Understanding tuning results

[David Relson]

At 10:51 AM 6/5/03, Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
>David Relson wrote:
>
> > As mentioned above, it looks like the "Top 10" section is showing the 
> worst
> > results (rather than the best).  Look in the results file for the lowest
> > value in the last column and try that for your test.
>
>That is even more absurd now. There are several of those
>lines with identical results:
>
> > 06/05 14:59:51 1      0.475 fpos...0 at cutoff 0.503000, run0... 
> 62  run1... 66  run2... 78  206
> > 06/05 15:13:54 3.2e-1 0.475 fpos...0 at cutoff 0.503000, run0... 
> 62  run1... 66  run2... 78  206
> > 06/05 15:28:38 1e-1   0.475 fpos...0 at cutoff 0.503000, run0... 
> 62  run1... 66  run2... 78  206
> > 06/05 15:43:10 3.2e-2 0.475 fpos...0 at cutoff 0.503000, run0... 
> 62  run1... 66  run2... 78  206
> > 06/05 15:55:58 1e-2   0.475 fpos...0 at cutoff 0.503000, run0... 
> 62  run1... 66  run2... 78  206
>
>That suggests that robs is without any meaning. I doubt it.
>There is something really broken.

I beg to differ.  The results say that the robs value isn't a significant 
contributor to the result.  Based on other tests, I'd suggest using 1e-2 
for the value.