You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 11, 2025. It is now read-only.
In the WANN source, it seems you are ranking the individuals as described in the paper: by mean fitness + num connections (80%), or by peak fitness + num connections (20%).
In the prettyNeatWann source, however, you are sorting based only on mean fitness (80%) or by mean fitness + num connections (20%).
Is there a reason why this is different between the sources? And in general, what is the motivation of the separation between the WANN and prettyNeatWann sources? Couldn't fully understand this from the Readme description.
Hello,
In the
WANNsource, it seems you are ranking the individuals as described in the paper: by mean fitness + num connections (80%), or by peak fitness + num connections (20%).In the
prettyNeatWannsource, however, you are sorting based only on mean fitness (80%) or by mean fitness + num connections (20%).Is there a reason why this is different between the sources? And in general, what is the motivation of the separation between the
WANNandprettyNeatWannsources? Couldn't fully understand this from the Readme description.Thank you!