[NEMO-devel] Result difference

[Yusak Tanoto]

Okay, I understand.

Cheers,

Yusak

2017-09-28 14:07 GMT+10:00 Ben Elliston <bje at air.net.au>:

> Hi Yusak
>
> > Sorry if my question is not clear. I already understand about the
> hallfame
> > and fitness as you informed me previously.
>
> Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your question.
>
> > It is about the difference between:
> > Jamali-PV: [*15.409046732884701, *1.7222013518375101, 8.3462172104824983,
> > *15.538314391372536*, 10.556889362917959, *8.7746846991700274,
> > *13.08950232073305,
> > 8.0203929213724301, 11.047838934170874, 9.2266373469077383, 0,
> > 16.541477118404561, 10.100857070020616, 20.518031615710981,
> > 11.997746175400911, 12.387589958041254, 5.7491295143515693,
> > 18.775730807261123, 7.6424579331404816, 2.0118168520321245, 0,
> > 2.1059111519489067, 0, 10.465303019230809, 0, 1.8352937636816455, 0,
> > 2.3753121109034288, 0, 2.4158953576921229, 0, 0, 0.34389522814178952,
> > 2.9917206278015609, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
> >
> > and
> > polygon *1 PV* (JAVA:1), *4.00 GW *supplied 6.087 TWh, CF 17.4%, capcost
> > $3,292,000,000, opcost $94,434,706, LCOE $50
>   [...]
>
> In this case, the optimiser chose 15.409046 GW as the capacity for
> polygon 1 PV.  However the build limit is 4GW.  Things work fine when
> the parameter space, from the viewpoint of CMA-ES, is unconstrained.
> We just "repair" these parameters in the evaluation function by
> clamping the value at the build limit.
>
> Similarly, when you replay a simulation with those parameters, the
> build limit will apply and you will get the right result.
>
> Cheers, Ben
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/nemo-devel/attachments/20170928/c51b4414/attachment-0001.html>