output above). I believe this discrepancy can be traced back to line 33 of ei_ga.py, where the pending evaluations are appended to the previously evaluated points before later passing them to ei_merit on line 41. This makes the array of previously evaluated points larger than the array of values at previously evaluated points, by an amount equal to the number of pending evaluations. I am not sure if I correctly diagnosed the root cause of this issue. While the comment is definitely wrong in the current state, I do not know whether the comment or the code meets the intent of the design. As far as I can tell, the code in its current state does not cause any problems with effectiveness or reliability.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In
ei_merit.py
, in theei_merit()
method, the sizes of the parameters passed do not match the comments.My setup:
To reproduce: put a breakpoint on line 23 in
ei_merit()
and use the debug console to observe the following:Two semi-separate issues:
The comment on line 15 states that parameter
XX
should have shapem x 1
. It should actually bym x dim
sinceXX
represents inputs to the objective function, which have size equal to the dimension of the problem.I think this should be an easy fix, assuming that I diagnosed the issue correctly.
The comments on lines 13 and 15 collectively state that the dimensions on axis 0 of
fX
andXX
should match (and be equal tom
). While this would make sense to me, I have not observed that in practice (see console output above). I believe this discrepancy can be traced back to line 33 ofei_ga.py
, where the pending evaluations are appended to the previously evaluated points before later passing them toei_merit
on line 41. This makes the array of previously evaluated points larger than the array of values at previously evaluated points, by an amount equal to the number of pending evaluations.I am not sure if I correctly diagnosed the root cause of this issue. While the comment is definitely wrong in the current state, I do not know whether the comment or the code meets the intent of the design. As far as I can tell, the code in its current state does not cause any problems with effectiveness or reliability.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: