You are on page 1of 4

Particle Swarm, Genetic Algorithm, and their Hybrids :

Optimization of a Profiled Corrugated Horn Antenna


Jacob Robinson, Seelig Sinton, and Yahya Rahmat-Samii
Department of Electrical Engineering
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California 90095-1.594
robinson@ee.ucla.edu, rahmat@ee.ucla.edu
Introduction Genetic Algorithms (CA) have proven to be a useful method of optimization for
difficult and discontinuous multidimensional engineering problem. A new method of
optimization, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), is able to accomplish the same goal as GA
optimization in a new and faster way [l ]. The purpose of this paper is to investigate: the
foundations and performance of the two algorithms when qplied to the design of a profiled
corrugated horn antcnna. Also investigated is the possibility of hybridizing the two algorithms.
GA Background GA is an evolutionary optimizer (EO) that takes a sample of possible solutions
(individuals) and employs mutation, crossover, and selection as the primary operator!: for
optimization [2]. For the case of a profiled corrugated horn antenna, there are five parameters
being optimized for the design of a profiled corrugated horn antenna. The optimization
parameters are the 3 paramcter relating to the length, the number of corrugations per
wavelength, the ratio of tooth width to total corrugation width, profile parameter, and matching
section parameter.
The fitness function takes the values of each parameter and returns a single number representing
how good the solution is. For this example the design parameters are fed into a hom simulation
program that creates a horn cross section and simulates the far field pattern. A representative
fitness function is definedas:
f= -0.5*Weight (1bs)- 0.2*XPol (dB)-(BW,,,-BM3-S,/ (dB) ( 1)
The BWtaTg, is the desired beamwidth of the horn. In this case 34 is chosen because that was the
desired outcome for a particular project. Weight is the wi ght of the horn, and Xpol is the peak
crosspolarization within a reflector subtended angle of +36 . Additional constraints are made to
discourage unrealistic dcsigns. Any design with a tooth thickness of lcss than I mm is given a
fitness value of -100 bccause 1 mm is the thinnest tooth that can be effectively manufactured. I f
the value of SI I was lcss than -30 dB, the fitness is evaluated using -30 as the value of S I I.
PSO Background PSO is in principle a much simpler algorithm. It operates on the principle that
each solution can be rcprcsentcd as a particle (agcnt) in a swarm. Each agcnt has a position and
velocity vector. Each position coordinate represents a paramctcr value. Thus for an n-dimensional
optimization, each agcnt will have a position in n-dimensional space that reprcscnts a solution [3].
For this case the position corresponds to thc horn design parainetcrs. Figurc l a shows a flow chart
of the PSO algorithm.
Like GA, PSO must also have a fitncss evaluation function that takes thc agents positiori and
assigns to it a fitness value. For consistency the fitncss function IS the same as for CA. Thc
position with the highest fitness value in the entire run is called the global bcst (ghcrt). Each :agent
also keeps track of its highest fitness value. The location of this value is called its personal bcst
(pbcit). Each agent is initialized with a randomposition and random velocity. The velocity in each
of n dimensions is accelerated toward the global best and its own personal best based on the
following equation:
314
(17803-733@8/02$17.0002002 IEEE
,, =U,, +c, rand( ) * k,,,., ,.,, - .yr, 1 +c 2 rand( ) * ( P ~ ~ , ~ ~ . ~ ~ - x,, 1 ( 2)
Here rand( ) returns a numbcr between 0 and I . Thc acceleration constants CI and Q determinc the
relative pull of and he\, Thc higher the constant. the grcatcr the acceleration toward the
position it is multiplying. For this casc 2.0 15 used for both constants. The positions are updated
based on their movement over a discrete tiiiic intcrval (A t) as follows, with At usually sct to I :
s,, =x, , +v,, *A/
(3)
Then the fitness at cach position reevaluated. If any fitncbs is grcater than h.,,, then the ncw
position becomes gbf and the velocities arc accclcrdted toward that point. If the agcnts fitness
value is grcater than pbc,,, then pbr,, is replaccd by the current position and the agent is accelerated
toward that position. Another point called the local best (IbcJ is sometimes used. This is thc
position of the highest value froma small group of agcnts. The size of thc group is usually about
15% of the population size. Agcnts arc accelerated toward ]he,, fromthcir rcspcctive group. This
technique, however, was not used in this application. Figurc I b shows a two dimensional examplc
ofhow the particles are accelerated.
