diff --git a/cmaes_sourcecode_page.html b/cmaes_sourcecode_page.html index 7ec56de..ee58527 100644 --- a/cmaes_sourcecode_page.html +++ b/cmaes_sourcecode_page.html @@ -138,12 +138,11 @@
Addressing non-linear constraints is more intricate. In benign cases the optimum is not very close to the constraint and simple resampling works fine. The provided implementations do automated resampling when the objective function returns NaN. A simple (to implement) alterative is to compute Σi (xi - domain_middlei)2 + a_large_constant as objective function value for infeasible solutions. This might often work better than resampling. Yet, it still might work poorly if the optimum is at the domain boundary. + The class cma.ConstrainedFitnessAL + provides a non-linear constraints handling which works well when the optimum is at the boundary given the function is sufficiently smooth.
-Another method to address non-linear constraints is described in Multidisciplinary Optimisation in the Design of Future Space Launchers (2010) (pdf), Section 12.4.1, but not (yet) available in any of the provided source codes. - -
-For a very short and general overview on boundary and constraints handling (as of 2014 not entirely up-to-date though) in connection with CMA-ES, see the appendix of The CMA Evolution Strategy: A Tutorial, p.34f. +For a very short and general overview on boundary and constraints handling (as of 2014 not anymore up-to-date though) in connection with CMA-ES, see the appendix of The CMA Evolution Strategy: A Tutorial, p.34f.