Updates and Results
Talks and Posters
Advice
Ideas
Important Figures
Write-Ups
Outreach
How-To
Funding Opportunities
GENETIS
GENETIS
Draft saved at 00:00:00
Fields marked with
*
are required
Entry time:
Tue Feb 3 13:37:38 2026
Author
*
:
Subject
*
:
<p> <table width="98%" align="center" cellspacing="1" style="border:1px solid #486090;"> <tbody> <tr> <td cellpadding="3px" style="background-color:#486090; font-weidht:bold; color:white;">Quote:</td></tr> <tr> <td cellpadding="10px" style="background-color:#FFFFB0;"><p>This is the plot for the run type that had the best performance in the most recent optimization run that was completed. The most optimized runs from these collections are decided by which run types achieve a chi-squared value of 0.1 in the fewest generations (correlating to about a 0.9 fitness score). However, the genetic algorithm does not use Chi-squared directly, instead trying to maximize the fitness score (which uses a chi-squared in the denominator) that simulates the error we see in arasim. This fitness score is usually maximized at 1.0 but the simulated error can push the score slightly beyond this. This test was conducted with a simulated error of 0.1. This optimization holds the selection methods steady at 2 tournament 2 roulette and 6 rank selected individuals per 10 selection events. The changing parameter values are in the amounts of Reproduction, Crossover, Immigration, and mutation (rate and width) that the GA performs each generation. Each generation uses 100 individuals. In the graph below, the dotted lines are the minimum Chi^2 values at each generation, solid lines are the maximum fitness score. Each color represents a different run using the same parameters and dotted and solid lines sharing the same color represent the same run. The prevailing trend in the tests leading up to this test has been that the most optimized runs have low amounts of reproduction, high amounts of crossover, and they have been pushing the boundaries of the mutation rate and gaussian width of those mutations and this run follows that trend. The ranges of values we tested over were 0-12R, 88-100C, 15-25M_Rate, and 3-7 sigma, up from the previous test. This run took an average of 16.8 +/- 11.9 generations to reach the 0.1 chi-squared benchmark, the next closest run took 20.3 +/- 10.9 generations to reach the same point, while the most optimized run from an earlier test came in as the 10th best run taking 21.9 +/- 14.4 generations. The graph shows the behavior of this by showing large improvements in early generations that tend to quickly plateau around the maximum value before oscillating around the peak it reaches. Oscillations could be caused by either small mutations around our answer and displacement from the simulated error. The Chi-squared values show a much smoother behavior with smaller oscillations at the end of the run, which helps demonstrate the impact of the error on the behavior.</p></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </p><p> </p>
Encoding
:
HTML
ELCode
plain
Suppress Email notification
Attachment 1:
Drop attachments here...
Draft saved at 00:00:00
ELOG V3.1.5-fc6679b