An additional factor vnlar is the ma~i num velocity of an agent in any givcn dimension. In this
case, vmax is set to half the range of thc given dimension. This is done to help kecp the swarm
under control. Another factor known as thc inertial wcight (w) is dccrcascd linearly from0.9 to 0.4
over the length of the run. This has the effect of slowing the particlc as the run progresses. This
helps the particles converge to gben rather than oscillating around it. The new equation for the
position is given by the following:
Results The performance ofthese two algorithms were tcstcd for the design ofthc corrugated horn
for spaceborne application using amodified version of CA developed by Dr. Pctc Carroll of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champlain, and a Particle Swarm Optimizer recently developed at
UCLA. Each algorithmwas given apopulation size of 10 and allowed to make 600 calls to fitness
cvaluator (horn simulation program). The calls to the fitness evaluator constitute the majority of
the runtime of the algorithm. Thus an equal number of calls to the fitness evaluator indicate
approximately the same runtime for both algorithms For GA optimization, the crossover
probability was 0.6 and the random mutation probability was 0.1.
Fitness evaluations were reduced in GA optimization by not reevaluating the same horn design
even if it was repeated in future generations. Evaluations were reduced in PSO by not evaluating
particles that flew outside the limits of the allowed solution space. Each algorithmstarted with the
same randomly generated initial population. Figure 2 shows the fitness of the best horn design
found as a function of fitness evaluations made. As shown in Figure 2 , GA improves more rapidly
than PSO early in the run. However, PSO passts CA as improvement in CA levels off, and
eventually PSO returns a better horn. The GA-PSO and PSO-CA hybrids offer a combination of
the two algorithms with the hope of utilizing the qualities and uniqueness of the two algorithms.
This was done by taking the population of one of the algorithms when the improvement began to
lcvel off, and using it as the starting population of the other algorithm. For the CA-PSO hybrid,
the CA population was used to start the PSO after 323 fitness evaluations, and for the PSO-CA
hybrid the population from the PSO was used to start the CA after 334 fitness evaluations. Table
I shows the characteristics of the best horns designed by the four different algorithms. Figures 3a
and 3b show the cross section and the far field pattern of the best horn designed by the PSO-GA
hybrid, the best horn overall
Conclusion The use of the hybrid incrcased the final fitness value for PSO and GA respectively,
however, the PSO alone outperformed both CA and the GA-PSO hybrid. The PSO-GA Hybrid
returned the best horn out of all four algorithms. This asserts the value of PSO as a new and
effective way to optimize difficult engincering problems.
315
Acknowledgement This work has been supported in part by J PL contract 81202696
- - - original velocity
4 - velocity toward gbest
velocity toward pbest
resultant velocity
. . . . . . . . . .
pbest
$r
gbest
'\
*
2
r(
i
0.01 0.5
Ratio of tooth width vs. total corrugation width
b.
Figure 1: (a) Flow chart showing the PSO process. (b) Individual agents (1 and
2) are accelerated toward the location of the best solution, gbest, and the location
of their own personal best, pbest, in a two dimensional simplification of the
problem.
35
34.
33.
32.
26'
25-
0 im m 33 403 m Bx)
wsSsE&Eiim5
Figure 2: Chart above shows the best fitness value returned versus the number of
calls to the fitness evaluator for each of the four optimization algonthms.
316
J . . . . . . . 4
11 iiii 311 YII 411 $11 HII 711 mi o 30 60 90 120 1x1 180
m Theta (Degrees)
a. b.
Figure 3: (a) The horn cross section for the best overall horn, designed by the
PSO-GA hybrid. (b) The far field pattern for the horn. Plus or minus 36 is the
subtended angle for an offset reflector antenna illuminated by the horn.
Table 1: The table shows the characteristics of the best horn fromthe initial
population and the best horn optimized by the four different algorithms. Notice
that the fitness value is highest for the PSO-CA hybrid.
References:
[ I ] J . Kennedy, and W.M. Spears. Matching Algorithms to Problems: An Experimental Test of
the Particle Swarm and Some Genetic Algorithms on the Multimodal Problem Generator.
Proceedings of t he IEEE IntI Conference on Evolutionary Computation. 1998
[2] Y . Rahmat-Samii, E Michielssen. Electromagnetic Optimization by Genetic Algorithms. J ohn
Wiley & Sons, 1999.
[3] R.C. Eberhart, and Y . Shi. Particle SwarmOptimization: Developments, Applications and
Resources Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. vol. I , 2001, pp. 81-
86.
317

You might also like