Free cookie consent management tool by TermsFeed Policy Generator

Opened 12 years ago

Last modified 11 years ago

#1833 closed defect

Checked operator information is lost in run — at Version 4

Reported by: abeham Owned by: gkronber
Priority: medium Milestone: HeuristicLab 3.3.9
Component: Operators Version: 3.3.6
Keywords: Cc:

Description (last modified by abeham)

The information which operator is checked in a CheckedMultiOperator<T> is lost in the run as the checked information is not collected. Related to #1695 that changed parameter collection.

Change History (5)

comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by gkronber

  • Milestone changed from HeuristicLab 3.3.7 to HeuristicLab 3.3.x Backlog

This issue has been discussed in the architects meeting. And it was decided that we do not fix this for milestone 3.3.7.

comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by gkronber

  • Milestone changed from HeuristicLab 3.3.x Backlog to HeuristicLab 3.3.9

Should not be too much effort to implement this.

comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by abeham

  • Owner changed from swagner to abeham
  • Status changed from new to accepted

Changed 11 years ago by abeham

comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by abeham

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Owner changed from abeham to gkronber
  • Status changed from accepted to reviewing

r9838: changed parameter collection for runs, so that the "checked" information is available.

There will be problems should an operator ever contain a value parameter called "Checked", that is to be collected and that operator is included in a checked multi operator. Currently, the string "Checked" doesn't appear in our solution anywhere.

Overall, I'm not that happy with how MultiOperators are collected. Keys such as "Crossover.0" are not helpful in the run analysis at all. Using the name of the operator (e.g. OrderCrossover2) instead of the parameter (e.g. 0) would make more sense, but unfortunately could lead to clashes when the same operator is added to a CheckedMultiOperator multiple times (e.g. in different parameterizations). Also the way the probabilities are collected (as array) is not suitable for analysis. What do you think?

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.