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
In the WANN source, it seems you are ranking the individuals as described in the paper: by mean fitness + num connections (80%), or by peak fitness + num connections (20%).
In the prettyNeatWann source, however, you are sorting based only on mean fitness (80%) or by mean fitness + num connections (20%).
Is there a reason why this is different between the sources? And in general, what is the motivation of the separation between the WANN and prettyNeatWann sources? Couldn't fully understand this from the Readme description.
Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
There are different ways or parameterizing the algorithm I was testing --
there is no reason the sorting is different, just an oversight on my part
in not unifying them.
The motivation of having two sources was that the WANN code would be more
self contained and easier to understand (so aimed at people who read the
paper and wanted to more details about implementation), and the
prettyNeatWann code would be easier to extend and do experiments with (so
aimed at people who want to actually use the code).
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 12:51 max-markov, ***@***.***> wrote:
Hello,
In the WANN source, it seems you are ranking the individuals as described
in the paper: by mean fitness + num connections (80%), or by peak fitness +
num connections (20%).
In the prettyNeatWann source, however, you are sorting based only on mean
fitness (80%) or by mean fitness + num connections (20%).
Is there a reason why this is different between the sources? And in
general, what is the motivation of the separation between the WANN and
prettyNeatWann sources? Couldn't fully understand this from the Readme
description.
Thank you!
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#14?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAVWKJ7VPHCXYYXFYLMKGHDQ7GAFHA5CNFSM4KKVFUS2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4IIHBSMA>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVWKJ67SL3Y23N4E33JOM3Q7GAFHANCNFSM4KKVFUSQ>
.
Hello,
In the
WANN
source, it seems you are ranking the individuals as described in the paper: by mean fitness + num connections (80%), or by peak fitness + num connections (20%).In the
prettyNeatWann
source, however, you are sorting based only on mean fitness (80%) or by mean fitness + num connections (20%).Is there a reason why this is different between the sources? And in general, what is the motivation of the separation between the
WANN
andprettyNeatWann
sources? Couldn't fully understand this from the Readme description.Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: