Antenna Array Synthesis Using The Cross Entropy Method

The Florida State University
DigiNole Commons
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
6-19-2008
Antenna Array Synthesis Using the Cross Entropy

Method
Jeffrey David Connor
Florida State University
Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Connor, Jeffrey David, "Antenna Array Synthesis Using the Cross Entropy Method" (2008). Electronic Theses, Treatises and
Dissertations. Paper 3444.
This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at DigiNole Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigiNole Commons. For more information, please contact
lib-ir@fsu.edu.
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
ANTENNA ARRAY SYNTHESIS USING THE CROSS ENTROPY METHOD
By
JEFFREY D. CONNOR
A Dissertation submitted to the

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2008
Copyright © 2008
Jeffrey D. Connor
All Rights Reserved
The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Jeffrey D. Connor defended
on June 19, 2008.
Simon Y. Foo
Professor Directing Dissertation
Mark H. Weatherspoon
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation
Amy Chan-Hilton
Outside Committee Member
Anke Meyer-Baese
Committee Member
Approved:
Victor DeBrunner, Chair, Electrical and Computer Engineering
C. J. Chen, Dean, College of Engineering
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee
members.
ii
This work is dedicated to anyone and everyone who helped me to get to where I am
today. Thank you all.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my major professor Dr. Simon Foo for his support throughout this
process. He truly made this experience an enjoyable one and through all the highs and lows of
the process kept me heading in the right direction.
I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Mark Weatherspoon, Dr.
Amy Chan-Hilton and Dr. Anke Meyer-Baese. A special thanks is owed to Dr. Chan-Hilton in
particular since antenna array processing is not her expertise, yet she still provided valuable
feedback and support which I greatly appreciated.
I would also like to thank my parents and family for their love and support throughout my
life and particularly during these last 22 years of studying!
I would also like to thank Dr. Frank Gross for getting me interested in antenna arrays and
optimization problems for electromagnetics. In hind sight I am not sure if I should thank him or
hurt him for that, but all jokes aside he has been a tremendous influence on my educational
career and personal life.
I would like to thank my fellow members of the Machine Intelligence lab, particularly Jason
Isaacs, Erastus Ogunti and Dana Skinner.
I would also like to thank a number of people who helped me along the way, namely Joseph
Amato, Roger Bourgeois, William Bulger, Matt Elliott, Larry Marquis, Leah Marquis and
Margarita Mello.
For anyone I forgot to thank, I am sorry, just know that I could not have done this without
you.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures ................................................................................................ x
Abstract ...................................................................................................... xix
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Antenna Array Synthesis ......................................................................... 1

1.2 Optimization Algorithms Applied to Array Synthesis............................. 2
1.3 Cross-Entropy Method............................................................................. 3
1.4 Motivation For Work ............................................................................... 4
1.5 Summary of Objectives............................................................................ 5
1.6 Organization of Work .............................................................................. 7
2. ANTENNA ARRAYS .................................................................................... 10
2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 10
2.2 Linear Array Factor.................................................................................. 11
2.3 Summary .................................................................................................. 23
3. CROSS ENTROPY METHOD ..................................................................... 24
3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 24
3.2 The General Cross Entropy Method ........................................................ 27
3.3 Cross Entropy Method For Continuous Optimization ............................. 29
3.4 Cross Entropy Method For Combinatorial Optimization ........................ 33
3.5 Convergence Properties of the Cross Entropy Method............................ 35
3.6 Modifications of the Cross Entropy Method ........................................... 36
3.7 Summary .................................................................................................. 43
4. APERIODIC ARRAY DESIGN..................................................................... 44
4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 44
4.2 Single Objective Aperiodic Array Design By Element Thinning ........... 48
4.3 Study of CE Parameter Choice on Outcome of Thinning Scenario......... 55
4.4 Multi-Objective Aperiodic Array Design By Element Thinning ............ 58
v
4.5 Single Objective Aperiodic Array Design By Non-Uniform Element
Positions................................................................................................... 66
4.6 Introducing Pattern Null with Non-Uniform Element Positions ............. 82
4.7 Non-Uniform Element Spacing for Grating Lobe Cancellation .............. 85
4.8 Multi-Objective Aperiodic Array Design By Non-Uniform Element
Spacings ................................................................................................... 91
4.9 Summary .................................................................................................. 99
5. PHASED ARRAY SYNTHESIS ................................................................... 101
5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 101

5.2 Sector Beam Pattern Synthesis ................................................................ 103
5.3 Array Failure Correction.......................................................................... 122
5.4 Phase-Only Array Synthesis .................................................................... 138
5.5 Switched-Beam Array Design ................................................................. 153
5.6 Multi-Objective Array Design By Amplitude-Only Array Weighting.... 162
5.7 Summary .................................................................................................. 168
6 . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 169
6.1 Summary of Work.................................................................................... 169

6.2 Specific Technical Contributions............................................................. 170
6.3 Recommendations for Future Work......................................................... 171
APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 173

REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 198
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................. 204
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1. CE Design Parameters for Symmetric, Linear Array Scenario ......... 50
Table 4.2. Solution of Array Thinning Procedure for Symmetric, Linear Array 52
Table 4.3. Average Number of Iterations For Convergence............................... 56
Table 4.3. Comparison of CE Results to Literature............................................ 53
Table 4.4. Average Sidelobe Powers Achieved By Best & Mean Population
Scores................................................................................................................... 57
Table 4.5. MOCE Design Parameters for Symmetric, Linear Array Scenario... 62
Table 4.6. Composite Pareto Optimal Solutions of Multi-Objective Thinned Array

Scenario................................................................................................................ 64
Table 4.7. Mean Pareto Optimal Solutions of Multi-Objective Thinned Array

Scenario................................................................................................................ 65
Table 4.8. CE Design Parameters for Symmetric, Linear Array Scenario ......... 71
Table 4.9. Sidelobe Power and Beamwidth of Best Array Designs for Each Score
Function ............................................................................................................... 81
Table 4.10. Absolute Element Positions From Origin and Element Spacing for Best
Performing Samples of Non-Uniform Array Scenario ........................................ 81
Table 4.11. Absolute Element Positions From Origin and Element Spacings for Best
Performing Samples of Non-Uniform Array Scenario Including Null Positions In
Score .................................................................................................................... 83
Table 4.12. Absolute Element Positions From Origin and Element Spacing for Best
Performing Samples of Grating Lobe Scenario ................................................... 90
Table 4.13. Sidelobe Power and Beamwidth of Best Array Design of Grating Lobe
Scenario................................................................................................................ 90
Table 4.14. MOCE Design Parameters for Symmetric, Linear Array Scenario. 94
vii
Table 4.15. Composite Pareto Optimal Solutions of Multi-Objective Aperiodic
Array Scenario ..................................................................................................... 96
Table 4.16. Mean Pareto Optimal Solutions of Multi-Objective Aperiodic Array

Scenario................................................................................................................ 97
Table 5.1. Parameters for Sector Beam Patterns from [59], [63] ...................... 104
Table 5.2. CE Design Parameters for Sector Beam Scenario of [63] ................. 107
Table 5.3. Complex Sector Pattern Weights at Final Iteration .......................... 112
Table 5.4. CE Design Parameters For Sector Beam Scenario of [59] ................ 109
Table 5.5. Complex Sector Pattern Weights at Final Iteration ........................... 118
Table 5.6. CE Design Parameters for Double Element Failure Dolph-Chebyshev

Array Scenario ..................................................................................................... 125
Table 5.7. Measurables for Double Element Chebyshev Failure Scenario ........ 127
Table 5.8. Original and Corrected Weights for Double Element Chebyshev Failure
Scenario................................................................................................................ 128
Table 5.9. Measurables for Double Element Taylor Failure Scenario ............... 133
Table 5.10. Original and Corrected Weights for Double Element Taylor Failure
Scenario................................................................................................................ 134
Table 5.11. Measurables for Convergence Curves of Double Element Taylor Failure
Scenario................................................................................................................ 135
Table 5.12. CE Design Parameters for Null Placement Scenario....................... 141
Table 5.13. Measurables for Convergence Curves of Null Placement Scenario for
Score Function #1 ................................................................................................ 143
Table 5.14. Measurables of Null Placement Scenario for Score Function #1 .... 143
Table 5.15. Measurables for Convergence Curves of Null Placement Scenario for
Score Function #2 ................................................................................................ 143
Table 5.16. Measurables of Null Placement Scenario for Score Function #2 .... 143
Table 5.17. Phase-Only Weights (in deg) for Best Performing Trials of Null
Placement Scenario.............................................................................................. 152
Table 5.18. Parameters for Switched-Beam Array Design From [62] ............... 154
viii
Table 5.19. CE Design Parameters for Switched-Beam Array Design .............. 156
Table 5.20. Complex Weights of Switched-Beam Array Design....................... 160
Table 5.21. MOCE Design Parameters for Symmetric, Linear Array Scenario. 164
Table 5.22. Polynomial Coefficients For 6th Order Polynomial Fit Using
MATLAB’s Polyfit Command ............................................................................ 166
Table 5.23. Accuracy of Multi-Objective Methods Quantified by Error Estimates167
Table A.1. Progression of CE Parameters, Score and Positions for Continuous CE

Example ............................................................................................................... 175
Table C.1. Progression of CE Parameters and Score For Combinatorial

Optimization Example ......................................................................................... 184
Table D.1. Optimal Solutions to (D.2)................................................................ 187
Table E.1. Average Number of Iterations For Convergence .............................. 192
Table E.2. Average Scores Achieved By Best & Mean Population Scores ....... 193
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Top level flow chart of dissertation.................................................. 9
Figure 2.1. Geometric array configurations........................................................ 10
Figure 2.2. Antenna Coordinate System ............................................................. 11
Figure 2.3. Wavefront sampled by a discrete antenna array............................... 12
Figure 2.4. Two element x-axis linear array with incident wavefront in azimuth. 12
Figure 2.5. x-axis linear array with z variation. ................................................. 14
Figure 2.6. x-axis array with an even number of elements placed symmetrically
about the coordinate origin. ................................................................................. 16
Figure 2.7. 10 Element uniform array factor with d = 0.5λ element spacing in u-
space..................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.8. 11 element uniform linear array with d = 0.5λ. ............................... 20
Figure 2.9. Plot of normalized array factor gain to demonstrate the definition of
peak sidelobe power............................................................................................. 21
Figure 2.10. Beamwidths of 10 element ULA factor with d = 0.5λ expressed for
both the field and power patterns......................................................................... 22
Figure 2.11. Plot of scanned radiation pattern gain from broadside (u = 0) towards
uo = 0.4. ................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 3.1. FACE Algorithm Flowchart ............................................................. 38
Figure 4.1. Two methods for producing aperiodic antenna arrays ..................... 45
Figure 4.2. Flow chart for aperiodic antenna design .......................................... 47
Figure 4.3. x-axis, weighted linear antenna array of N uniformly spaced elements. 48
Figure 4.4. Symmetric, x-axis linear array with principal plane in azimuth....... 49
x
Figure 4.5. Convergence Curves for best and mean scores of population over 5,000
trials...................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 4.6. Convergence curves for five random trials compared to the averages of
the best and mean populations scores. ................................................................. 52
Figure 4.7. Best result (–20.1647 dB) achieved by the Cross Entropy method over
all trials for the current example .......................................................................... 53
Figure 4.8. Optimized patterns for thinned array design for first 100 trials of
procedure.............................................................................................................. 54
Figure 4.9. Average number of iterations before convergence for each pair
[α, ρK] .................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 4.10. Plot of the shaded results of Table 4.5 representing an average of the
best population scores achieved by CE for each pair [α, ρK] over all trials ........ 57
Figure 4.11. Close-up view of Figure 4.10 to detail the pairs [α, ρK] which
performed the best................................................................................................ 58
Figure 4.12. Pareto front of optimal solutions for FON test set considered in the
background chapter on CE................................................................................... 59
Figure 4.13. Result of a single MOCE trial for thinning arrays to achieve both a
minimized sidelobe power and minimum number of elements. .......................... 63
Figure 4.14. Pareto Front of non-dominated solutions ....................................... 63
Figure 4.15. Comparison of Pareto front computed using MOCE versus statistical
bounds produced by Lo and Steinberg................................................................. 66
Figure 4.16. Illustration of the two possible structures for optimizing aperiodic
spacings using CE ................................................................................................ 67
Figure 4.17. Uniformly weighted, symmetric x-axis array linear array for non-
uniformly spaced optimization scenario. ............................................................. 69
Figure 4.18. Mask function for use in non-uniformly spaced optimization scenario
plotted against the original uniform linear array factor. ...................................... 70
Figure 4.19. (Score Function #1) Convergence Curves for best and mean scores of
population over 100 trials .................................................................................... 72
Figure 4.20. (Score Function #1) Convergence curves for five random trials
compared to the averages of the best and mean populations scores. ................... 72
Figure 4.21. (Score Function #1) Plot of optimized far-field pattern for best
performing trial and original uniform linear array............................................... 73
xi
Figure 4.22. (Score Function #1) Optimized patterns of all 100 trials. .............. 73
Figure 4.23. (Score Function #1) Mean element positions of all 100 trials........ 73
Figure 4.24. (Score Function #1) Progression of (a) elements positions x and (b)
variance of Gaussian distribution for best performing trial ................................. 74
performing trial and original uniform linear array............................................... 76
Figure 4.29. (Score Function #2) Mean element positions of all 100 trials. Error
bars indicate standard deviation of element positions for each element.............. 76
variance of Gaussian distribution for best performing trial. ................................ 77
performing trial, original uniform linear array and Mask function. .................... 79
Figure 4.35. (Score Function #3) Mean element positions of all 100 trials....... 79
variance of Gaussian distribution for best performing trial. ................................ 80
Figure 4.37. Altered non-uniformly spaced array accounting for overlapping

element positions. ................................................................................................ 82
Figure 4.38. Far-field pattern plot of optimized array pattern for peak sidelobe level
and null locations. ................................................................................................ 83
Figure 4.39. Progression of best and mean score of population versus the number of
iterations for score function which include the null score of the original ULA null
positions. .............................................................................................................. 83
xii
Figure 4.40. Progression of (a) element positions x and (b) variance of Gaussian
distribution for best performing trials. ................................................................. 84
Figure 4.41. Eight element x-axis uniform array with spacing d = 0.8λ for
suppressing grating lobe and minimizing sidelobe power for scanned elevation
pattern towards uo = 0.866 ................................................................................... 85
Figure 4.42. Plot of optimized far-field pattern for best performing trial versus
original uniform linear array................................................................................ 87
Figure 4.43. Plot of optimized array patterns of all 100 trials versus the original
uniform array. ...................................................................................................... 87
Figure 4.44. Mean element positions of all 100 trials......................................... 87
Figure 4.45. Convergence Curves for best and mean scores of population over 100
trials...................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 4.47. Progression of (a) elements positions x and (b) mean and variance of
Gaussian distribution for best performing trial.................................................... 89
Figure 4.48. Comparison of far-field patterns computed by both the Cross Entropy
method and the Genetic Algorithm of [49] for the element positions presented in
Table 4.13. ........................................................................................................... 90
Figure 4.49. z-axis uniform array with non-uniform spacing for multi-objective
optimization problem ........................................................................................... 92
Figure 4.50. Illustration of relationship between absolute distances from origin and
element spacings. ................................................................................................. 92
Figure 4.51. Result of a single MOCE trial representing the trade-off curve between
peak sidelobe power and first null beamwidth for a ten element array. .............. 94
Figure 4.52. Pareto front of non-dominated solutions for multi-objective aperiodic

array design scenario for beamwidth versus sidelobe power............................... 95
Figure 4.53. Pareto front of non-dominated solutions for multi-objective aperiodic

array design scenario............................................................................................ 98
Figure 5.1. Flow chart for phased array antenna design ..................................... 102
Figure 5.2. Illustration of sector beam pattern.................................................... 103
Figure 5.3. Sector beam mask score functions detailed in Table 5.1 for (a) PSO (b)
GA........................................................................................................................ 105
xiii
Figure 5.4. z-axis uniform array with spacing d = 0.5λ for sector beam synthesis
problem ................................................................................................................ 107
Figure 5.5. x-axis uniform array with spacing d = 0.5λ for sector beam synthesis
problem. ............................................................................................................... 109
Figure 5.6. Bar graph indicating the breakdown of convergence for current
scenario. ............................................................................................................... 110
Figure 5.7. Convergence Curves for best and mean scores of population over 50
trials...................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 5.8. Convergence curves of different convergence groupings ................ 111
Figure 5.9. Sector beam pattern of best performing trial for scenario of [63] at the
2000th iteration ..................................................................................................... 112
Figure 5.10. Sector beam patterns of all 50 trials plotted for the final iteration of the
optimization procedure. ....................................................................................... 113
Figure 5.11. Mean of (a) phase and (b) amplitude weights of all 50 trials......... 113
Figure 5.12. Progression of amplitude and phase weights of the best performing
trial for scenario of [63]. ...................................................................................... 114
Figure 5.13. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for phase
weights of best performing trial for scenario of [63]........................................... 114
Figure 5.14. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for

amplitude weights of best performing trial for scenario of [63].......................... 115
Figure 5.15. Bar graph indicating the breakdown of convergence for current
scenario. ............................................................................................................... 116
Figure 5.16. Convergence curves for best and mean scores of population over 50
trials...................................................................................................................... 117
Figure 5.17. Convergence curves of different convergence groupings. ............. 117
Figure 5.18. Sector beam pattern of best performing trial for scenario of [59] at the
2545th iteration ..................................................................................................... 118
Figure 5.19. Sector beam patterns of all 50 trials plotted for the final iteration of the
optimization procedure. ....................................................................................... 119
Figure 5.20. Mean of (a) phase and (b) amplitude weights of all 50 trials......... 119
Figure 5.21. Progression of amplitude and phase weights of the best performing trial
for scenario of [59]............................................................................................... 120
xiv
Figure 5.22. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for phase
weights of best performing trial for scenario of [59]........................................... 120

amplitude weights of best performing trial for scenario of [59].......................... 121
Figure 5.24. Original Dolph-Chebyshev and Taylor array patterns before element
failure and mask score functions used for correcting the damaged pattern......... 124
Figure 5.25. Plot of corrected array pattern of original Dolph-Chebyshev weighted

array with peak sidelobe power of –35 dB for all 100 trials................................ 127
Figure 5.26. Corrected pattern for best performing trial..................................... 129
Figure 5.27. Convergence curves for average best and mean population scores as
well as that of the best performing trial shown in Figure 5.26. ........................... 130
Figure 5.29. Progression of corrected amplitude weights for the best performing
trial. ...................................................................................................................... 131

corrected amplitude weights of best performing trial. ......................................... 131
Figure 5.31. Comparison of corrected array patterns computed using both the Cross
Entropy method and the Genetic Algorithm of [73]............................................ 132
Figure 5.32. Plot of corrected array pattern of original Taylor weighted array with
peak sidelobe power of –35 dB for all 100 trials ................................................. 133
Figure 5.33. Corrected pattern for best performing trial...................................... 135
Figure 5.34. Convergence curves for average best and mean population scores as
well as that of the best performing trial shown in Figure 5.33. ........................... 136
Figure 5.36. Progression of corrected amplitude weights for the best performing
trial. ...................................................................................................................... 137

corrected amplitude weights of best performing trial. ......................................... 137
Figure 5.38. x-axis uniform array with spacing d = 0.5λ for phase-only synthesis
problem ................................................................................................................ 140
xv
Figure 5.39. (Score Function #1) Plot of optimized phase-only array patterns for all
100 trials............................................................................................................... 144
Figure 5.40. (Score Function #1) Close-up of null region. Plotted are the gain
patterns and resulting null positions for all 100 trials.......................................... 144
Figure 5.41. (Score Function #1) Mean of phase-only weights of all 100 trials. 145
Figure 5.42. (Score Function #1) Plot of best performer of all 100 trials........... 145
Figure 5.43. (Score Function #1) Convergence curves for best and mean score of
Figure 5.45. (Score Function #1) Progression of phase-only weights for the best
performing trial shown in the inset of Figure 5.42. ............................................. 147
Figure 5.46. (Score Function #1) Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian
distributions for best performing trial. ................................................................. 147
Figure 5.47. (Score Function #2) Plot of optimized phase-only array patterns for all
100 trials............................................................................................................... 148
Figure 5.48. (Score Function #2) Close-up of null region. Plotted are the gain
patterns and resulting null positions for all 100 trials.......................................... 148
Figure 5.49. (Score Function #2) Mean of phase-only weights of all 100 trials. 149
Figure 5.50. (Score Function #2) Plot of best performer of all 100 trials........... 149
Figure 5.51. (Score Function #2) Convergence curves for best and mean score of
Figure 5.53. (Score Function #2) Progression of phase-only weights for the best
performing trial shown in the inset of Figure 5.50. ............................................. 151
Figure 5.54. (Score Function #2) Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian
distributions for best performing trial. ................................................................. 151
Figure 5.55. ‘Don’t exceed’ square error score masks for (a) Sector beam (b) Pencil
beam..................................................................................................................... 154
Figure 5.56. Convergence curves for mask score functions for (a) Composite score
(b) Individual sector and pencil beam scores....................................................... 157
xvi
Figure 5.57. Optimized switched beam patterns of all 100 trials for (a) Sector beam
(b) Pencil beam .................................................................................................... 158
Figure 5.58. Mean amplitude and phase weights of switched-beam design for all
100 trials............................................................................................................... 158
Figure 5.59. Sector beam pattern of best performing trial. Inset: Complex weights
for best performer. ............................................................................................... 159
Figure 5.60. Pencil beam pattern of best performing trial. Inset: Complex weights
for best performer. ............................................................................................... 159
Figure 5.61. Progression of complex weights for best performing trial. ............ 160
Figure 5.62. Mean and variance of Gaussian distributions governing phase weights
of switched-beam design...................................................................................... 161
Figure 5.63. Mean and variance of Gaussian distributions governing amplitude

weights of switched-beam design ........................................................................ 161
Figure 5.64. z-axis uniform array with spacing d = 0.5λ for benchmark multi-
objective problem................................................................................................. 163
Figure 5.65. Result of a single MOCE trial representing the trade-off curve between
peak sidelobe power and first null beamwidth for a ten element array. .............. 164
Figure 5.66. Plot of the average Pareto front determined using MOCE............. 165
Figure 5.67. Plot of best Pareto front achieved over all trials, mean Pareto front over
all trials and the ideal Chebyshev curve. ............................................................. 166
Figure A.1. Plot of score function S(x) for continuous CE optimization example 173
Figure A.2. Progression of Gaussian pdf as distribution converges to the

optimum. ............................................................................................................ 176
Figure A.3. Progression of the mean and variance of the Gaussian distribution
versus the number of iterations ............................................................................ 176
Figure A.4. (a) Progression of the best and average population score versus number
of iterations. (b) Progression of the best and worst population position versus
number of iterations ............................................................................................. 176
Figure B.1. Six element uniform linear array with phase-only weights applied to
elements 1, 2, 5 & 6. ............................................................................................ 177
Figure B.2. Cost surface for placing nulls in array radiation pattern at angles φ =
31.8o, 69.5o, 120o .................................................................................................. 179
xvii
Figure B.3. Results of CE optimization for null placement example. ................ 180
Figure B.4. Optimized array factor for null placement example. ....................... 181
Figure B.5. (a) Progression of best and worst samples in population as CE

procedure converges towards optimal solution. (b) Close-up view of the global
minimum. ............................................................................................................. 182
Figure C.1. Blackbox experiment to determine unknown binary sequence. ...... 183
Figure C.2. Results of CE method for blind estimation example ....................... 184
Figure D.1. Eighteen Element, Uniform Linear Array Considered For Thinning
Example. .............................................................................................................. 185
Figure D.2. Plot of the Normalized Array Factor for the Optimal Solutions
Presented in Table D.1......................................................................................... 187
Figure D.3. Results of CE Procedure for a Single Trial ..................................... 188
Figure D.4. Results of 1000 independent trials of the CE procedure for α = 0.7 189
Figure E.1. Plot of trigonometric cost surface in \2........................................... 191
Figure E.2. Average number of iterations required before convergence for each pair
[α, ρK] .................................................................................................................. 192
Figure E.3. Average best population score for each pair [α, ρK]........................ 193
Figure F.1. (a) Pareto front of non-dominated solutions for FON test objectives 196
Figure F.2. Pareto fronts of non-dominated solutions for ZDT1 test objective.. 197
Figure F.3. Pareto fronts of non-dominated solutions for ZDT1 test objective.. 197
xviii
ABSTRACT
This dissertation addresses the synthesis of antenna arrays using the Cross-Entropy (CE)
method, marking the first application of the CE method for solving electromagnetic optimization
problems. The CE method is a general stochastic optimization technique for solving both
continuous and discrete multi-extremal, multi-objective optimization problems. The CE method
is an adaptive importance sampling derived from an associated stochastic problem (ASP) for
estimating the probability of a rare-event occurrence. The estimation of this probability is
determined using a log-likelihood estimator governed by a parameterized probability
distribution. The CE method adaptively estimates the parameters of the probability distribution
to produce a random variable solution in the neighborhood of the globally best outcome by
minimizing cross entropy.
In this work, single and multi-objective optimization using both continuous and
combinatorial forms of the CE method are performed to shape the sidelobe power, mainlobe
beamwidth, null depths and locations as well as number of active elements of linear array
antennas by controlling the spacings and complex array excitations of each element in the array.
Specifically, aperiodic arrays are designed through both non-uniform element spacings and
thinning active array elements, while phased array antennas are designed by controlling the
complex excitation applied to each element of the array. The performance of the CE method is
demonstrated by considering different scenarios adopted from literature addressing more popular
stochastic optimization techniques such as the Genetic Algorithm (GA) or Particle Swarm
Optimization. The primary technical contributions of this dissertation are the simulation results
computed using the Cross Entropy method for the different scenarios adopted from literature.
Cursory comparisons are made to the results from the literature, but the overall goal of this work
is to expose the tendencies of the Cross Entropy method for array synthesis problems and help
the reader to make an educated decision when considering the Cross Entropy method for their
own problems. Overall, the CE method is a competitive alternative to these more popular
techniques, possessing attractive convergence properties, but requiring larger population sizes.
xix
1. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 ANTENNA ARRAY SYNTHESIS
In modern signal transmission/reception systems such as radar, sonar, AM/FM &

satellite radio, cellular phones, GPS and wireless LANs there currently exists four
diversity techniques for improving the quality of signal (QoS) and reducing interference:
time, frequency, code and space. Spatial diversity is achieved by using multiple sensors
(in our case antennas) arranged in a geometrical configuration called an array. The
physics of the array are designed such that in the space surrounding the array no energy is
radiated/received at particular angles in space, whereas at other angles maximum
radiation/reception is achieved. This is known as array beamforming. The design of
antenna arrays has been studied extensively since World War II and has experienced a
renaissance recently with the application of evolutionary algorithms, cognitive
intelligence systems and nature inspired meta-heuristics for solving electromagnetics
optimization problems.
The spatial diversity achieved by array beamforming is separated into two classes:
static synthesis and adaptive beamforming. Adaptive beamforming is a dynamic process
which updates the antenna array’s performance with time by collecting feedback from the
surrounding environment to keep the array in an optimum state, whereas in the static
synthesis case, the properties of the array remain static with time. Ideally, adaptive
beamforming systems can provide improved QoS over systems employing static
synthesized arrays, but typically are more costly. This is not to say that adaptive
beamforming systems are always the preferred method of choice either, since in many
cases it is more important to be able to predict the array’s performance in order to
increase reliability in dynamic environments. So, this author views static synthesis and
1
adaptive beamforming as two separate problems. Adaptive beamforming requires
information about the propagation environment like the signals being propagated,
interfering objects (i.e., buildings, trees, cars), outside electromagnetic interferers (i.e.,
competing mobile users, Radar jammers), etc. As a result, it was not possible to
thoroughly examine both problems simultaneously, so a conscious choice was made to
focus specifically on static synthesis to introduce the application of the Cross Entropy
method for antenna array synthesis and leave adaptive beamforming for future research.
In a typical static synthesis problem, the designer can use either the array’s geometry or
the array’s weights to set array performance. The array geometry is the configuration of
elements distributed in 1D, 2D or 3D space traditionally forming linear, planar, circular
or perhaps conformal shapes. Array weights refer to the amplitude and phase of the
transmitted/received signal for each element in the array. The designer can alter the
proportions of the amplitude, phase or both between elements in the array to achieve a
desired response. Altering the array’s geometry serves the same purpose as altering the
array weights. Both adjust the amplitude and phase excitation of the transmitted/received
signal at each element in the array such that at different angles in space the
transmitted/received signals add constructively producing maximum radiation/reception
while at other angles signals add destructively and no energy is radiated or received.
1.2 OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS APPLIED TO ARRAY SYNTHESIS
There are many degrees of freedom from which to choose when addressing the array
synthesis problem, as described above. The feasible region of solutions is typically
extremely large and as a result, it would be practically impossible to exhaustively search
through all possible solutions to arrive at an optimal result. Therefore, optimization
techniques are employed to reduce the search time. Traditionally, the synthesis of
antenna arrays required an expert knowledge and significant insight into the physics of
the array in order to exploit it. However, with improvements in the personal computer
and computational electromagnetics along with new optimization techniques which
imitate the evolutionary, biological and cognitive processes of nature it is now much
easier to compute accurate solutions without significant expertise.
2
Conventional techniques employed for solving the synthesis problem were
deterministic in nature, using measurable and quantifiable knowledge of the array physics
to determine an optimal result. The user develops cost function criteria based upon array
parameters of interest to exploit knowledge of the deterministic qualities of the array.
Typical deterministic optimization algorithms applied to the synthesis problem include
Newton’s Method, Simplex Method, Least Squares, LMS, Conjugate Gradient, as well as
many other constrained and unconstrained linear/non-linear programs. The deterministic
methods usually possess directional properties using Calculus to travel along directions
of descent about a computational cost surface towards an optimal solution. There is a
distinct disadvantage to this technique in that one still needs expert knowledge of the
array physics in order to quantify the right cost. The solutions of deterministic
algorithms require good initial guesses, can become unstable, get trapped in local minima
and require long convergence times.
In contrast to conventional deterministic optimization techniques, optimization
methods governed by stochastic principles have become a popular tool for solving the
synthesis problem. Stochastic optimization algorithms use populations of random
solutions which are scored based upon their fitness to the desired solution and then are
improved in the future by exploiting the previous solutions which performed the best.
Unlike deterministic algorithms, one does not need expert knowledge of the antenna’s
physics to achieve an optimal result. At each moment in time a random population of
potential optimal solutions is created and its fitness to the desired solution is evaluated to
direct the algorithm towards the optimal solution. Stochastic algorithms do not follow
the computational cost surfaces like gradient based methods, but they possess the ability
to jump around the computational space and leap from the trappings of local minima to
converge to a globally optimal solution.
1.3 CROSS-ENTROPY METHOD
The Cross Entropy (CE) method is a global stochastic optimization technique for
solving both continuous and discrete multi-extremal, multi-objective optimization
problems. The CE method is an adaptive importance sampling derived from an
associated stochastic problem (ASP) for estimating the probability of a rare-event
3
occurrence. The estimation of this probability is determined using a log-likelihood
estimator governed by a parameterized probability distribution. The CE method
adaptively estimates the parameters of the probability distribution which produces a
random variable solution in the neighborhood of the globally optimal solution by
minimizing cross entropy. The general CE method has two distinct phases: First generate
a population of potential solutions sampled from some parameterized probability
distribution. An example of such a distribution would be a Gaussian or Bernoulli
distribution. Second, update the parameters of the probability distribution based upon the
current best solutions to produce a better sample in the next iteration by minimizing cross
entropy. As a result, in subsequent iterations the probability distribution will begin to
reflect the optimal distribution until the cross-entropy equals zero and the current
distribution is identical.
1.4 MOTIVATION FOR WORK
This work is motivated by the popularity of evolutionary algorithms and nature-

inspired metaheuristics for solving electromagnetic optimization problems. The synthesis
of antenna array radiation patterns has experienced a renaissance and a shift in paradigm
from traditional gradient-based optimization methods to those which imitate the
evolutionary, biological and cognitive processes of nature. Some of the more popular
algorithms include the Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO),
Simulated Annealing (SA), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), the Bees Algorithm (BA)
and Harmony Search (HS). In particular, GA and PSO have been utilized extensively.
The early research into the use of GA and PSO for synthesizing antenna arrays was
conducted by R. L. Haupt and D. H. Werner of the Applied Research Laboratory at the
Pennsylvania State University and Yahya Rahmat-Samii of UCLA. Their investigations
into GA in the 1990’s fueled much of their current research into PSO in this new century
as well as inspiring research into a host of other algorithms with stochastic principles,
including this dissertation. The Cross Entropy method is an alternative to these more
popular algorithms, possessing attractive convergence properties. It is believed by this
author that research into CE for solving electromagnetic optimization problems will
become prevalent in the next decade much like GA in the 1990’s and PSO in this current
4
decade. This is conjectured first, because of its attractive speed of convergence, but also
because of its versatility and its deep roots in the mathematical theory of probability
estimation. CE continues to evolve through different modifications and hybridizations
aimed at improving the accuracy of the solution and its already fast speed of
convergence. Right now is an exciting time for studying the Cross Entropy method. This
dissertation is the ground floor, marking the first work applying the Cross Entropy
method for solving electromagnetic optimization problems.
1.5 SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this dissertation is to implement the Cross Entropy method
for synthesizing both aperiodic and phased arrays to shape the sidelobe power of the far-
field radiation pattern. In shaping the sidelobe power of the array pattern, the mainlobe
beamwidth, sidelobe maxima and null locations are taken into consideration when
developing score functions for the Cross Entropy method. The overall optimization goal
is to determine a solution which minimizes the sidelobe power and preserves the
properties of the original antenna array radiation pattern in the shortest amount of time
with the smallest number of performance evaluations. In order to expose the tendencies
of the Cross Entropy method and provide a cursory comparison to popular stochastic
techniques such as the Genetic Algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization, several
scenarios were chosen from refereed journals such as IEEE’s Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation. The scenarios presented in this work were chosen for their complexity,
relevance, detail and popularity. By selecting these scenarios from literature, the reader
has a basis for comparison with more popular stochastic optimization techniques in order
to make an educated decision when choosing a specific technique for their own problem.
For each scenario, the parameterized probability distribution is carefully chosen to reflect
the structure of the problem and parameters of the Cross Entropy method such as the
smoothing coefficient, number of elite samples and population size are selected to
achieve the best results. These variables were iterated upon to determine the best
smoothing constant and elite sample number for a fixed population size to produce the
best score with the fewest number of performance evaluations. In two cases (for both
continuous and combinatorial optimization), the iterative results for nine pairs of
5
smoothing coefficient and elite sample number over the entire range of possible values
are reported to demonstrate the influence of certain pairs on the resulting score and
number of iterations for convergence.
The goal of this work is to not directly compare the performance of the Cross Entropy
method to more popular algorithms such as the Genetic Algorithm or Particle Swarm
Optimization, but rather since this dissertation represents the first work utilizing the
Cross Entropy method for solving electromagnetic optimization problems the application
procedures and solutions presented herein are to provide a basis for future work.
Wherever possible, the solutions from the journal scenarios are provided if enough
information is available to reproduce the results. In some cases, only visual evidence is
supplied in the journals for array geometry locations, array weights, array radiation
patterns, convergence information, etc. So, in choosing the different scenarios from
literature an emphasis was placed on the complexity of the scenario in order to give a
thorough examination to the Cross Entropy method rather than demanding that
significant detail be provided to accurately recreate the results for comparison. This
author made the conscious decision early on to not perform separate optimization
routines for GA or PSO in addition to the Cross Entropy method for two reasons: 1.) The
authors of the journal literature worked hard on their results and it is assumed that these
results are the best one could expect to achieve for a given technique and 2.) This author
might not be entirely motivated to reproduce results which may outperform the Cross
Entropy method, so to limit the appearance of impropriety in this work the results from
journal literature were used. Every attempt was made to provide detail for comparison
with the techniques from the literature (when available), but there is no substitute for the
original work and it is unavoidable that in order for the reader to create their own
comparison that they would be required to reference the original literature themselves,
which they may or may not have access to. So, ultimately this dissertation stands as the
first work applying the Cross Entropy method for solving electromagnetic optimization
problems and as a basis for implementing the Cross Entropy method for solving antenna
array synthesis problems. A wide range of scenarios are presented which cover the entire
scope of antenna array synthesis problems one would typically encounter in an
introductory investigation.
6
1.6 ORGANIZATION OF WORK
The goal in the presentation of the results is to provide sufficient detail so that readers
can reproduce the results for themselves. For each scenario, first the problem definition
and motivation for study is discussed followed by a formal problem setup which includes
background information on the setup of the array for optimization, score function for the
Cross Entropy method, choice of probability distribution for the CE update and choice of
CE parameters such as smoothing constant, elite sample number and population size.
This is then followed by the simulation results which represent the bulk of the technical
contributions made by the author. These simulation results are detailed both graphically
and numerically in terms of the optimal solution observed along with measured array
factor properties such as sidelobe power, beamwidth, etc. The array geometry locations
or array weights are presented to help the reader recreate the radiation pattern.
Furthermore, convergence information is detailed graphically depicting the progression
of the best and average scores observed for several independent trials, as well as the
progression of the probability distribution parameters and the optimizing variable
(whether it be the array geometry or array weights). The score function is used as the
main measure of convergence performance. To this extent, numeric information is
provided as to the best overall performer for all trials, the average score for all trials and
any tendencies in the progression of the score. Lastly, comparisons to literature (if
available) are made. Only hard evidence is reported and compared to. Any information
which was presented visually could not be counted on as accurate and therefore was not
commented upon. Instead the readers are encouraged to reference the specific journal to
make a determination for themselves.
Chapter 2 covers background information on the linear antenna arrays used in this
work. Both symmetric and asymmetric array factors are derived for different physical
orientations and details of different components of the array radiation pattern such as
radiation lobes and measurables such as peak sidelobe power and beamwidth are detailed.
Chapter 3 covers background information on the Cross Entropy method. First, the
basic CE method is presented for both continuous and combinatorial forms, then detailed
derivations are provided for the CE update equations based on Gaussian and Bernoulli
probability distributions so that the reader can extend these results to probability
7
distributions that fit the structure of their own problem. To illustrate the power of the
Cross Entropy, its accuracy and speed of convergence, four simple examples are
presented in appendices A–D and seek to supplement the mathematical derivations
provided in Chapter 3. The first example demonstrates a one-dimensional continuous
optimization problem often presented in introductory literature on CE. The second
example extends the results of the first to a two-dimensional antenna array synthesis
problem which adapts the null locations of the radiation pattern to desired angles. The
next two examples demonstrate, first, one-dimensional combinatorial optimization for
blind sequence estimation as often presented in introductory literature on CE and second,
a multi-dimensional antenna array thinning problem for the strategic elimination of active
elements to minimize peak sidelobe power. Finally, several modifications of the Cross
Entropy method are presented including the multi-objective CE (MOCE) method.
Chapters 4 and 5 represent the bulk of solutions produced by CE. The flowchart of
Figure 1.1 details the different scenarios considered. Chapter 4 addresses aperiodic array
design by controlling the geometry of the array through the introduction of non-uniform
element spacings and also controlling the weighted excitations applied to each element to
perform element thinning. The continuous and combinatorial forms of CE are employed
to optimize single-objective measurables such as the peak sidelobe power of the radiation
pattern, beamwidth, null depth and location, as well as mitigate the effects of grating
lobes in beamsteered array patterns. Additionally, a trade-off curve is developed between
peak sidelobe power and beamwidth using the multi-objective form of CE and the
concept of Pareto dominance.
Chapter 5 addresses the design of phased array antennas by controlling the weighted
excitation applied to each element in the array while maintaining periodic element
spacings. The weighted excitation can be applied using either amplitude-only, phase-
only or complex (both amplitude and phase) valued weights. Each of these three
conditions are enforced for different practical examples such as the design of sector beam
patterns much wider than the minimum beamwidth of a uniform array, the correction of a
double element failure of Dolph-Chebyshev and Taylor amplitude weighted arrays,
sidelobe power shaping and null placement and a switched beam array design between
8
CE
ARRAY ARRAY
GEOMETRY WEIGHT
CONTROL CONTROL
Aperiodic Aperiodic Phased

Arrays Arrays Array
(Ch. 4) (Ch. 4) Synthesis
(Ch. 5)
Continuous Combinatorial Continuous
Element Element Benchmark Sector Array Phase-Only Switched

Spacings Thinning Chebyshev Pattern Failure Synthesis Beam
(Sec. 4.5 – 4.8) (Sec. 4.2 – 4.4) Pattern (Sec. 5.2) Correction (Sec 5.4) Design
(Sec. 5.6) (Sec 5.3) (Sec. 5.5)
Figure 1.1. Top level flow chart of dissertation. Both array geometry and array weight control are
employed to produce aperiodic and phased array designs.
sector and pencil beam patterns using phase-only weights. Additionally, a multi-
objective benchmark problem concerning the optimal tradeoff curve between peak
sidelobe power and beamwidth produced by the Dolph-Chebyshev weighted array is
addressed. The aim is to demonstrate the convergence of the multi-objective form of the
Cross Entropy method to the optimal Pareto front of the Dolph-Chebyshev weighted
array.
Chapter 6 presents some concluding remarks about the performance of the CE method,
the specific technical contributions of this dissertation and some recommendations for
further work.
9
2. ANTENNA ARRAYS
CHAPTER 2
ANTENNA ARRAYS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The antenna array is a geometrical configuration of antenna elements grouped in such

a way as to direct radiated power towards a particular angular direction in space,
enhancing spatial diversity of transmitted/received signals. The choice of geometry,
number of elements, amplitude and phase of the array elements depends on the angular
pattern desired. Typical geometric configurations are shown in Figure 2.1 below.
z z z
1D y-axis directed
zN wN
linear array
1D x-axis directed
linear array
z2 w2
wo wo w1 w2 wN z1 w1
w1 y y wo
xo yo y1 y2 yN zo y
w2 x1 x z
x 1D z-axis directed
wN x2 linear array
z
xN 2D circular array
x 2D planar array
xo yo y1 y2 y3
x1 y y
x2 r
x3
x x
Figure 2.1. Geometric array configurations
10
z r̂
φˆ
θ
θˆ
r
x
Figure 2.2. Antenna Coordinate System
Each array element location is represented by the antenna spherical coordinate system
as shown in Figure 2.2. The angles φ and θ refer to the azimuthal (x-y) plane and
elevation (z) plane. The azimuthal plane is defined with respect to the +x-axis as the angle
origin and is rotated in the x-y plane about the z-axis for 0 < φ < 2π (rad). The elevation
plane is defined with respect to the +z-axis as the angle origin and is defined for 0 < θ < π
(rad).
2.2 LINEAR ARRAY FACTOR
The amount of power radiated/received by an antenna array is dependent upon the

proportions of the amplitude and phase excitations experienced at each element of the
array with respect to the origin of the array coordinate system. Depending on these
proportions, there exist specific angles in space where the radiated/received signals add
constructively or destructively. Angles where the signals are in-phase produce directions
of maximum radiation, while angles where the signals are completely out-of-phase
produce zero radiation/reception. This is referred to as a null in the antenna radiation
pattern. The values of amplitude and phase experienced at each element in the array are
11
determined by the individual oscillation of the incident (or transmitted) wavefront as it
intersects an element in the antenna array. Consider Figure 2.3 shown below.
P
P
y y
Parallel Ray
Approximation
x x
Figure 2.3. Wavefront sampled by a discrete antenna array. The rays of the wavefront intercepted by the
array when observed at a point P in the far-field of the array appear to be parallel to each other.
The array contains a discrete number of elements and acts to sample the incident
wavefront at each element location of the array. It is assumed that the incident wavefront
is observed at some point in the far-field of the antenna. At large distances from the array,
the rays of the wavefront sampled by the discrete array appear to be parallel to each
other. This is called the parallel ray approximation. Consider the two element array
shown below.
r r1
s
φ φ
x
1 d 2
Figure 2.4. Two element x-axis linear array with incident wavefront in azimuth.
12
The wave received at element #1 has traveled a distance, s greater than that received at
element #2. The spacing, d between the elements will affect the proportion of the
subsequent oscillation of the ray, r resulting from the extra distance traveled, s. This
produces a phase difference between elements #1 and #2 at the output of the array. When
the rays are added together, they will undergo phase addition and will experience
constructive or destructive interference. The phase differences experienced between
elements with respect to the coordinate origin (here element #1) is defined by the array
factor of the antenna. A mathematical description of the result follows.
First consider the x-axis directed array of Figure 2.4 without any variation in elevation
angle (θ = 90o) of the observation point P. The ray incident upon each element of the
jkrn
array is of the form e , where k = 2π/λ is the wave number of the transmitted/received
jkd n
signal. Each element will experience a phase shift of e , n = 1, 2…, N with respect to
the coordinate origin. Ray r1 is shorter in length than r by the distance,
r1 = r − s
(2.1)
= r − d cos φ
The total received signal is the summation of the signals at each element in the array.
jkr1
Received Signal = e jkr + eN (2.2)
= e jk ( r −d cosφ )
= e jkr e− jkd cosφ

(
Received Signal = e jkr 1 + e − jkd cosφ

)
Array Factor, AF( φ )
The term in parentheses is called the array factor. It characterizes the phase shifts
experienced at each element with respect to the coordinate origin. Consequently,
e jkd1 = 1, e jkd2 = e− jkd cosφ . The factor e jkr is due to a single antenna at the origin that is
common to all terms. This is called pattern multiplication. The pattern is also
symmetric, so if the wavefront arrived at the coordinate origin before element #2, then r1
would be greater in length than r, thereby the phase shift experienced at element #2
would be e jkd cosφ . When each element in the array is identical, then it is possible to
characterize the total antenna pattern by a single element at the coordinate origin and all
13
the subsequent phase differences between each element and the coordinate origin. The
total pattern is then given by:
Total Electric Field Pattern: FFtot( φ ) = EP( φ )·|AF( φ )|
Total Power Pattern: Ptot( φ ) = EP( φ )2·|AF( φ )|2
where, EP( φ ) is the element pattern of a single element at the coordinate origin.
Next, consider some variation of the incident wavefront in the z-direction as shown in
Figure 2.5.
r P
θ
p
1
y
d
φ
z
2
d cos φ p
φ θ
900 − θ
x x-y
d cos φ
Figure 2.5. x-axis linear array with z variation.
With z-variation added to the wavefront, the extra distance, p traveled by ray r is
dictated in the inset figure of Figure 2.5.
p = d cos φ cos ( 90o − θ )
(2.3)
= d cos φ sin θ
So, the total array factor for a variation in x, y or z is given by:
AF (θ , φ ) = 1 + e − jkd cosφ sinθ (2.4)
14
The array factor for an N element x-axis directed array is:
N
AF (θ , φ ) = ∑ e − jkxn cosφ sinθ (2.5)
n =1
where, xn denotes the distance (in λ) along the x-axis from the coordinate origin to
element n.
Additionally, if each element were weighted by the coefficients, wn, n = 1, 2,…, N :
N
AF (θ , φ ) = ∑ wn e − jkxn cosφ sinθ (2.6)
n =1
It should now be obvious that the degrees of freedom in array design are
1. The number of elements
2. Weighted coefficients
3. Element spacings.
In the above discussion, an x-axis array was considered in detail, but we can further
generalize the array factor to any orientation. For example, if the array were to be
positioned along the y or z axis, then the phase differences of the array factor would have
been functions of sin θ sin φ or cos θ , respectively. As a result, it is convention to define
the parameter ψ to express the phase differences in the array factor.
N
AF (θ , φ ) = ∑ wn e jψ n (2.7)
n =1
where,
ψ n = kxn cos φ cos θ ( x − axis)
= kyn sin φ sin θ ( y − axis)
= kzn cos θ (z − axis )
Furthermore, as seen from above, if the array factor is considered only along one of the
principal angular planes, then the range of possible values for the trigonometric functions
of ψ is [–1,1]. As a result, the array factor can be further simplified by substituting the
variable u into the argument of ψ where –1 < u < 1:
ψ n = kd nu (2.8)
With this generic representation for the array factor defined in u-space, one can
transform the result to any array orientation since each maps to u-space. Furthermore,
15
representing the array factor in u-space samples the far-out sidelobes better than the
original definition expressed in spherical coordinates.
In summary, the array factor for a linear array is expressed as:
N
AF = ∑ wn e jψ n
n =1
λ = Wavelength
k = Wavenumber = 2π/λ
d = Element position (in λ)
u = cosφ, cosθ, sinφ or sinθ
ψn = kdnu
wn = Complex weight coefficient of element n
N = Number of elements
A simplification to the array factor can be made for symmetrically spaced array
elements. Consider an array with an even number of elements as shown in Figure 2.6.
− xN /2 xN /2
− x2 x2
− x1 x1
x
wN /2 w2 w1 w1 w2 wN /2
Σ
FF(u)
Figure 2.6. x-axis array with an even number of elements placed symmetrically about the coordinate
origin.
16
The array elements are placed symmetrically about the origin of the coordinate system
(defined as the y-axis in this case which is also the physical center of the array). The
array factor is the weighted sum of each element,
− jkxN /2u − jkx2u − jkx1u
AFeven = wN /2 e + " + w2 e + w1e
jkx1u jkx2u jkxN /2u
(2.9)
+ w1e + w2 e + " wN /2 e
( )
Each opposing element pair is of the form wn e jkxnu + e − jkxnu = 2wncos(kxnu), thus the
symmetric array with an even number of elements can be simplified to,

N /2
AFeven = 2∑ wn cos ( kxnu ) (2.10)
n =1
This formulation comes in handy during optimization when symmetry can be enforced
by cutting the computational space in half as compared to (2.7) and can speed up
computation significantly.
2.2.1 UNIFORM LINEAR ARRAY
If each element in the array is separated by an equal distance, d the array factor
expression above can be simplified.
Recall,
AF = 1 + e jψ + e j 2ψ + " + e j ( N −1)ψ (2.11)
Multiply both sides of Equation 2.8 by e jψ :
e jψ AF = e jψ + e j 2ψ + e j 3ψ " + e jNψ (2.12)
Subtract from both sides the original array factor expression of (2.11),
( e jψ − 1) AF = ( e jNψ − 1) (2.13)
Then,
e jNψ − 1 e
AF = jψ =
jNψ /2
(
e jNψ /2 − e− jNψ /2 )
e −1 (
e jψ /2 e jψ /2 − e − jψ /2 ) (2.14)
sin ( Nψ / 2 )
= e j ( N −1)ψ /2
sin (ψ / 2 )
17
The term e j ( N −1)ψ /2 accounts for the fact that the physical center of the array is located
at (N–1)d/2. This array center introduces a (N–1)ψ/2 phase shift in the array factor. This
phase factor can be neglected. If the array is centered about the origin, then the physical
center is located at 0 and Equation 2.11 can be simplified to,
sin ( Nψ / 2 )
AF = (2.15)
sin (ψ / 2 )
The maximum value of the array factor occurs when ψ = 0 and is equal to the number
of elements in the array, N. Therefore, the normalized array factor, AFn can be expressed
as,
1 sin ( Nψ / 2 )
AFn = (2.16)
N sin (ψ / 2 )
If the value of the argument ψ/2 is small, then the small angle approximation for the
sine function can be invoked ( sin (ψ / 2 ) ψ / 2 ) and the array factor can be simplified to,
sin ( Nψ / 2 )
AFn = (2.17)
Nψ / 2
This result exposes the sin(x)/x = sinc(x) form of the array factor. As a result, the array
factor for a uniform linear array can be viewed as a sampled rectangular window whose
Fourier transform is a sinc function. A plot of a ten element uniform array factor with d
= 0.5λ is shown below. The same figure would be produced using (2.7) and (2.10) with
all weights set equal to one.
0.8
0.6
|AF(u)|
0.4
0.2
0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u
Figure 2.7. 10 Element uniform array factor with d = 0.5λ element spacing in u-space.
18
2.2.2 ARRAY FACTOR PROPERTIES
In the previous section, a mathematical derivation of the antenna array factor was
performed. Now, a detailed description of the array factor properties important to the
synthesis problem will be presented.
Radiation Pattern:
The array factor described in the previous section is analogous to what is typically
called the array radiation pattern. In practice, the radiation pattern is also described as the
array response or array manifold. The radiation pattern characterizes the proportion of
radiated electric field voltage or power directed at a particular angle in space. In the
mathematical derivation, the array factor was generalized to u-space to remove the
characterization of a particular array orientation in the synthesis problem.
Radiation Pattern Lobes:

Radiation pattern lobes characterize specific angular regions where a majority of the
array’s radiation is concentrated. There exist 2 types of lobes:
1. Major lobes – (also called main lobes or main beam) Angular regions where
the direction of maximum radiation is concentrated.
2. Minor lobes – Any lobe other than a major lobe.
There exist 3 subclasses of minor lobes:
a. Side lobe: Any lobe with radiation in a direction other than the main
lobe and occupies the same hemisphere in the direction of the main
lobe.
Note: Side lobes are undesirable and can hinder performance in

directional systems such as radar, GPS, etc. The reduction of side lobe
power to reduce interference is one of the main targets of pattern
synthesis.
b. Back lobe: a lobe with a radiation direction directly opposite that of the
main lobe.
19
c. Grating lobe: are side lobes that have an intensity equal to that of the
main lobe.
Note: Grating lobes occur when the array element spacing exceeds λ
and are highly undesirable. In order to have a well behaved radiation
pattern, the element spacing is typically close to 0.5λ.
Examples of radiation lobes are depicted in Figure 2.8 below.
0.8 Side lobes Main lobe

0.6
Side lobes
|AF(u)|
0.4
0.2
0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u
Figure 2.8. 11 element uniform linear array with d = 0.5λ.
Radiation Pattern Nulls:

Radiation pattern nulls, unlike lobes, are angular directions in space in which no energy
is radiated. Nulls exist between lobes and define the boundaries of lobes. The angular
separation between the first nulls defines the main lobe of the radiation pattern. Nulls
play an important role in many modern systems. Placing a null in the direction of an
undesired signal prevents that signal from being received by the antenna. Null placement
is important to the radar and wireless communications communities and is another
important target in the array synthesis problem.
Radiation Pattern Metrics:

There exists several metrics which are used to mathematically characterize the
performance of an antenna array. One among those is the graphical representation of the
radiation pattern. Other metrics include:
20
1. Side lobe level (SLL): a measure of how well the power radiated is concentrated
in the main lobe of the radiation pattern. SLL is defined as the ratio of the
pattern value of a side lobe peak relative to the maximum pattern value in the
direction of the main lobe.
Expressed mathematically,
⎛ AF ( SL) ⎞
SLL(dB) = 20 log10 ⎜ ⎟ (2.18)
⎝ max( AF ) ⎠
where: AF(SL) is the value of the array factor at a side lobe location and is
expressed as a power quantity, hence the use of 20log10( · ).
Typically, SLL is expressed with respect to either:
a. 1st side lobe adjacent to the main lobe
b. Peak side lobe value.
-5 Peak SLL = -13 dB

20log10|AF(u)| (dB)
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u
Figure 2.9. Plot of normalized array factor gain to demonstrate the definition of peak sidelobe power.
2. Beamwidth: is a measure of the angular width of the main lobe.

There exist 2 types of beamwidth:
a. Half-Power Beamwidth (HPBW): (also called 3-dB beamwidth)
The HPBW is the angular separation of points where the main lobe of
the power pattern equals one-half the maximum value or where the field
pattern is 1/√2 the maximum value.
b. First Null Beamwidth (FNBW): is a measure of the angular separation
between the first nulls about the main lobe of the radiation pattern.
21
1/√2 = –1.5dB
1/2 = –3dB
0 0
-5 -5
|AF(u)|2 (dB)
|AF(u)| (dB)
-10 -10
-15
HPBW -15
-20 -20
FNBW
-25 -25
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u
Figure 2.10. Beamwidths of 10 element ULA factor with d = 0.5λ expressed for both the field and power
patterns. Note: the above figure is expressed in dB to accentuate the values.
There exist tradeoffs between SLL and BW of the radiation pattern. As BW is

decreased less energy is focused in the main lobe of the pattern, thus SLL increases.
Likewise, if you decreased SLL, then BW will widen. A good analogy is squeezing a
balloon filled with air. The volume of air contained inside the balloon remains
unchanged no matter how you squeeze the outside of the balloon and deform the shape.
Radiation Pattern Directivity:

In one particular application of the synthesis problem, the goal is to shape the array
response such that maximum radiation at a particular angular direction is enhanced, while
being suppressed at other directions not of interest. A useful measure of the directionality
of the array pattern is by measuring its directivity. Directivity is defined as the ratio of
the radiation intensity towards a given angular direction to the radiation intensity
averaged over all directions. If losses are considered in the antenna structure and feed
circuitry, then directivity is often referred to as gain. Losses will not be considered here
and the use of gain herein can be assumed to be lossless. Additionally, the gain of an
array is proportional to the array’s power pattern as described above,
G(u) = |AF(u)|2 (2.19)
22
Radiation Pattern Scan Angle:
Some applications require that the main lobe of the radiation pattern be directed at an
angle other than the broadside direction depicted in the above figures. The scan angle of
the pattern dictates this steered angular location. Given our definition of the array factor
in u-space, the synthesis of arrays is carried out with broadside beams, without a loss of
generality, since the scanned pattern (with scan angle, uo in u-space) can be obtained by
introducing a phase difference of e jkdnuo to the pattern, which is expressed
mathematically as the multiplication of an excitation coefficient at each element in the
array and is linearly progressive across the length of the array. Therefore, performing the
transformation of u to (u–uo) will properly produce the scanned radiation pattern.
-5
20log10|AF(u)| (dB)
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u
Figure 2.11. Plot of scanned radiation pattern gain from broadside (u = 0) towards uo = 0.4.
2.3 SUMMARY
In summary, the linear antenna array was described in detail. Particularly, a rigorous
mathematical derivation of the array factor was provided with results presented for
different array orientations. Additionally, the uniform linear array was presented as the
benchmark design improved upon by the CE method in the subsequent chapters.
Furthermore, a simplification of the array factor for symmetrically spaced array elements
was presented. Finally, several measurables of the array radiation pattern were detailed
as a foundation for the targets of optimization considered in the chapters to follow.
23
3. CROSS ENTROPY METHOD
CHAPTER 3
CROSS ENTROPY METHOD
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Cross Entropy (CE) method is a general stochastic optimization technique based
on a fundamental principle of information theory called cross entropy (or Kullback-
Leibler divergence) [1], [2]. CE was first introduced in 1997 by Reuven Y. Rubinstein of
the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology as an adaptive importance sampling for
estimating probabilities of rare events [3] and was extended soon thereafter to include
both combinatorial and continuous optimization [4]. The CE method has successfully
optimized a wide variety of traditionally hard test problems including the max-cut
problem, traveling salesman, quadratic assignment problem and n-queen. Additionally,
CE has been applied to queuing models for telecommunication systems, DNA sequence
alignment, scheduling, vehicle routing, learning Tetris, direction of arrival estimation,
speeding up the Backpropagation algorithm, updating pheromones in ant colony
optimization, blind multi-user detection, optimizing MIMO capacity and many others [5]
– [16]. There exist several good resources for those interested in learning more about the
CE method [17] – [20].
In general, the CE method is summarized by a two step iterative procedure:
1. First, generate a population of candidate solutions sampled from a
parameterized probability distribution which closely models the
structure of the problem.
2. Second, update the parameters of this probability distribution such that
there is an increase in the probability of the current best solutions
appearing in subsequent iterations by minimizing cross entropy.
The fundamental characteristic of the CE method is that it operates on a parameterized
24
probability distribution during the optimization procedure, as opposed to similar
stochastic techniques such as the Genetic Algorithm (GA) or Simulated Annealing (SA),
which operate directly on the samples in the candidate population. The probability
distribution acts to transfer information about the current best solutions to the next
iteration in order to increase the probability that those solutions appear in subsequent
iterations. As a result, in future iterations the probability distribution will begin to reflect
the optimal distribution until cross-entropy equals zero and the two distributions are
identical.
At the first step of the optimization process, it is important to choose a probability
distribution that closely models the structure of the problem. As an example, a Gaussian
distribution, N(μ,σ2) with mean μ and variance σ2 can be chosen to represent a continuous
number problem, whereas a Bernoulli distribution Ber(p), with success probability p can
be chosen to represent a binary problem.
The CE method has some distinct advantages over traditional deterministic
optimization techniques, which include:
1. Optimization with both discrete and continuous variables. Discrete

optimization can be the result of encoding the continuous variables.
2. Initially, a wide area of the feasible region is searched by generating a
population of candidate solutions, and then the algorithm converges towards a
local neighborhood of the optimum solution.
3. By using a population of candidate solutions, parallel processing on multiple
computers is possible.
4. Multi-extremal, multi-objective, multi-variable optimization problems can be
solved without the use of derivative information.
5. Avoid trappings of local extrema.
6. Non-linear fitness functions such as the “don’t exceed” square error mask
functions (which is not applicable to least squares, for example) can be used.
7. One does not need an expert knowledge of the physics of the problem in order
to exploit it.
25
In contrast, there exist some deficiencies in the CE method. Specifically, the method
requires a large number of samples in order to find the optimal solution, indicating heavy
reliance on randomization in the early stages of optimization. The random outcomes
used to generate the initial candidate population dictate the region of the solution space
operated on by CE, thus a thorough evaluation of the entire feasible region can be
lacking. Also, during optimization there is difficulty in changing the parameters of the
CE method in order to alter the convergence path. Another deficiency of the CE method
is that if the feasible region contains multiple optimal extrema located close together,
then as the algorithm converges towards an arbitrarily small neighborhood of these
multiple optimal extrema it will oscillate between these extrema until eventually
degenerating to one of the possible solutions. Overall, this is not a glaring weakness
since one typically desires any solution which satisfies the problem. Another weakness
concerns the convergence of the algorithm towards the optimal solution. Convergence is
represented by the degeneration of the parameterized probability distribution to one with
unit mass. It can be shown that the probability distribution will converge to a unit mass
with probability one. However, if the distribution shrinks too quickly, the solution can
become frozen in a sub-optimal solution. It is believed that convergence to a unit mass
with probability one and generating the optimal solution with probability one are
mutually exclusive events [24]. So, convergence relies heavily on parameterization of
the CE procedure to avoid premature degeneration. What is guaranteed is that with
proper parameterization, the procedure can degenerate to a unit mass probability
distribution with probability one and be in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the
optimal solution. Ultimately there is a tradeoff between the speed of convergence and
accurately locating the optimal solution. One other weakness is that for some choices of
probability distributions, the CE update of the distribution parameters computed in Step 2
above might not be calculable in closed form, requiring a numerical solution (such is the
case for the Beta distribution in continuous optimization [21]). However, it might not be
necessary to choose such complicated distributions. The updates for both the Bernoulli
and Gaussian distributions are simple to compute and are quite effective for all the
problems addressed in this work.
26
3.2 THE GENERAL CROSS ENTROPY METHOD
Consider the global optimization of a real valued, deterministic scoring function S(x)
evaluated by a vector of candidate solutions x = [x1,…, xK]T defined on the feasible set X.
The goal is to determine the globally optimal solution x* ∈ X which marks the location of
the global extremum γ* = S(x*) over X. The deterministic problem is randomized by
sampling the population of candidate solutions from a probability density function (pdf)
f(·,v) where v is a scalar parameter that controls the sampling of the candidate solutions in
x. The objective of the CE method is to form an estimate v̂* of the optimal pdf parameter
v* producing x̂* resulting in an estimate of the global extremum γˆ* = S( x̂* ) that is close
to γ*.
To illustrate how the CE procedure is implemented assume for the time being that the
score S(x) is to be maximized over all states x ∈ X. The global maximum of S(x) is
represented by,
S ( x* ) = γ * = max S (x) . (3.1)
x∈X
The probability that the score function S(x) evaluated at a particular state x is close to γ*
is classified as a rare-event. This probability can be determined from an associated
stochastic problem (ASP),
Pv ( S (x) ≥ γ ) = E v I{S ( x )≥γ } (3.2)
where Pv is the probability measure that the score is greater than some value γ close to γ*,
x is the random variable produced by the pdf f(·,v), E v is the expectation operator and I{·}
is a set of indices where S(x) is greater than or equal to γ.
Calculating the right hand side of (3.2) is a non-trivial problem and can be estimated
using a log-likelihood estimator with parameter v,
Ns
1
vˆ* = arg max
v Ns
∑ I{S ( x ≥γ )} ln f ( x , v)
i =1
i) i (3.3)
where xi is generated from f(·,v) and Ns is the number of samples where S(xi) > γ, Ns < K.
As γ becomes close to γ*, most of the probability mass is close to x* and is an
approximate solution to (3.1). One important requirement is that as γ becomes close to γ*
27
that Pv (S(x) > γ) is not too small, otherwise the algorithm will result in a suboptimal
solution. So, there is a tradeoff between γ being arbitrarily close to γ* while maintaining
accuracy in the estimate of v.
The CE method efficiently solves this estimation problem by adaptively updating the
estimate of the optimal density f(·,v*), thus creating a sequence of pairs {γˆ (t ) , vˆ (t ) } at each
iteration t in an iterative procedure which converges quickly to an arbitrarily small
neighborhood of the optimal pair {γ*, v*}.
The iterative CE procedure for estimating {γ*, v*} is given by,
Algorithm 3.1 (General CE Optimization Algorithm)
1. Initialize parameters: Set initial parameter v̂ (0) , choose a small value ρ, set
population size K, smoothing constant α and set iteration counter t = 1.
2. Update γˆ ( t ) :
Given vˆ (t −1) , let γˆ (t ) be the (1 – ρ)-quantile of S(x) satisfying
Pv( t −1) ( S (x) ≥ γ ( t ) ) ≥ ρ (3.4)
Pv( t −1) ( S (x) ≤ γ (t ) ) ≥ 1 − ρ (3.5)
with x sampled from f(·, vˆ (t −1) ).

Then, the estimate of γ(t) is computed as
γˆ ( t ) = S( ⎢⎡(1− ρ ) K ⎥⎤ ) (3.6)
where ⎢⎡⋅⎤⎥ rounds (1–ρ)K towards infinity.
3. Update vˆ (t ) :
Given vˆ (t −1) , determine vˆ (t ) by solving the CE program
Ns
1
vˆ (t ) = max
v Ns
∑ I{S ( x ≥γˆ
i =1
i)
(t )
)}
ln f ( xi , v) (3.7)
4. Optional step: (Smooth update of vˆ (t ) )

To decrease the probability of the CE procedure converging too quickly to a
suboptimal solution, a smoothed update of vˆ (t ) can be computed.

vˆ (t ) = α v (t ) + (1 − α )vˆ( t −1) (3.8)

where v (t ) is the estimate of the parameter vector computed with (3.7), vˆ (t −1) is the
28
parameter estimate from the previous iteration and α (for 0 < α < 1) is a constant
smoothing coefficient. By setting α = 1, the update will not be smoothed.
5. Set t = t+1 and repeat steps 2 to 4 until the stopping criterion is satisfied.
What ultimately is produced is a family of pdfs f(·, v̂ (0) ), f(·, v̂ (1) ), f(·, v̂ (2) ),…, f(·, v̂* )
which are directed by γˆ (1) , γˆ (2) , γˆ (3) ,…, γˆ* towards the neighborhood of the optimal
density function f(·,v*). The pdf f(·, vˆ (t ) ) acts to carry information about the best samples
from one iteration to the next. The CE parameter update of (3.7) ensures that there is an
increase in the probability that these best samples will appear in subsequent iterations. At
the end of a run as γˆ is closer to γ*, the majority of the samples in x will be identical and
trivially so to are the values in S(x).
The initial choice of v̂ (0) is arbitrary given that the choice of ρ is sufficiently small and
K is sufficiently large so that Pv (S(x) > γ) does not vanish in the neighborhood of the
optimal solution. This vanishing means the pdf degenerates too quickly to one with unit
mass, thus freezing the algorithm in a suboptimal solution.
The procedure above was characteristic of a one-dimensional problem. It can be easily
extended to multiple dimensions by considering a population of candidate solutions X =
[x1,…,xM] with xm = [x1,m,…,xK,m]T. The pdf parameter is extended to a row vector v =
[v1,…,vM] which is then used to independently sample the columns of matrix X and
consequently (3.7) is calculated along the columns of X.
Although the CE method was presented as a maximization problem, it is easily adapted
to minimization problems by setting γˆ = S( ⎢⎡ ρ K ⎥⎤ ) and updating the parameter vector with
those samples xi where S ( xi ) ≤ γˆ . This can also be achieved trivially by transforming the
maximization problem through the principle of duality.
3.3 CROSS ENTROPY METHOD FOR CONTINUOUS OPTIMIZATION
The difference between discrete and continuous optimization with CE is simply the
choice of pdf used to fill the candidate population. The most typical choice of pdf for
continuous optimization is the Gaussian (or Normal) distribution with mean μ and
29
variance σ2. Other popular choices include the shifted exponential distribution, double
sided exponential and beta distribution. Many other continuous distributions are
reasonable, although distributions from the natural exponential family (NEF) are
typically chosen since convergence to a unit mass can be guaranteed and the CE program
of (3.7) can be solved analytically.
Consider the CE estimation of the optimal parameters ( μ ,σ )
* 2*
for a Gaussian
distribution represented by the pdf,
1 ⎛ 1 ( x − μ )2 ⎞
f ( x,η ) = exp ⎜ − ⎟ , x ∈ \, η = ( μ , σ 2 ) . (3.9)
2πσ 2 ⎜ 2 σ 2
⎟
⎝ ⎠
Recall, the estimate of the optimal CE update parameter for any distribution is solved
using (3.7),
Ns
1
vˆ (t ) = max
v Ns
∑ I{S ( x ≥γˆ
i =1
i)
(t )
)}
ln f ( xi , v) .
In order to solve (3.7) for a Gaussian distribution, first a shorthand notation is defined
for the indices of the score samples which exceed γ,
I{S ( x )≥γˆ( t ) )} = I i . (3.10)
i
Next, focus on the expansion of the term ln ( f ( xi ,η ) ) , with
⎛ 1 ⎛ 1 ( xi − μ )2 ⎞ ⎞
ln f ( xi ,η ) = ln ⎜ exp ⎜ − ⎟⎟ . (3.11)
⎜ 2πσ 2 ⎜ 2 σ 2 ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎠
Invoke the identity, ln(ab) = ln(a)+ln(b),
1 ⎛ 1 ( xi − μ )2 ⎞
ln f ( xi ,η ) = ln + ln exp ⎜ − ⎟ . (3.12)
2πσ 2 ⎜ 2 σ2 ⎟

⎠ ⎝
(1) (2)
Then use the identities, (1) ln(1/a) = – ln(a) and (2) ln(eb) = b in (3.12), where a =
2πσ 2 and b = –(xi – μ)2/(2σ2),
1 ( xi − μ )
2
ln f ( xi ,η ) = − ln 2πσ
−

2
(3.13)
(3)
2 σ2
and use the identity, (3) ln(ab) = b·ln(a) in (3.13), where a = 2πσ2 and b = 1/2,
30
1 ( xi − μ )
2
1
ln f ( xi ,η ) = − ln ( 2πσ 2 ) − . (3.14)
2
2 σ2
(4)
Finally, use the identity, (4) ln(2πσ2) Æ ln(ab) = ln(a) + ln(b) in (3.14), where a = 2π
and b = σ2,
⎛1 1 ( xi − μ ) ⎞
2
1
ln f ( xi ,η ) = − ⎜ ln ( 2π ) + ln (σ ) +
2
⎟. (3.15)
⎜2 2 2 σ 2
⎟
⎝ ⎠
Substituting this result into (3.7) yields,
1 Ns ⎡ ⎛1 1 1 ( xi − μ ) ⎞ ⎤
2
ηˆ = max ∑ I ⎢ − ⎜ ln ( )
2π + ln ( ) 2 σ 2 ⎟⎟⎥ .
σ 2
+ (3.16)
⎢⎣ ⎝⎜ 2
i
η Ns 2
i =1
⎠ ⎥⎦
The (–) sign in the function ln f ( xi ,η ) changes the maximization problem to a
minimization problem. Collecting like terms, (3.16) is simplified to,

⎡ ( xi − μ ) ⎤
Ns 2
1
ηˆ = min ∑ I i ⎢ ln ( 2π ) + ln (σ ) +
2
⎥ . (3.17)
η 2N
s i =1 ⎢⎣ σ 2 ⎥⎦
From inspection, the optimal solution of (3.17) is dependent upon the minimization of
the term,
Ns Ns
1
ln (σ )∑ I ∑I (x − μ)
2
2
+ (3.18)
i =1
i
σ 2
i =1
i i
This minimization is determined by locating the stationary points of (3.18) with respect
to μ and σ2 by computing first derivatives and setting the results equal to zero.
∂ ⎛ Ns
1 Ns
⎞ 2 ⎛ Ns Ns
⎞
⎜ ln (σ ) ∑ I i + 2∑ I i ( xi − μ ) ⎟ = 2 ⎜ ∑ I i μ − ∑ I i xi ⎟ = 0
2 2
∂μ ⎝ i =1 σ i =1 ⎠ σ ⎝ i =1 i =1 ⎠
(3.19)
∂ ⎛ Ns
1 Ns
⎞ 1 Ns
1 Ns
ln (σ 2 ) ∑ I i + 2 ∑ I i ( xi − μ ) ⎟ = 2 ∑ I i − 2 2 ∑ I i ( xi − μ ) 2 = 0
2
2 ⎜
∂σ ⎝ i =1 σ i =1 ⎠ σ i =1 (σ ) i =1
Solving for μ and σ2 results in,
Ns Ns
∑I x ∑ I ( x − μˆ )
2
i i i i
μˆ = i =1
Ns
, σˆ 2 = i =1
Ns
(3.20)
∑I
i =1
i ∑I
i =1
i
31
which are simply just the sample mean and sample variance of those elite samples, i
where the objective function S(xi) > γ. The worst performing elite sample is then used as
the threshold parameter γ(t+1) for (3.6) in the next iteration. The result presented in (3.20)
is one of the simplest, most intuitive and versatile CE parameter estimates available. In
this case, as γˆ (t ) becomes close to γ* the samples in the population will become identical,
thus the variance of the sample population will begin to decrease towards zero resulting
in a Gaussian pdf having unit mass about the sample mean of the population. The final
location of γˆ* will be represented by this final mean, i.e. xˆ * = uˆ * as σˆ 2 → 0 .
The notation of this result can be simplified for clarity. Compute the score vector s(t) =
S(X(t)) of size Kx1 where position i is calculated along row i of X(t). Sort s(t) along with
( t ) s (t ) ], where (~)
the corresponding values in X(t) and store the results in matrix H(t) = [ X
denotes a sorted variable. The updated parameter estimates of (3.20) are now expressed
as,
ρK ρK
1 ⎢⎡ ⎥⎤ (t ) 1 ⎢⎡ ⎥⎤ (t )
μˆ m(t ) = ∑ x i,m ,
⎡⎢ ρ K ⎤⎥ i =1
σˆ m2(t ) = ∑
⎡⎢ ρ K ⎤⎥ i =1
( xi , m − μˆ m(t ) ) 2 . (3.21)
With this formulation, the first ⎢⎡ ρ K ⎥⎤ samples in H(t) are used to update the mean and
variance. To implement a maximization problem, H(t) is sorted in descending order and
for minimization sorted in ascending order.
With this result, the continuous form of the CE method with Gaussian parameter
estimation is summarized as,
Algorithm 3.2 (Continuous Form CE Algorithm with Gaussian Estimation)

1. Specify μ̂(0) , σ̂2(0) , ρ, K, α.
Initialize:
μˆ ( t ) = ( μˆ 1( t ) , μˆ 2( t ) ,..., μˆ M(t ) ) = μˆ (0)
σˆ 2( t ) = (σˆ 12(t ) , σˆ 2(2 t ) ,..., σˆ 2(M t ) ) = σˆ 2(0)
for each dimension in the problem. Set iteration counter t = 1.

2. Sample a KxM candidate population X(t) = [x1(t),…, xM(t)] with xm(t) = [x1,m(t),…,
xK,m(t)]T independently from the distribution Ν(μˆ (t −1) , σˆ 2(t −1) ) .
32
3. Compute the Kx1 score vector s = S(X(t)) = [S1(t),…, SK(t)]T along the rows of X(t)
and sort along with the corresponding values in X(t). Store the result in matrix H(t).
4. Choose the best ⎡⎢ ρ K ⎤⎥ performing samples in H(t) which eclipse γˆ (t ) = s ⎢⎡ ρ K ⎥⎤ and
update μˆ (t −1) and σˆ 2( t −1) using (3.21) and perform a smooth update using the alpha
smoothing procedure of (3.8).
5. If max( σˆ 2(t ) ) < ε, stop. Otherwise, set t = t+1 and repeat steps 2 – 5.
Some simple examples of the continuous form Cross Entropy method are provided in
Appendices A and B.
3.4 CROSS ENTROPY METHOD FOR COMBINATORIAL OPTIMIZATION
The array thinning problem addressed in this dissertation is a form of combinatorial

optimization problem. The goal is to strategically remove a subset of active elements in
the array subject to some constraint. This problem is binary in nature with active
elements represented by a value of ‘1’ whereas inactive elements are represented by a
value of ‘0’. The problem then becomes how to choose a specific combination of 1’s and
0’s in order to satisfy the constraints. Similar combinatorial optimization problems
include the traveling salesman, max-cut problem, clustering problems, DNA sequence
alignment and blind multi-user detection. Additionally, a combinatorial optimization
problem can be formed by encoding a continuous variable problem into a binary
representation in order to decrease the size of the search space. In any case, the CE
method is a simple, reliable, and fast algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization
problems. The CE method as defined in Algorithm 3.1 is modified for combinatorial
optimization problems by choosing a density function which is binary in nature, the most
popular of which is the Bernoulli distribution, Ber(p) with success probability p
represented by the pdf,
f ( x ; p ) = p x (1 − p )
1− x
, x ∈ {0,1} (3.22)
where f (x; p) equals p when x = 1 and 1 – p when x = 0.

The estimated CE update parameter for the Bernoulli success probability is determined
by solving the program of (3.7),
33
Ns
1
vˆ (t )
= max
v N ∑ I{S ( x ≥γˆ
i =1
i)
(t )
)}
ln f ( xi , v)
s
In order to solve this program, first expand the expression ln f ( xi ; p ) ,
ln f ( xi ; p) = xi ln( p) + (1 − xi ) ln(1 − p ) (3.23)

where the identities (1) ln(ab) = bln(a) and (2) ln(a+b) = ln(a)+ln(b) were used.
The maximum of the CE program is determined by setting the first derivative of (3.23)
with respect to p equal to zero, where
∂ x 1 − xi x −p
ln f ( xi ; p) = i − = i (3.24)
∂p p 1 − p p(1 − p)
thus,
∂ Ns 1 Ns
∑ {S ( x i)≥γ }
∂p i =1
I ln f ( xi ; p ) = ∑ I{S ( x i )≥γ } ( xi − p) = 0
p (1 − p ) i =1
(3.25)
Solving for p yields the estimate of the optimal pdf parameter,

Ns
∑ I{S ( x )≥γ } x
i i
pˆ = i =1
Ns
(3.26)
∑ I{S ( x )≥γ }
i =1
i
The notation of this result can be simplified for clarity. Compute the score vector s =
S(X(t)) of size Kx1 where position i is calculated along row i of X(t). Sort s along with the
( t ) s (t ) ] where (~)
corresponding values in X(t) and store the results in matrix H(t) = [X
denotes a sorted variable. The updated parameter estimates of (3.20) are now expressed
as,
ρK
1 ⎢⎡ ⎥⎤ (t )
pm( t ) = ∑ x i,m . (3.27)
⎢⎡ ρ K ⎥⎤ i =1
With this formulation, the first ⎡⎢ ρ K ⎥⎤ samples in H(t) are used to update the success
probability. To implement a maximization problem, H(t) is sorted in descending order
and for minimization sorted in ascending order.
With this result, the CE method for combinatorial optimization with Bernoulli
parameter estimation is summarized as,
34
Algorithm 3.3 (Combinatorial Optimization with Bernoulli Estimation)
1. Specify p̂ (0) , ρ, K, α.
Initialize:
pˆ ( t ) = ( pˆ 1(t ) , pˆ 2(t ) ,..., pˆ (Mt ) ) = pˆ (0)

2. Sample a KxM candidate population X(t) = [x1(t),…, xM(t)] with xm(t) = [x1,m(t),…,
xK,m(t)]T independently from the distribution Ber( p̂ (t −1) ) .
3. Compute the Kx1 score vector s = S(X(t)) = [S1(t),…, SK(t)]T along the rows of X(t)
and sort along with the corresponding values in X(t). Store the result in matrix H(t).
4. Choose the best ⎢⎡ ρ K ⎥⎤ performing samples in H(t) which eclipse γˆ (t ) = s ⎢⎡ ρ K ⎥⎤ and
update p̂(t −1) using (3.27) and perform a smooth update using the alpha smoothing
procedure of (3.8).
5. If all elements of p̂( t ) equal either zero or one, stop. Otherwise, set t = t+1 and
repeat steps 2 – 5.
Some simple examples of the combinatorial form Cross Entropy method are provided
in Appendices C and D.
3.5 CONVERGENCE PROPERTIES OF THE CROSS ENTROPY METHOD
An exact mathematical derivation of the convergence properties of the CE method for

continuous optimization is still an open problem; however, from experience the
convergence properties of the continuous form CE method appear similar to its
combinatorial counterpart. The convergence of the combinatorial form of CE has been
studied extensively and a good treatment of the theory begins with a simplified form
based on parameter update by the single best performer in the population [17], [25].
More generally, the convergence properties of combinatorial optimization problems
based on parameter update by the best ⎡⎢ ρ K ⎤⎥ performers in the population were derived
in [24]. The results presented were specific to problems with unique optimal solutions
where the candidate population is evaluated by a deterministic scoring function. The
main conclusion is that when using a constant smoothing parameter (as is most
35
commonly implemented), convergence of the CE method to the optimal solution is
represented by,
1.) The sampling distribution converging with probability 1 to a unit mass
located at some candidate x (t ) ∈ X .
2.) And, the probability of locating the optimal solution being made
arbitrarily close to one (at the cost of a slow convergence speed).
This is accomplished by selecting a sufficiently small value of smoothing constant, α.
It is suggested that guaranteeing the location of the unique optimal solution with
probability 1 can only be achieved by using smoothing coefficients which decrease with
increasing time. Examples of such smoothing sequences are,
1 1 1
a (t ) = , , , β >1 (3.28)
Mt (t + 1) ( t + 1) log ( t + 1) β
β
When choosing a smoothing constant there is a tradeoff between speed of convergence

and achieving the optimal solution with high probability. Regardless, the sampling
distribution will always converge to a unit mass at some candidate x (t ) ∈ X when using a
smoothing constant. Generally, the speed of convergence experienced using constant
smoothing parameters is generally faster than decreasing smoothing schemes. Also, for
the last two smoothing techniques of (3.28) location of the optimal solution may be
guaranteed with probability one, but convergence to a unit mass with probability one is
not. It is not known if a smoothing technique exists where both the sampling population
converges to a unit mass with probability one and the optimal solution is located with
probability one. The authors of [24] suggest that from their experience convergence of
the sampling population to a unit mass with probability one and locating the optimal
solution with probability one are mutually exclusive events.
A simple example of the convergence properties for the continuous form Cross Entropy
method applied to the trigonometric test function is provided in Appendix E.
3.6 MODIFICATIONS OF THE CROSS ENTROPY METHOD
A. Alternative Smoothing Procedure

The alpha smoothing procedure implemented in step 4 of Algorithm 3.1 experiences an
36
exponential rate of convergence as suggested in the previous example. In some cases,
this method of smoothing may result in solutions which are suboptimal, since the
distribution may shrink too quickly, freezing the parameter values and subsequent
population generations. This idea is similar to cooling too quickly in the Simulated
Annealing algorithm. An alternative is to implement beta (dynamic) smoothing. This
technique is used to dynamically update the variance of the distribution, achieving a
slower, polynomial rate of convergence,
q
⎛ 1⎞
β (t ) = β − β ⎜1 − ⎟ , 5 < q <10, 0.8 < β < 0.99 . (3.29)
⎝ t ⎠
In beta smoothing, the mean of the Gaussian distribution is updated using the original
alpha procedure.
B. Variance Injection Method

Another method to prevent premature convergence in the continuous form of CE is the
variance injection method presented in [22]. The idea is to ‘inject’ an additional variance
into the sampling distribution late in the optimization procedure to prevent the
distribution from shrinking too quickly and depositing the majority of the probability
mass about a suboptimal solution. This technique requires some finesse because
injecting a large variance into the distribution is not desirable for fear of leaping away
from the neighborhood of the optimal solution. The key is to inject enough variance such
that the separation between the best and mean score is significant. The injection method
is summarized by a two step procedure:
1. If at iteration t, the variance, σ2 is less than some value ε (say 0.01), add
s1(t ) − s1(t −1) ζ , 0.1 < ζ < 10 (3.30)
to the variances where s1(t ) is the best log-likelihood value in s ( t )
obtained in iteration t.
2. If the number of variance injections required exceeds some number (say
5), then stop and display the result, otherwise set t = t + 1 and continue.
A similar result was presented in [10] for solving Tetris where extra noise, Z was added
to the variance of the distribution. The noise which produced the highest score decreased
37
with increasing time,
⎛ t ⎞
Z (t ) = max ⎜ 5 − , 0 ⎟ (3.31)
⎝ 10 ⎠
C. Fully Adaptive CE (FACE) Algorithm

The Fully Adaptive CE (FACE) algorithm is a modification of the continuous form CE
method which adaptively changes the sample size of the candidate population and the
number of elite samples which contribute to the update of the CE parameters at each
iteration t in order to ensure there is an improvement in the score of the best elite sample
in the next iteration (i.e. s1(t ) > s1(t −1) ) as well as the worst elite sample, γˆ (t ) > γˆ (t −1) . An
attempt to satisfy these conditions is made by allowing the population size to adjust over
a large range, Kmin < K(t) < Kmax. The adaptation of the population size at each iteration
updates the original static parameter ρ to ρ(t) = Kelite/K(t) where now the number of elite
samples, Kelite at each iteration is fixed while the sample size varies. This in turn alters
(3.6) to be γˆ (t ) = sK(telite
)
which consequently affects (3.7) as well. A flowchart of the FACE
Algorithm is provided in Figure 3.1.
Update
Improvement Yes
Sort S(X(t))
Start, t := 1 K (t ) := K min s1(t ) , γ ?
(t ) γˆ (t ) , v (t )
Set t = t+1
No
Output
s (t ) = s (t −d ) ? Yes
is
for t ≥ d Reliable
No
No Stop
K (t ) := K (t ) + 1 K (t ) = K max ?
Yes
Yes Output
K (t ) = K (t −c ) = K max ? Is
for t ≥ c Unreliable
No
Figure 3.1. FACE Algorithm Flowchart. (Inspired by Figure 5.4 of [17])
38
D. The Accelerated CE Method
The Accelerated CE (ACE) method [26] is a modification of the CE method for
combinatorial optimization problems which attempts to improve convergence speed and
reduce the candidate population size by introducing a local search process into the
algorithm. The local optimizer is applied to a diverse subset of the candidate population
of size ⎡⎢ξ K ⎥⎤ with 0 < ξ < 1. So, the local optimization strategy is carried out by
choosing samples in the ordered population which are not equal to the best ⎡⎢ ρ K ⎤⎥
performing candidates. Instead, a diverse population subset is chosen, including the best
performing sample x1 . The local optimization procedure is detailed in Algorithm 3.4.
Algorithm 3.4 (Local Optimization Step for Accelerated Cross Entropy Method)
1. Initialize local memory matrix L = ∅ .
2. Locally optimize the best performing ordered sample x1 and add it to L.
3. Find the solution x ∉ L that is the farthest away from the set L of locally optimized
solutions.
4. Locally optimize x and add it to L.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 ⎢⎡ξ K ⎤⎥ times until all the elements of the diverse set are locally
optimized.
The basic CE method of Algorithm 3.3 is modified to include this local optimization
step.
Algorithm 3.5 (Accelerated Cross Entropy Method)
1. Specify p̂ (0) , ξ, K, α.
Initialize:
pˆ ( t ) = ( pˆ 1(t ) , pˆ 2(t ) ,..., pˆ (Mt ) ) = pˆ (0)

2. Populate X(t) = [x1(t),…, xM(t)], where x(mt ) = [x1,m,…, xK,m]T with candidate solutions
generated independently from Ber( p̂(t −1) ).

3. Compute the score vector s = S(X(t)) = [s1(t),…, sK(t)]T along the rows of X(t) and sort
along with the corresponding values in X(t). Store the sorted results in H(t).
4. Apply the local optimization procedure of Algorithm 3.4.
39
5. Update p̂ (t −1) using all candidate solutions X(t) by computing the augmented success
probability estimator,
K
1
pˆ m(t ) =
K
∑x
i =1
(t )
i ,m , for m = 1,…, M (3.32)
and perform a smooth update using the alpha smoothing procedure of Eq. (3.8).
6. If all elements of p̂( t ) equal 0 or 1, respectively, stop. Otherwise, set t = t+1 and
repeat steps 2 – 6.
ACE is characterized by two distinct modifications to the basic CE method. First, the
local optimization procedure is introduced before performing parameter estimation and
the parameter estimation of (3.32) involves the entire candidate population. This is
equivalent to setting ρ equal to one in (3.27). As a result, the candidate solutions used to
compute the CE procedure are now affected by the choice of ξ. The inclusion of the best
performing candidate x1 and choosing a diverse set of candidates are two important
features of the local optimization procedure. Including the best performing sample
accelerates the convergence of the procedure towards solutions of higher quality. Using a
diverse set of candidates instead of the best ⎡⎢ ρ K ⎥⎤ performers avoids premature
convergence of the procedure to suboptimal solutions. Overall, the blend of the local
search and the diverse sampling plan is the key to the quality of solution determined by
ACE.
The goal of ACE is to improve convergence and reduce the population size of the basic
CE method. Reducing the sample size will decrease the amount of memory storage
required and local optimization can improve convergence, but one has to factor in the
cost of performing these successive evaluations in the local optimization procedure. The
local optimization procedure must introduce a sufficient improvement in the speed of
convergence (resulting in a significant decrease in the number of evaluations performed)
compared to using a larger population size before considering implementing ACE over
basic CE.
Concerning the case of array thinning addressed in the previous example, one could
implement a simple local search by toggling the individual elements in the array to
determine the best performer. So, if element n is either zero or one, then element n is set
40
to one or zero and this new localized solution is scored again and compared to the
original candidate. This can be computed for each element in the array, thus at any given
time the localized solution is no more that one element away from the original.
An important component of the local search is the distance metric used in choosing the
next candidate from the diverse set that enters the local optimization procedure. In [24],
the authors suggested using a distance metric, d(x,L) between a solution x and the set
x′ ∈ L of the form,
⎛ ⎞
d (x, L) = min ⎜ ∑ | xi − xi′ | ⎟ (3.33)
x′∈L
⎝ i ⎠
Here, the solution x that is the farthest away from L is the solution whose value of d(x,L)
is a maximum value for all x ∉ L.
E. Online Variant of the Cross Entropy Method

In the basic CE method, an entire population of K candidates is generated and then
scored before determining the elite samples used to update the probability distribution
parameters at each iteration. This is referred to as batch processing of the population. In
[27], an online variant of the CE method is introduced which determines whether a newly
generated candidate is among the best ρ-quantile of the last q samples. The last q
samples form a sliding window representing a queue of candidate solutions. For
example, say q was equal to the population size K valued at 100 and assume the 120th
sample has just been drawn. The basic CE method will determine if this 120th sample
belongs to the set of elite samples after all 100 candidates of the second iteration (i.e.,
[x(101),…,x(200)] ) have been generated. In the online variant, the 120th sample is checked
against candidates [x(21),…,x(120)] and the elite samples are determined from these
elements in the queue. Much like basic CE, online CE requires a memory of size K at
each iteration. However, despite the initial population requiring K performance
evaluations, all subsequent iterations require only a single performance evaluation for the
new sample entering the queue.
F. Multi-Objective Cross Entropy (MOCE) Method

Multi-objective optimization using the Cross Entropy method and partitioning the
solution set into clusters using the fuzzy c-means (FCM) clustering algorithm was
41
presented in [28]. In the basic CE method, taking the mean of a solution set (as done in
both continuous and combinatorial optimization procedures) causes the pdf to take more
samples from the middle of the Pareto front and less from the tails. This deficiency is
overcome by clustering the solution set with the FCM clustering algorithm [29]. The CE
update is then performed on each cluster separately to find a set of best performing
solutions. Clustering forces CE to explore the Pareto boundary more thoroughly before
convergence.
The multi-objective CE (MOCE) method is concisely summarized as follows.
1. Initialize K, ρ, α, Nc = number of clusters. For each cluster c, initialize a
separate v(0). Set iteration counter t = 1.
2. Generate a candidate population of size (NcK)xM and compute the scores for
all candidates, for each objective.
3. Partition the solution set into different clusters based upon either the outcomes
of the objectives or the population samples themselves using Fuzzy c-means
clustering.
4. For each cluster, compute the composite objective as the weighted sum of the
individual objectives,
Nobj
F (x) = ∑ wi fi (x), ∀x ∈ X , ∑ wi = 1 (3.34)

i =1 i
5. For each cluster update the current estimate of v(t-1) using the CE update
procedure.
6. If stopping criterion is met, stop. Otherwise set t = t+1 and repeat steps 2 – 5.
In MOCE, there is some ambiguity in how the clustering is performed. One could
choose to cluster the samples in the population themselves, or the outcomes of the
objectives produced by the population samples. Clustering the objective outcomes seems
the most obvious. In this case, one would expect that this method would lead the
clustered objectives to different areas of the Pareto front. Clustering the population
samples themselves might not directly map the objective outcomes to the same area in the
solution space. So, the choice of what to cluster is really up to the user and depends on
the data. Additionally, after the CE update of the parameter estimates for each cluster,
then a new population of candidates is created. How this is performed is again
42
ambiguous. Generally, one could produce a new population of size KxM for each cluster
or choose to create a subset based on the size of the clustered solutions (which is not
necessarily equal to K, but the sum over all clusters is equal to NcK). Lastly, the authors
of [28] suggest that the number of clusters be equal to the number of objectives plus one.
A simple example illustrating the performance of the multi-objective Cross Entropy
method applied to the FON and ZDT1 test sets of [28] is provided in Appendix F.
3.7 SUMMARY
In summary, this chapter introduced the Cross Entropy method for solving both
continuous and combinatorial optimization problems. The CE estimates of the optimal
parameters for both the Gaussian and Bernoulli distributions were derived as a foundation
to help the reader develop parameter estimates of alternative pdfs. Furthermore, several
modifications were suggested to help improve the convergence of CE for more
pathological problems. The FACE, ACE and MOCE forms of CE were also introduced.
Several examples illustrating the basic performance of the Cross Entropy method are
provided in Appendices A-F. These examples lay the groundwork for more complicated
problems encountered later on in the dissertation.
43
4. APERIODIC ARRAY DESIGN
CHAPTER 4
APERIODIC ARRAY DESIGN BY

THE CROSS ENTROPY METHOD
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Periodic antenna arrays are antenna element configurations with uniform spacing
between elements. The periodic array represents the discretization of a continuous line
source aperture at periodic locations in space. This discretized array samples the incident
wavefront at specific locations producing radiation patterns governed by the Nyquist
sampling criterion. The periodicity determines how the sampling is specified and as a
result introduces limitations on the practical implementation of periodic arrays. For
example, array patterns of periodic arrays with element spacings greater than one-half
wavelength sample the front at a rate greater than Nyquist and are considered over
specified. This over specification reduces beam efficiency and beam scanning in the
visible pattern region due to the introduction of grating lobes (mainlobes at angular
locations other than desired). Additionally, this periodicity further restricts the maximum
attainable beam efficiency for a given spacing by bounding the minimum peak sidelobe
power and mainlobe beamwidth. Practical implementation of periodic arrays can be
difficult due to increased cost and mechanical complexity of arrays since a large number
of elements is required to improve upon these limitations. Introducing aperiodic (i.e.,
non-uniform) element spacings helps relax these limitations and offers greater flexibility.
An aperiodic array can be produced from a periodic array of N elements in one of two
ways:
1. (Non-Uniform Spacing) Shifting the geometric locations of periodic
elements to produce aperiodic spacings.
2. (Thinning) Eliminating a subset of active elements in the periodic array.
44
(Periodic Array)
(Non-uniform Spacing) (Array Thinning)

(1) (2)
Figure 4.1. Two methods for producing aperiodic antenna arrays. Non-uniform spacing is accomplished
by shifting the geometric locations of the periodic elements. Thinning is the elimination of elements in the
periodic array. Here elements 2, 5 and 9 have been thinned.
Shifting the geometric locations of the elements implies non-uniform element spacings.
The total number of elements in the array is kept the same, but the total aperture length
may increase or decrease depending on these non-uniform element spacings. Changing
the length of the array will affect the radiation pattern beamwidth and sidelobe power
providing more flexibility in overcoming the limitations of periodically spaced arrays.
Previously, the synthesis of array geometries has been solved using GA [44], [46], [50]
Simulated Annealing [47], [48] and Particle Swarm Optimization [38], [42].
Thinning antenna arrays is the strategic elimination of a subset of active elements in the
array in order to maintain similar radiation properties as the full array, but using a smaller
number of elements in doing so. For applications such as satellite communications, radar
and interferometers for astronomy that require a highly directive array, but one with
moderate gain, the active elements of the array can be thinned without significantly
affecting the array’s radiation properties. In particular, the beamwidth of the array is
proportional to the largest dimension of the array aperture. So, for a constant array
length, removing elements will proportionally increase the gain of the array while leaving
45
the beamwidth relatively unchanged. The number of elements in the array must be large
in order to justify using numerical techniques in designing thinned arrays. The
distinction that the “number of elements be large” dictates that the number is large
enough such that it would be practically impossible to exhaustively search through all
possible combinations and test which combination proved best. The illustrative example
on array thinning presented in the background chapter on the Cross Entropy method
demonstrated this fact. The design of aperiodic arrays by element thinning is typically
accomplished through either statistics or optimization routines. Bounds on achievable
designs by statistical array thinning of large arrays are presented by Lo [30] and
Steinberg [31] with the design method by Skolnik [32] one of the more popular statistical
techniques. In modern times the Genetic Algorithm [33]–[36], Simulated Annealing
[37], Particle Swarm Optimization [38], Ant Colony Optimization [39] and Pattern
Search [40] have all been used to thin large arrays with great success and can achieve
designs not predicted by statistical theory.
The strategy of this chapter is to implement the Cross Entropy method to produce
aperiodic arrays utilizing both continuous and combinatorial forms of CE. A flow chart
of this strategy is shown in Figure 4.2. The continuous form of CE and array geometry
control will be utilized to design the non-uniform element spacings of aperiodic arrays.
Single-objective optimization is considered with application to shaping the sidelobe
power of the array radiation pattern. A tradeoff curve based on the concept of Pareto
dominance will be produced for beamwidth versus sidelobe level using the multi-
objective form of CE. This curve will be compared with the periodic array to show the
improvement in this tradeoff using CE to design aperiodic element spacings. The
combinatorial form of CE and array weight control will be utilized to thin antenna arrays
with shaped sidelobe power. Additionally, a trade-off curve for number of elements
versus sidelobe level will be produced using the multi-objective form of CE and
comparisons will be made to statistical bounds on achievable designs. For all cases
considered, the CE procedure is performed over several trials to determine an average
performance. This is required because of the dependence on randomness in the CE
method.
46
CE
ARRAY ARRAY
GEOMETRY WEIGHT
CONTROL CONTROL
Aperiodic Aperiodic Phased

Arrays Arrays Array
(Ch. 4) (Ch. 4) Synthesis
(Ch. 5)
Continuous Combinatorial
Element Element
Spacings Thinning
Single Multi- Single Multi-

Objective Objective Objective Objective
(Secs. (Sec. 4.8) (Secs. (Sec. 4.4)
4.5 – 4.7) 4.2 – 4.3)
SLL vs. SLL vs.

Beamwidth SLL No.
SLL
Elements
Grating
Lobes
Nulls
Figure 4.2. Flow chart for aperiodic antenna design. Both array geometry and array weight control are
employed for designing element spacings and element thinning respectively using both single and multi-
objective forms of the Cross Entropy method.
47
4.2 SINGLE OBJECTIVE APERIODIC ARRAY DESIGN BY ELEMENT THINNING
The optimal thinning of array elements for a given objective is achieved by performing
array weight control. Consider the N element, x-axis linear array of Figure 4.3.
φ
x
w1 w2 … wN
FF
Figure 4.3. x-axis, weighted linear antenna array of N uniformly spaced elements.
The array is weighted with a series of coefficients w = [w1, w2,…, wN] ∈ [0,1]. These
weights are real valued, binary coefficients applied linearly to the array and represent
amplitude excitation to each element of the array. By setting weight wn of element n to a
value of ‘1’, then element n is active (i.e., turned ‘on’), whereas if element n is weighted
with a value of ‘0’, then element n is inactive (i.e., ‘off’) and does not contribute to the
array radiation pattern. Eliminating elements in this manner introduces an aperiodic
spacing between elements. The problem then becomes how to choose a specific
combination of 0’s and 1’s in order to satisfy a given objective. The discrete nature of
the problem requires the combinatorial form of the Cross Entropy method.
4.2.1 PROBLEM SETUP
The scenario considered here was first presented in [30] for optimization by the
Genetic Algorithm. The work presented therein is highly respected and thoroughly cited
and represents one of the first papers involving the application of GA for electromagnetic
optimization problems. Within, a 200 element uniformly spaced, symmetrically
weighted, x-axis linear array with principal plane in azimuth was thinned using GA to
48
y
φ
x
d
… w w1 … w
w–N/2 –1 N/2
FF
Figure 4.4. Symmetric, x-axis linear array with principal plane in azimuth.
achieve a sidelobe power of less than –20 dB. Figure 4.4 details this array configuration.
Overall there exist 2100 = 1.2677x1030 possible combinations for this scenario.
The far-field radiation pattern of this array is given by,
EP ( u ) N / 2
FF (u ) = 2∑ wn cos ( k ⋅ ( n − 0.5 ) d ⋅ u ) (4.1)
FFmax n =1
where,
N = Number of elements in the array = 200
wn = Amplitude weight of element n, wn ∈ [0,1]
d = Spacing between elements of original uniform array = 0.5λ
u = cos φ , 0 < φ < 180o with 1000 equally spaced sample points between [0,1]
EP(u) = Element pattern = 1 for isotropic sources
FFmax = Peak value of far-field pattern = 2∑ wn
n
The score function is defined as the maximum sidelobe power of the far-field
magnitude in the sidelobe region λ/Nd < |u| < 1of the original uniformly spaced array,
λ
( )
Score = max | FFn ( u ) |2 , for
Nd
≤| u |≤ 1
(4.2)
EP ( u ) N / 2
2
= max 2∑ wn cos ( k ⋅ ( n − 0.5 ) d ⋅ u )

FFmax n =1
The goal is to minimize this score function in the sidelobe region of the original
uniformly spaced array. The optimized result represents the minimum peak sidelobe
49
TABLE 4.1. CE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR
SYMMETRIC, LINEAR ARRAY SCENARIO
Symbol Quantity Value
α Smoothing Parameter 0.7
ρ Sample Selection Parameter 0.1
K Population Size 100
wn Values of Array Element Weights [0,1]
pm(0) Initial values for success probabilities 0.5
power for this design. The thinning process is determined by choosing the values of the
amplitude weights equal to 0 or 1 representing an element in the array that is off or on,
respectively. The region of u-space defining the sidelobe region is represented by
λ/Nd < |u| < 1 since the array pattern is symmetric about the physical center of the array.
A uniformly illuminated, uniformly spaced array has its first nulls of the radiation pattern
located at +λ/Nd. The thinning process spreads the locations of the first nulls slightly in
the aperiodic array. By optimizing (4.2) in the sidelobe region of the original uniform
array, a reported sidelobe power of the optimized thinned array may be defined in the
mainlobe region of the thinned array. This definition introduces a stricter constraint on
beamwidth for the thinned array than leaving both the center and edge elements ‘on’
throughout the procedure. Also, the score defined by (4.2) was converted to dB in order
to accentuate differences between results near the end of the optimization procedure.
The design parameters for the CE method are given in Table 4.1. The initial values for
the success probabilities of the N/2 Bernoulli distributions for the amplitude weights are
set equal to 0.5. This gives each weight an equally likely chance of converging to 0 or 1.
Initializing these values towards the extremes of 0 or 1 can help bias the thinning process.
The smoothing coefficient α = 0.7 was chosen to demonstrate the fast convergence of the
CE method. The choice of both the population size, K and the sample selection
parameter, ρ are critical to ensure that first, enough samples are considered and that
second, the current best estimates chosen help to increase the probability that these values
will appear in subsequent iterations. So, the population size needs to be sufficiently large
and the current best estimates need to be sufficiently small for the algorithm to succeed.
With the above choices for K and ρ, the top ten best estimates are used to update the
probability distribution at each iteration.
50
4.2.2 SIMULATION RESULTS
To test the convergence properties of CE 5,000 independent trials were performed.

