Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Repeat CMA-ES for cell 5, ensure we get the same result #37

Closed
MichaelClerx opened this issue Dec 7, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Repeat CMA-ES for cell 5, ensure we get the same result #37

MichaelClerx opened this issue Dec 7, 2017 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@MichaelClerx
Copy link

No description provided.

@MichaelClerx
Copy link
Author

MichaelClerx commented Dec 8, 2017

With 25 repeats (and the pints default stopping criteria) I get the same result as Kylie:

Best 3 scores:
79.9154022423
79.9154028928
79.9154032748
Mean & std of score:
4839.65078784
3108.98116422
Worst score:
7551.94493984
Obtained parameters:
 2.26136868689461094e-04
 6.99135634032594377e-02
 3.44969468557318105e-05
 5.46117622784167422e-02
 8.73227521126475892e-02
 8.92987836542377331e-03
 5.14887953738658085e-03
 3.15622060118181946e-02
 1.52432782134508338e-01
Final score:
79.9154022423
Sigma noise: 0.00462852386082
Log-likelihood: -1.51041369967082329e+06

Will need to get some better output from pints. For example, the mean/std which I put in is pretty useless as it's massively skewed. Would want all scores, median, etc. Will work on that!

Compariong with Kylie's published (MCMC) result:

K: -1.51063175578740e+006
M: -1.51041369967082329e+06

K: 2.26026076650526e-04
M: 2.26136868689461094e-04
K: 6.99168845608636e-02
M: 6.99135634032594377e-02
K: 3.44809941106440e-05
M: 3.44969468557318105e-05
K: 5.46144197845311e-02
M: 5.46117622784167422e-02
K: 8.73240559379590e-02
M: 8.73227521126475892e-02
K: 8.91302005497140e-03
M: 8.92987836542377331e-03
K: 5.15112582976275e-03
M: 5.14887953738658085e-03
K: 3.15833911359110e-02
M: 3.15622060118181946e-02
K: 1.52395993652348e-01
M: 1.52432782134508338e-01

So first two digits equal in all cases, typically first three!
Formalise this, get better output, and move one?

@MichaelClerx
Copy link
Author

This was done with a sum-of-squares error by the way, which should be linearly proportional to -1 * the log-likelihood

@mirams
Copy link

mirams commented Dec 8, 2017

I can't remember whether we let CMA-ES loose on the log posterior rather than the log likelihood. In terms of getting to the maximum posterior density point, rather than the maximum likelihood point, this is probably what we should do.

@MichaelClerx
Copy link
Author

MichaelClerx commented Dec 8, 2017 via email

@MichaelClerx
Copy link
Author

Works now!

@ghost ghost removed the in progress label Dec 13, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants