Skip to content

GitLab

  • Menu
Projects Groups Snippets
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
  • Sign in / Register
  • F FEDOT
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 87
    • Issues 87
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 1
    • Merge requests 1
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Packages & Registries
    • Packages & Registries
    • Package Registry
    • Container Registry
    • Infrastructure Registry
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • ITMO-NSS-team
  • FEDOT
  • Merge requests
  • !698

Merged
Created May 31, 2022 by Elizaveta Lutsenko@LizLutsenkoOwner

Fix semantics of Fitness comparison

  • Overview 4
  • Commits 6
  • Changes 13

Created by: gkirgizov

This PR changes meaning of Fitness comparison. less means worse, so if f1 > f2 then f1 is better than f2. In other words, Optimiser now performs maximisation on Fitness objects. But internally, Fitness objects compare their metric values as if we minimised metric values.

Rationale: HallOfFame from Deap internally compares fitnesses in this way. Fedot uses HallOfFame, so Fitness must follow its contract.

Example: this statement is true SingleObjFitness(-0.85) > SingleObjFitness(-0.75)

Assignee
Assign to
Reviewer
Request review from
Time tracking
Source branch: fix_fitness