Due to the dependence on randomness in CE, it is important that results are reported over
a large number of instances to accurately characterize results. The best and mean scores
of the population versus the number of iterations were recorded for each of the 5,000
trials with the results presented in Figure 4.5. Specifically, Figure 4.5a depicts both the
convergence of the overall best and mean score of the population recorded for all trials,
as well as, the average best and mean score of the population at each iteration over all
trials. The average population score at a given iteration is computed using all remaining
trials which had not satisfied the stopping criterion. So, near the end of the procedure,
there are less active trials, corresponding to the variance in final values from iterations 53
to 73. With a smoothing coefficient α = 0.7, the algorithm converged on average to a
final value of –19.7562 dB within 40 iterations, requiring a total of 4000 performance
evaluations. It is apparent from the results in Figure 4.6 that the path traversed by the CE
method as it converges towards unit mass oscillates about the average best and mean
scores and does not deviate wildly over several trials.
-12
Average Mean
-13 Average Best
Overall Mean
-14 Overall Best
Score - max|FF(u)|2 (dB)
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
No. Iterations
Figure 4.5. Convergence Curves for best and mean scores of population over 5,000 trials. (a) Plotted are
the average best and mean population scores and the overall best and mean scores of all trials versus
iteration number.
51
Table 4.2. SOLUTION OF ARRAY THINNING PROCEDURE FOR SYMMETRIC, LINEAR ARRAY
Solution Score (dB) Element No. Array Weights
n = 1,2, …,50 11111111111111111111111111111101111110111111111011
CE –20.1647
n = 51, 52, …, 100 10110111110011101110110010110110100010111111111111
n = 1,2, …,50 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111001111
GA –22.09
n = 51, 52, …, 100 10011111110111110100001010111001001011100010101101
-12
Average
5 Trials
Mean Population Score
-14
-16
-18
-20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
No. Iterations
-15
Best
-16 5 Trials
Best Population Score
-17
-18
-19
-20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
No. Iterations
Figure 4.6. Convergence curves for five random trials compared to the averages of the best and mean
populations scores.
The overall best score achieved during optimization was –20.1647 dB and was located
at the first sidelobe of the thinned array. The resulting radiation pattern and progression
of Bernoulli success probabilities are shown in Figure 4.7. The resulting weight
coefficients are presented in Table 4.2. It is apparent that the density of elements is
greatest towards the center of the array and both element 1 and 100 are turned on
maintaining the same aperture length as the original uniform array.
The maximum sidelobe level of the uniform linear array is –13 dB. The first null
beamwidth (FNBW) of the uniform linear array with 200 elements is equal to 2·cos(π/2–
1/Nd) = 1.146o. The FNBW of the average thinned array solution using CE was u3dB =
0.0227, which translates to 1.3007o. This result is 13.5% wider than the original uniform
52
Table 4.3. COMPARISON OF CE RESULTS TO LITERATURE
Solution PSP (dB) BW (deg) No. Active Elements Element Gain (dB)
CE –20.1647 1.295 164 / 200 (82%) 22.15
GA –22.09 1.46 154 / 200 (77%) 21.8
0 0
-5 -5
Sidelobe Region
-10 -10
-15 -15
|FF(u)|2 (dB)
|FF(u)|2 (dB)
-20 -20
-25 -25
Mainlobe
-30 -30
Region
-35 -35
-40 -40
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
u = cos φ u = cos φ
(a) (b)
0.9
Bernoulli Success Probability - p(t)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
No. Iterations
(c)
Figure 4.7. Best result (–20.1647 dB) achieved by the Cross Entropy method over all trials for the current
example. (a) Far-field magnitude versus u (b) Close-up of mainlobe region showing the peak sidelobe level
and first null position. Due to symmetry, only one-half of the pattern is shown for u > 0. (c) Progression of
Bernoulli success probabilities versus iteration number for best score over all trials.
53
0
-5
-10
-15
|FF(u)|2 (dB)
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
u = cos φ
Figure 4.8. Optimized patterns for thinned array design for first 100 trials of procedure.
array. The FNBW of the best thinned array solution using CE was u3dB = 0.0226, which
translates to 1.295o. The total number of active elements in the average thinned array
solution is 166, which corresponds to an array which is 83% filled. This results in an
element gain (=NT ·max(EP2)) of 22.2 dB. The total number of active elements in the
best thinned array solution is 164 which is two less than the average solution,
corresponding to an element gain of 22.15 dB.
4.2.3 COMPARISONS TO LITERATURE
The results achieved using CE are similar to those presented in [30]. The optimal
thinned array weights computed using GA are given in Table 4.2. The measurables for
the array pattern computed using GA are given in Table 4.3. The maximum sidelobe
level reported for the array thinned using GA was –22.09 dB. The FNBW of the array
thinned using GA was 0.0256 in u-space, which translates to 1.46o. This FNBW is 27.4%
wider than the original uniform array and 12.8% wider than the average solution achieved
using CE. Additionally, the array thinned by GA was 77% filled, resulting in an element
gain of 21.8 dB. So, the array designed by CE had a reduced beamwidth, but required
more elements to achieve nearly the same sidelobe power. Unfortunately, no
convergence information was provided in the literature. Overall, it cannot be said that the
results presented are superior to those computed using GA; however they are very
similar.
54
4.3 STUDY OF CE PARAMETER CHOICE ON OUTCOME OF THINNING SCENARIO
In the previous section, the population size was set to 100, the sample selection
parameter ρ was set to 0.1 and the smoothing constant was set to 0.7. This choice of CE
parameters allowed the CE method to converge quickly (on average) within 40 iterations
(requiring 4000 performance evaluations) to a solution with an average sidelobe power of
–19.75 dB, but what makes this choice an appropriate one and how does one choose these
parameters? In order to shed some light on this question, a parametric study was
performed on the tradeoffs between the choices of smoothing coefficient and the product
ρK corresponding to the number of elite samples used in the update of the success
probabilities. Two measurable quantities were recorded:
1. The average peak sidelobe power.
2. Number of iterations required for convergence.
4.3.1 PROBLEM SETUP
Nine pairs of [α, ρK] were computed for α = [0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9] and
ρK = [1 2 5 10 20 35 50 75 100] corresponding to ρ = [0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.35 0.5
0.75 1] for a value of K set equal to 100. Larger population sizes could be considered,
but the idea it to keep the number of performance evaluations as low as possible while
still achieving an accurate result. For each pair, a total of 100 trials were performed and
pairs which failed to converge after 1000 iterations were terminated. Convergence was
defined as the point when all elements of the success probability vector for a given run
were within a tolerance of 6x10-15 of zero or one. The setup of the optimization problem
was exactly the same as in the previous section.
The results of the study are given in Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 and are displayed in
Figure 4.9 to Figure 4.11. Of note is the fact that updating the CE parameters with either
the best performing sample (ρK = 1) or the entire population (ρK = 100) does not yield
effective results. In terms of the average number of iterations required for convergence
as shown in Figure 4.9, it is intuitive that choosing a smaller elite sample size and a larger
smoothing constant will result in faster convergence. However, the performance of the
55
TABLE 4.4. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITERATIONS FOR CONVERGENCE
ρK
1 2 5 10 20 35 50 75 100
α
0.1 1000 474.25 558.07 648.11 774.42 945.43 1000 1000 1000
0.2 1000 208.36 248.62 287.34 349.58 423.24 517.01 795.47 1000
0.3 1000 125.25 149.43 176.58 211.07 264.83 320.68 493.1 1000
0.4 1000 85.73 103.18 122.35 148.06 183.43 226.62 344.14 1000
0.5 1000 61.78 75.96 90.13 110.77 139.79 168.98 263.81 1000
0.6 1000 47.2 57.47 69.36 85.89 108.21 135.66 210.02 999.55
0.7 1000 35.45 44.07 54.29 68.71 86.89 107.93 169.42 963.56
0.8 1000 27.14 34.49 43.81 55.79 72.18 88.93 139.52 860.76
0.9 1000 19.38 26.35 33.62 45.24 58.06 73 117.83 680.31
3
10
Average Number of Iterations for Convergence
2
10
ρK = 1
ρK = 2
ρK = 5
ρ K = 10
ρ K = 20
ρ K = 35
ρ K = 50
ρ K = 75
1
ρ K = 100
10
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Smoothing constant - alpha
Figure 4.9. Average number of iterations before convergence for each pair [α, ρK]
pair [α, ρK] cannot be chosen on convergence speed alone. This is apparent in Figure
4.10 when updating with the top two elite samples (ρK = 2). Updating by these two
samples produces the fastest convergence, but at the cost of accuracy in determining the
best solution. Overall, choosing ρK between 5 and 75 for alpha equal to 0.2 to 0.9 will
achieve good results. For smaller choices of α, the best population scores were achieved
by updating with ρK = 2, 5,…,75 as one would expect with ρK = 2 achieving the lowest
score and ρK = 75 the highest score, but as you increase α, say above 0.6 the average best
population score was produced by elite samples ρK = 20, 35 and 50. For α = 0.9, ρK = 35
56
TABLE 4.5. AVERAGE SIDELOBE POWERS ACHIEVED BY BEST & MEAN POPULATION SCORES
ρK 1 2 5 10 20 35 50 75 100
α
-17.1701 -19.9934 -19.9603 -19.9034 -19.8029 -19.7542 -19.7439 -19.6837 -15.4155
0.1
-13.2852 -19.9934 -19.9603 -19.9034 -19.8029 -19.7542 -19.7406 -18.2726 -11.9873
-17.2387 -19.8955 -19.9304 -19.867 -19.8046 -19.748 -19.7128 -19.6797 -15.0877
0.2
-13.2663 -19.8955 -19.9304 -19.867 -19.8046 -19.748 -19.7128 -19.6797 -12.1469
-17.0524 -19.7244 -19.9034 -19.8842 -19.7964 -19.7285 -19.73 -19.6615 -14.5532
0.3
-13.2517 -19.7244 -19.9034 -19.8842 -19.7964 -19.7285 -19.73 -19.6615 -11.9067
-17.1089 -19.5357 -19.8176 -19.8681 -19.7957 -19.7393 -19.6869 -19.6577 -13.8863
0.4
-13.289 -19.5357 -19.8176 -19.8681 -19.7957 -19.7393 -19.6869 -19.6577 -11.827
-17.0509 -19.3468 -19.7754 -19.8236 -19.7871 -19.732 -19.6911 -19.6138 -13.306
0.5
-13.2688 -19.3468 -19.7754 -19.8236 -19.7871 -19.732 -19.6911 -19.6138 -11.9597
-17.2472 -19.0446 -19.6762 -19.8148 -19.7475 -19.7227 -19.6823 -19.5764 -12.6633
0.6
-13.2841 -19.0446 -19.6762 -19.8148 -19.7475 -19.7227 -19.6823 -19.5764 -11.9245
-17.1057 -18.7681 -19.6007 -19.7562 -19.7618 -19.7129 -19.6698 -19.5696 -12.1329
0.7
-13.2587 -18.7681 -19.6007 -19.7562 -19.7618 -19.7129 -19.6698 -19.5696 -11.9442
-17.1088 -18.4841 -19.444 -19.6946 -19.7378 -19.6889 -19.6748 -19.5113 -11.966
0.8
-13.2841 -18.4841 -19.444 -19.6946 -19.7378 -19.6889 -19.6748 -19.5113 -11.9006
-17.0758 -18.1533 -19.3728 -19.6544 -19.6798 -19.6775 -19.6787 -19.5409 -12.2011
0.9
-13.2489 -18.1533 -19.3728 -19.6544 -19.6798 -19.6775 -19.6787 -19.5409 -12.1964
Legend: Best Mean
-12 ρK =1
ρK =2
ρK =5
Average Best Sidelobe Power of Population
-13
ρK = 10
-14 ρK = 20
ρK = 35
-15 ρK = 50
ρK = 75
-16 ρK = 100
-17
-18
-19
-20
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

alpha
Figure 4.10. Plot of the shaded results of Table 4.5 representing an average of the best population scores
achieved by CE for each pair [α, ρK] over all trials. The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
about the mean.
57
-19.3
Average Best Sidelobe Power of Population

ρK =1
-19.4 ρK =2
ρK =5
-19.5
ρK = 10
-19.6 ρK = 20
ρK = 35
-19.7
ρK = 50
-19.8 ρK = 75
ρK = 100
-19.9
-20
-20.1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
alpha
Figure 4.11. Close-up view of Figure 4.10 to detail the pairs [α, ρK] which performed the best.
and 50 produced the best scores.

Overall, there are obvious tradeoffs between speed of convergence and the number of
elite samples required for accurately calculating the best score. First, the number of
population samples has to be large enough early on in the procedure to accurately sample
the feasible region of solutions. One could choose to make the population size entirely
too large and achieve the same results, but one must consider the number of performance
evaluations required to achieve a given result, the smaller the better. Ultimately for this
example, as you increase the smoothing constant then you should increase the number of
elite samples to maintain relative accuracy, but if the smoothing constant is decreased,
then the number of elite samples is decreased to improve accuracy. The cost in
increasing the number of elite samples from one value to the next highest for ρK =
[2,…,75] is an average increase of [13, 15, 21, 28, 43, 75, 156, 367] iterations for α =
[0.1,0.2,…,0.9], respectively.
4.4 MULTI-OBJECTIVE APERIODIC ARRAY DESIGN BY ELEMENT THINNING
When optimizing any array design for minimum sidelobe power, the number of active
elements is always a consideration. If too many elements are turned off, the design will
result in a high sidelobe power. Conversely, if too many elements are turned on then the
design is more costly and mechanically complex than perhaps need be. The goal here is
to extend the results of the previous section and create a trade-off curve representing the
critical number of active elements required to achieve a certain peak sidelobe power.
58
Figure 4.12. Pareto front of optimal solutions for FON test set considered in the background chapter on
CE. The black circles represent the Pareto optimal solutions and the red dots represent all solutions visited
during optimization.
A trade-off curve between the critical number of active elements and peak sidelobe
power is developed based upon the concept of Pareto dominance [43]. Consider the
trade-off curve of Figure 4.12 for the multi-objective optimization of the FON test set
presented in simple example of Appendix F. This figure shows many different solutions
trading off between objectives f1 and f2. Each solution satisfies the problem constraints
and corresponds to a state in the feasible region. However, it is observed that some
solutions are better than others in one objective but not in the other; meanwhile some
solutions are better in both objectives. One solution that is better than another for a given
objective is said to dominate that solution. Many solutions exist which dominate other
solutions in the feasible region, but there are particular solutions which dominate all
solutions for a given objective. This solution is considered non-dominated and is called a
Pareto-optimal solution. The set of all non-dominated solutions is called the Pareto-
optimal set. The curve joining the set of Pareto-optimal solutions is called the Pareto-
front (PF). Overall, it cannot be said that any given Pareto-optimal solution is better than
another. In order to make such a distinction, one needs higher level information about
the problem as a whole but in the absence of such information each is equally as
important. In general, the Pareto front is created by objectives which are in conflict with
one another and exhibit some dependence on each other. For objectives with no
dependence, the solution will converge to a single point. Ultimately the goal of multi-
59
objective optimization problems using CE (or any algorithm for that matter) is to
accurately estimate the Pareto optimal set and generate as many diverse solutions as
possible in order to produce a desirable trade-off curve of potential solutions.
4.4.1 BOUNDS ON NUMBER OF THINNED ELEMENTS FOR A GIVEN SIDELOBE POWER
There exist two separate bounds based on the statistical analysis of thinned arrays
which define confidence levels on the critical number of elements required to achieve a
given sidelobe power derived by Lo [30] and Steinberg [31], respectively. Steinberg’s
bound is the stricter of the two. The first statistical bound for thinning large antenna
arrays was derived by Lo and is concisely summarized by Mailloux [41]. Therein, Lo
shows that if the pdf of placing an element at a particular location in space is uniformly
distributed, then the critical number of active elements Non required to achieve a desired
peak sidelobe power r2 is,
⎛ − ln P ⎞
− ln ⎜
⎝ [4a ] ⎟⎠
N on = (4.3)
r2
where, a is the length of the array, [4a] is the integer part of 4a and 0 < P < 1 is the
confidence level. This relationship ensures a high probability of achieving a design with
that sidelobe power. So, in a statistical sense, (4.3) is a lower bound on the number of
elements.
For example, Lo’s statistical analysis showed that for an array of length 100λ at least 90
elements are required to ensure a peak sidelobe power of –10 dB with 95% confidence.
Furthermore, to achieve a peak sidelobe power of –20 dB with 95% confidence requires
at least 900 elements. This is a very impractical conclusion, both in terms of cost and
mechanical complexity. We will find that using the CE method drastically reduces the
number of critical elements predicted by Lo.
The second bound derived by Steinberg is an upper bound on peak sidelobe power such
that for a given confidence level no sidelobe power will exceed this bound. In contrast to
Lo’s bound (which is based on the pdf of element positioning) Steinberg’s bound is based
on the pdf of the sidelobe amplitude taper. In [31], the pdf of this amplitude taper is
shown to be Rayleigh distributed except in the neighborhood of the beamsteering angle.
60
The result of Steinberg is conveniently summarized in [38] by Jin. Using Jin’s notation,
2
the upper bound on peak sidelobe power rpeak with confidence level P is,
1 1
2
rpeak = − ravg
2
ln (1 − P 1/ N ) , ravg
2
= − (4.4)
N on N
2
where, ravg is the average sidelobe power, N is the total number of elements in the array
and Non is the number of active elements (i.e., elements which are ‘on’).
4.4.2 PROBLEM SETUP
Here, the example of Section 4.2 concerning single objective sidelobe power
minimization by element thinning for a symmetric, uniformly spaced x-axis linear array
is extended to perform multi-objective optimization of both the sidelobe power and the
critical number of active elements to develop a trade-off curve representing a lower
bound on achievable designs. Previously, PSO [38] was used for the same problem.
The form of CE used here is the Multi-Objective Cross Entropy (MOCE) method as
detailed previously in the background chapter on Cross Entropy. The two objective
functions representing the sidelobe power and total number of active elements are given
by,
N /2
f1 = max ( 20 log10 | FFn ( u ) |) , f2 = 2 ∑w n (4.5)
n =1
and the composite objective function for use with MOCE is simply F = f1+f2. The details
of the objective function f1 are defined by (4.2). An important distinction with the
method of [38] is that the sidelobe region considered for optimization was that of the
original uniform linear array (λ/Nd < |u| < 1) and not that of the thinned array. This
formulation introduces a stricter constraint on the beamwidth of the resulting design and
in fact a reported sidelobe power could be defined on the mainlobe of the thinned array.
The method presented in [38] does not factor beamwidth into the design.
The MOCE design parameters are given in Table 4.6. The number of clusters used in
the MOCE procedure was set equal to 10. In the original MOCE paper [45], the number
of clusters was set equal to the number of objectives plus one. This did not work well for
this particular problem. In order to create a diverse Pareto optimal set, a minimum of at
61
TABLE 4.6. MOCE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR
SYMMETRIC, LINEAR ARRAY SCENARIO
NC Number of Clusters 10
ρ Elite Sample Selection Parameter 0.1
wn Values of Array Element Weights [0,1]
pm(0) Initial values for success probabilities 0.5
*Note: MOCE parameters are the same for each cluster
least 10 clusters was needed. For this scenario, the tendency of the multi-objective
solutions is towards those of lower critical element numbers and higher sidelobe powers.
This makes it difficult to realize lower sidelobe power designs without significantly
increasing the number of clusters. Both smoothing coefficient, sample selection
parameter and population size remain the same as the original example and the same for
each cluster. The clustering was performed on the objective values f1, f2 themselves and
after each iteration, a new population of size K was produced for each cluster despite the
fact that the cluster size may be less than K. This forces MOCE to explore more
solutions in the feasible region. The composite objective value F was the sum of the
sidelobe power in the sidelobe region of the uniform array expressed in decibels and the
total number of elements. Expressing the sidelobe powers in decibels helps to accentuate
differences between different solutions especially towards the end of a run.
To determine the average Pareto optimal set, 1000 independent trials were performed
and the Pareto front of each trial was recorded. A typical result of a single trial is shown
in Figure 4.13. The red dots mark all the dominated solutions visited during the
optimization procedure for all clusters. The black circles are the set of non-dominated
solutions which form the Pareto front of the Pareto optimal set for this single trial. These
values were calculated using a function called paretofront available on the MATLAB
central file exchange.
After successfully recording all 1000 trials, the composite Pareto front produced by the
Pareto optimal solutions of all trials was computed. The results of this are presented in
Figure 4.14. A single Pareto optimal solution of a given individual trial is represented
62
Figure 4.13. Result of a single MOCE trial for thinning arrays to achieve both a minimized sidelobe power
and minimum number of elements.
Figure 4.14. Pareto Front of non-dominated solutions. Pictured are the individual Pareto fronts recorded
for each individual trial (marked in blue), the composite Pareto front of all trials (marked with black
circles) and the mean Pareto Front of all trials marked by a 95% confidence interval and fit with a 7th order
polynomal. The values for the composite and mean Pareto fronts are given in Table 4.7. and Table 4.8.
with a blue dot. The composite Pareto front of all non-dominated solutions for the 1000
trials is represented by black circles. The mean Pareto front was also computed to give
63
TABLE 4.7. COMPOSITE PARETO OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS OF
MULTI-OBJECTIVE THINNED ARRAY SCENARIO
No. Elements SLL (dB) No. Elements SLL (dB)
2 -0.0011 64 -13.4374
4 -0.2132 66 -13.7503
6 -1.151 68 -14.0343
8 -2.4964 72 -14.0987
10 -3.7921 74 -14.3424
12 -4.8491 76 -14.477
14 -5.7211 78 -14.6779
16 -6.4391 80 -15.0027
18 -7.5297 84 -15.058
20 -7.8387 86 -15.1905
22 -8.0831 88 -15.6454
24 -8.6644 92 -15.8083
26 -9.1561 94 -16.1367
30 -9.4557 98 -16.2617
32 -10.0454 100 -16.3413
34 -10.2505 102 -16.5736
36 -10.5342 104 -16.832
38 -10.687 110 -17.3857
40 -10.9899 114 -17.4892
42 -11.2298 116 -17.5188
44 -11.3854 118 -17.7895
46 -11.6809 122 -17.9903
48 -12.1478 124 -18.0063
52 -12.438 126 -18.1631
54 -12.6274 128 -18.2061
56 -12.7481 132 -18.2341
58 -12.9445 134 -18.6006
60 -13.382 140 -19.1466
an average performance over the 1000 trials and is marked with a red dot. This mean PF
is supported with a 95% confidence interval and fit with a 7th order polynomial using
MATLAB’s polyfit command. The numerical results of the composite and mean
Pareto fronts are detailed in Table 4.7. and Table 4.8.
Next, let us compare the computed curves to the statistical bounds presented earlier.
Both Lo and Steinberg bounds were plotted with confidence value P = 0.99. The results
are presented in Figure 4.15. It is apparent that the trade-off curve computed by MOCE
is superior to these statistical bounds, which is certainly expected. The plot is interpreted
as follows. With regard to Lo’s bound, it is assumed that the pdf of placing a random
element at a particular location is uniform. In a statistical sense based on this pdf, then
64
TABLE 4.8. MEAN PARETO OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS OF MULTI-OBJECTIVE THINNED ARRAY SCENARIO
No. Elements SLL (dB) No. Elements SLL (dB) No. Elements SLL (dB) No. Elements SLL (dB)
2 -0.0001 40 -10.1124 78 -13.9354 116 -16.6909
4 -0.0883 42 -10.3702 80 -14.0826 118 -16.8323
6 -0.7401 44 -10.6286 82 -14.2314 120 -16.9273
8 -1.8282 46 -10.8696 84 -14.3815 122 -17.0325
10 -2.9619 48 -11.1057 86 -14.5451 124 -17.1449
12 -3.9544 50 -11.3215 88 -14.7069 126 -17.2509
14 -4.7488 52 -11.5409 90 -14.8713 128 -17.3322
16 -5.4235 54 -11.7624 92 -15.0247 130 -17.3866
18 -6.0172 56 -11.9669 94 -15.1904 132 -17.5031
20 -6.5641 58 -12.1674 96 -15.3255 134 -17.5665
22 -7.0273 60 -12.3603 98 -15.4889 136 -17.6366
24 -7.4853 62 -12.551 100 -15.6441 138 -17.7083
26 -7.8864 64 -12.7392 102 -15.7884 140 -17.7234
28 -8.2581 66 -12.9191 104 -15.9243 142 -17.7452
30 -8.6045 68 -13.0885 106 -16.0634 144 -17.9507
32 -8.946 70 -13.2626 108 -16.1964 146 -17.9234
34 -9.2478 72 -13.4339 110 -16.3284 148 -18.0459
36 -9.5345 74 -13.6126 112 -16.4558 150 -18.3924
38 -9.8343 76 -13.7667 114 -16.5868 152 -18.2929
the number of critical elements required to achieve a given sidelobe must at least satisfy
Lo’s bound. With regard to Steinberg, using a method such as statistical density tapering
proposed in [32], the bound represents the critical number of elements to ensure that 99%
sidelobes are below that peak sidelobe power for that element number. Apparent is the
fact that the solutions produced through statistical means are dominated by those
determined by MOCE.
The results presented in [38] are similar. It appears for moderate sidelobe powers of
approximately –10 dB and critical number of elements about 40-50 elements that PSO
outperforms CE, but improvements in the Pareto front achieved using PSO may be
attributed to the relaxed constraint on beamwidth. Pareto optimal solutions towards the
tail of the curve corresponding to lower sidelobe powers and higher numbers of critical
elements are outperformed by PSO. This is attributed to the deficiency in clustering of
the MOCE. The results of [38] are not reported here since the curve is defined visually.
Overall, MOCE is competitive but requires a much larger population size to achieve the
65
160
Composite PF
140 7th order fit
Mean PF
7th order fit
120
Steinberg
Critical Number of Elements

