From: "Laszlo Sragner" <>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: Test case rough statistics
Message-ID: <eeb4a65.69@WebX.raydaftYaTP>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:33:39 -0500
References: <eeb4a65.-1@WebX.raydaftYaTP> <eeb4a65.36@WebX.raydaftYaTP> <eeb4a65.66@WebX.raydaftYaTP> <eeb4a65.68@WebX.raydaftYaTP>
Lines: 33
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Xref: comp.soft-sys.matlab:142750

Stijn Helsen wrote:
> Great Rumpuscat wrote:
>> For the three strings that I believe I determined, I was able to
> come
>> up with better foldings than the front runners.  But, somehow I
>> wasn't able to take advantage of that information, which I find
>> little mystifying.  Anyway, maybe this posting will be of use to
>> someone.
> Maybe that comes because the random number sequence is changed if
> replace a current solution by a fast one.  (Refer to the improvement
> by the "holy line" 'rand(63,1)'
> Stijn

I think that it can be useful to omit rand and randn, to make the run
and the score for the entries deterministic. It is easy to create
pseudo-random numbers if one like to use random search algorithms. It
doesn't count if the pseudo random numbers repeat, while they are
used only a few times. They can be computed from the given input of
the solver function or some random matrices included in the code. If
rand omitted even the least improvement in speed or cost can be
measured deterministic. It is possible to tune the pseudo-random
generator to get better results but if the generator is the same the
changes are always measurable

Sragner Laszlo