415b419671
I also changed
- the eoQuadratic into eoQuad (as dicussed with Maarten)
- the eoBin into eoBit, with more appropriate names for the "binary"
operators (that can be unary!) as no one protested when I posted on
eodev list
83 lines
2.9 KiB
C++
83 lines
2.9 KiB
C++
// -*- mode: c++; c-indent-level: 4; c++-member-init-indent: 8; comment-column: 35; -*-
|
|
|
|
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
// eoEsStdevXOver.h
|
|
// (c) GeNeura Team, 2000 - Maarten Keijzer 2000 - Marc Schoenauer 2001
|
|
/*
|
|
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
|
|
modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
|
|
License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
|
|
version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
|
|
|
|
This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
|
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
|
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
|
|
Lesser General Public License for more details.
|
|
|
|
You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
|
|
License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
|
|
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
|
|
|
|
Contact: todos@geneura.ugr.es, http://geneura.ugr.es
|
|
Marc.Schoenauer@polytechnique.fr
|
|
mak@dhi.dk
|
|
*/
|
|
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
#ifndef _eoEsStdevXOver_h
|
|
#define _eoEsStdevXOver_h
|
|
|
|
#include <es/eoEsStdev.h>
|
|
#include <es/eoGenericRealOp.h>
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
\ingroup EvolutionStrategies
|
|
|
|
Crossover for Evolutionary strategie style representation,
|
|
supporting co-evolving standard deviations.
|
|
|
|
Simply calls a crossover for the object variables,
|
|
and a crossover for teh StdDev
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
template <class EOT>
|
|
class eoEsStdevXOver : public eoQuadOp<EOT>
|
|
{
|
|
public :
|
|
eoEsStdevXOver(eoGenericQuadOp<vector<double> > & _objectXOver,
|
|
eoGenericQuadOp<vector<double> > & _stdDevXOver) :
|
|
objectXOver(_objectXOver), stdDevXOver(_stdDevXOver) {}
|
|
|
|
std::string className(void) const { return "eoEsStdevXOver"; }
|
|
|
|
void operator()(EOT & _eo1, EOT & _eo2)
|
|
{
|
|
bool objectChanged = objectXOver(_eo1, _eo2); // as vector<double>
|
|
bool stdDevChanged = stdDevXOver(_eo1.stdevs, _eo2.stdevs);
|
|
if ( objectChanged || stdDevChanged )
|
|
{
|
|
_eo1.invalidate();
|
|
_eo2.invalidate();
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
eoGenericQuadOp<vector<double> > & objectXOver;
|
|
eoGenericQuadOp<vector<double> > & stdDevXOver;
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
/* A question: it seems it really makes no difference to have
|
|
as template the fitness (and use eoEsStdev<FitT> where you need EOs) or
|
|
directly the EOT itself. But of course if the EOT you use does not have
|
|
a stdev public member the compiler will crash.
|
|
There is a difference, however, in the calling instruction, because in
|
|
on case you have to write eoEsStdevXOver<double> whereas otherwise you
|
|
simply write eoEsStdevXOver<Indi> (if Indi has been typedef'ed correctly).
|
|
So to keep everything (or almost :-) in the main program templatized
|
|
with the Indi i've kept here the EOT template.
|
|
|
|
Are there arguments against that???
|
|
MS - Marc.Schoenauer@polytechnique.fr
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#endif
|