Lo
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Sidelobe Power (dB)
Figure 4.15. Comparison of Pareto front computed using MOCE versus statistical bounds produced by Lo
and Steinberg. The confidence value P for both bounds was set equal to 0.99.
same results.
4.5 SINGLE OBJECTIVE APERIODIC ARRAY DESIGN BY NON-UNIFORM ELEMENT

POSITIONS
The thinning process of uniform linear arrays typically produces sidelobes with a
relatively constant height. By altering the spacings between elements, one can achieve
greater control over the shape of the radiation pattern sidelobes especially towards array
endfire since a design that is well-behaved near the end of the aperture can prevent the
appearance of grating lobes. The introduction of non-uniform spacings makes the
optimization problem highly non-linear since the element spacings are defined in the
argument of the exponential for the array factor.
In general there exist two ways of structuring the CE optimization procedure to
produce non-uniformly spaced array designs:
1. Choose the optimization variable as the inter-element spacing
between elements n and n+1.
2. Choose the optimization variable as the absolute position of element
n from the phase center of the array.
Figure 4.16 illustrates this concept.
66
y
d1 d2 d3 dN – 1
(1)
y
x1
x2
x3
xN – 1
x
Array Phase (2)

Center
Figure 4.16. Illustration of the two possible structures for optimizing aperiodic spacings using CE. (1)
Optimization variables are represented by inter-element spacings (2) Optimization variables are represented
by absolute distances from the array phase center.
The choice of which structure to employ is arbitrary. Neither choice is superior.

However, there are slight differences. Given that the variables are bounded on some
interval [l, u] choosing (1) will provide greater control over the element spacings in the
optimization procedure but may require an additional constraint on the total array length
if so desired. Choosing (2) may cause the element positions to overlap one another and
the actual element numbers may change from one iteration to the next as the absolute
distances change. However, this fact is more of a book keeping problem since it is
mathematically transparent to the array factor. Moreover, the control over the inter-
element spacings is reduced and it is possible that two or more elements may occupy the
same location during optimization.
The optimization of symmetric and non-symmetric array spacings does not alter the
problem much. An additional degree of freedom is required for symmetric elements
spacings of even numbered arrays since non-symmetric arrays with phase centers at the
array origin (as shown above) have their first element located at x = 0 always.
67
In general, there are three cost functions which are the most effective for shaping the
radiation pattern,
1. Score = ∑ max(| FF (u ) |2 ) (4.6)
i
uui
1
2. Score = ∑ ∫ | FF (u ) |
2
du, Δui = uui − uli (4.7)
i Δui uli
Ns
1
∑ (| FF (u ) | − Mask (ui ) )
2
3. Score = i
2
(4.8)
N tot i =1
Score function #1 is the score used previously in the section on array thinning. This
score function tends to produce sidelobe patterns with a constant height. A summation is
included in the definition when minimizing sidelobe power over different intervals of u-
space. Score function #2 integrates the sidelobe power over interval [uli, uui] of u-space.
This score function tends to maintain the sidelobe envelope of the array along with the
locations of sidelobe maxima and nulls. During minimization these parameters may be
spread slightly, but for the most part remain unchanged. Score function #3 is a square
error score between the sidelobe power of the far-field pattern for a given interval of u-
space and a Mask function representing a desired pattern shape. Only the samples of
|FF(u)|2 that violate the Mask function contribute to the total score. For this reason, this
score function is often called the ‘don’t exceed’ square error criterion. The total number
of samples which violate Mask is Ns and the score is normalized by the total number of
samples used for sampling FF(u). This score function is quite good for shaping sidelobe
patterns since it does not penalize null positions during the optimization process because
most nulls are typically below sidelobe peaks and ‘don’t exceed’ the mask. An optimal
solution of score function #3 is defined as any solution which does not violate the mask,
resulting in a score of zero.
In addition to score functions #1, #2 for shaping the sidelobe envelope, the null
positions can be optimized by considering,
Score = ∑ | FF (uA ) | , for A = 1, 2,…, Nnull. (4.9)

A
where Nnull is the number of nulls to be optimized. Nulls and notches can be included in
the pattern mask for score function #3 as well.
68
4.5.1 PROBLEM SETUP
Here, each of the three score functions will be used to optimize the element positions of
a 32 element, uniformly weighted, x-axis linear array of isotropic elements placed
symmetrically about the physical center of the array (defined as the y-axis). The goal is
to minimize the peak sidelobe power of the far-field pattern FF(u) in the azimuthal (x-y)
plane. Since the pattern is symmetric, the score functions are computed over the positive
region of u-space, 0 < u < 1. Previously, the synthesis of array geometries has been
solved using GA [44], [46], [50] Simulated Annealing [47], [48] and Particle Swarm
Optimization [38], [42].
For this scenario, the optimizing variables will be the absolute element distances from
the origin of the array phase center (choice (2) of Figure 4.16), which is also the physical
center of the array (i.e., y-axis), thus the far-field radiation pattern of this array is,
φ
x
d
w–N/2
… w w1 … w
–1 N/2
FF
Figure 4.17. Uniformly weighted, symmetric x-axis array linear array for non-uniformly spaced
optimization scenario.
EP ( u ) N /2
FF (u ) = 2∑ wn cos ( kxn u ) (4.10)
FFmax n =1
where,
wn = Weight of element n, equal to 1 for uniform weighting
xn = Position of element n from array center (expressed in λ)
u = cos φ , 0 < φ < 180o with 1000 equally spaced points between [0,1].
λ/Nd = First null location for 0 < |u| < 1
FFmax = Peak value of far-field pattern = N
69
0
ULA
-5 Mask
-10
Mask (dB)
-15
-20
-25
-30
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos φ
Figure 4.18. Mask function for use in non-uniformly spaced optimization scenario plotted against the
original uniform linear array factor.
The three score functions are defined as follows:

1. Score = max(20 log10 | FF (u ) |), λ / Nd ≤ u ≤ 1 (4.11)
⎛ 2 ⎞
⎜ Δu ∫ ⎟⎟ , λ / Nd ≤ u ≤ 1
2. Score = 10 log10 ⎜ | FF ( u ) |2
du (4.12)
⎝ u ⎠
Ns
1
∑ ( 20 log | FF (ui ) | − MaskdB (ui ) )
2
3. Score = 10 (4.13)
Ns i =1
where,
MaskdB = −8.6957u − 21.3042 (dB), λ / Nd ≤ u ≤ 1
(4.14)
= 0 (dB), u < λ / Nd
A plot of the Mask score function is shown Figure 4.18.
Mask tries to enforce a peak sidelobe power of –22 dB at λ/Nd, the first null position of
the original uniform linear array. The sidelobe envelope then tapers linearly (defined by
(4.14)) towards a final value of –30 dB at u = 1. Inside the mainlobe region Mask is set
to zero so that any point defining the mainlobe of the optimized pattern does not count
towards the score. The score is then computed by counting the samples of the far-field
pattern (expressed in dB) which are greater than Mask. The linear tapering allows an
increase in the sidelobes between u = [0.3, 1] to allow for a reduction in the first sidelobe.
In order to perform a successful optimization procedure, Mask must not be too greedy.
Certain compromises must be made in the pattern to achieve desired objectives.
The CE design parameters are given in Table 4.9. The continuous form of CE was
used to perform the optimization. The initial values for the mean and variance of the
70
TABLE 4.9. CE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SYMMETRIC,
LINEAR ARRAY SCENARIO
xn Limits on Element Position n [0,(N/2-0.5)d]
μ(0) Initial Mean of Element Positions (n-0.5)d/λ
σ2(0) Initial Variance of Element Positions 100
Gaussian distributions were set to (n–0.5)d/λ, for n = 1, 2,…, N/2 and one-hundred
respectively for each element in the array. The equation (n–0.5)d/λ for the mean of
element n initially biases the solution to be about the original position of element n in the
uniform array. An initial variance of one-hundred allowed the initial solutions to explore
the feasible region of the element positions for the original array defined by [0,(N/2–
0.5)·d] for x > 0 and also was large enough to prevent the smoothing coefficient of 0.7
from freezing the algorithm in a suboptimal solution. So, there exists a tradeoff between
speed of convergence and guaranteeing convergence to an arbitrarily small neighborhood
of the optimal solution. The maximum value of the element positions was set to (N/2–
0.5)·d = 7.75λ, which is the aperture length of the original uniform array for x > 0. The
smoothing coefficient of 0.7 was chosen as a tradeoff with ρK for convergence and
accuracy based on the results of the previous section. The choice of both the population
size, K and the sample selection parameter, ρ are critical to the success of the algorithm.
The separation between the total number of population samples considered and the
number of best estimates used to update the parameters of the Gaussian distributions
must be large enough to ensure there is an increase in the probability that the best
samples from the current iteration appear in subsequent iterations. The optimization
procedure was stopped when the maximum variance of all distributions was less than
2.2204x10-16, which equals the floating point precision of the computer as defined by
MATLAB’s eps command.
The results of the CE optimization procedure are shown in Figure 4.19 to Figure 4.36
with numerical results highlighted in Table 4.10 and Table 4.11.
71
Score Function #1:
-6
Average Mean
-8 Average Best
Score Function #1 - max|FF(u)|2 (dB)

Overall Mean
Overall Best
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
No. Iterations
Figure 4.19. (Score Function #1) Convergence Curves for best and mean scores of population over 100
trials. Plotted are the average best and mean population scores and the overall best and mean scores of all
trials versus iteration number.
-6
Average
-8
5 Trials
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
No. Iterations
-10
Average
-12 5 Trials
-14
-16
-18
-20
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
No. Iterations
Figure 4.20. (Score Function #1) Convergence curves for five random trials compared to the averages of
the best and mean populations scores.
72
0
Optimized
ULA
-5
Far-Field Pattern |FF(u)|2 (dB)

-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos φ
Figure 4.21. (Score Function #1) Plot of optimized far-field pattern for best performing trial and original
uniform linear array.
-5
Far-Field Pattern - |FF(u)|2 (dB)
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos φ
Figure 4.22. (Score Function #1) Optimized patterns of all 100 trials.
8
Mean Element Positions - x (λ)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Element No.
Figure 4.23. (Score Function #1) Mean element positions of all 100 trials. Error bars indicate standard
deviation of element positions for each element.
73
Element Position from Array Origin - x (λ) 8
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
No. Iterations
(a)
6
Mean - μ of N(μ,σ 2)
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
No. Iterations
0
10
Variance - σ 2 of N(μ,σ 2)
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

No. Iterations
(b)
Figure 4.24. (Score Function #1) Progression of (a) elements positions x and (b) variance of Gaussian
distribution for best performing trial.
74
Score Function #2:
-10
Average Mean
-12
Score Function #2 - 2/Δ u∫u|FF(u)|2du (dB)

Average Best
Overall Mean
-14
Overall Best
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
No. Iterations
-10
Average
5 Trials
-15
-20
-25
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

No. Iterations
-10
Average
5 Trials
-15
-20
-25
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

No. Iterations
75
0
Optimized
-5 ULA

-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos φ
Figure 4.27. (Score Function #2) Plot of optimized far-field pattern for best performing trial and original
uniform linear array.
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos φ
8
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Element No.
76
Element Position from Array Origin - x (λ)
8
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
No. Iterations
(a)
6
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
No. Iterations
0
10
Variance - σ 2 of N(μ, σ 2)
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
No. Iterations
(b)
77
Score Function #3:
2
10
Average Mean
Score Function #3 - Σ(FF(u)-Mask)2/Ntot (dB)

Average Best
Overall Mean
Overall Best
1
10
0
10
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

No. Iterations
2
10
Average
5 Trials
1
10
0
10
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
No. Iterations
2
10
Average
5 Trials
1
10
0
10
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
No. Iterations
78
0
Optimized
ULA
-5
Mask

-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos φ
Figure 4.33. (Score Function #3) Plot of optimized far-field pattern for best performing trial, original
uniform linear array and Mask function.
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos φ
8
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Element No.
79
Element Position from Array Origin - x (λ) 8
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
No. Iterations
(a)
6
Mean - μ of N(μ, σ 2)
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
No. Iterations
0
10
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
No. Iterations
(b)
80
TABLE 4.10. SIDELOBE POWER AND BEAMWIDTH OF BEST ARRAY DESIGNS FOR EACH SCORE
FUNCTION
Score Maximum SLL (dB) FNBW (deg)
Function Avg. Score Best Score at u = λ/Nd for u > FNBW/2 Optimized Original % Increase
#1 –17.76 -19.69 dB –19.69 –19.69 8.056 7.16 12.5
#2 –25.04 -26.92 dB –14.67 –20.98 8.867 7.16 23.8
#3 2.95 0.366 –12.975 –22 9.33 7.16 30.3
TABLE 4.11. ABSOLUTE ELEMENT POSITIONS FROM ORIGIN AND ELEMENT SPACING FOR BEST PERFORMING
SAMPLES OF NON-UNIFORM ARRAY SCENARIO
Element
No.
±1 ±2 ±3 ±4 ±5 ±6 ±7 ±8 ±9 ±10 ±11 ±12 ±13 ±14 ±15 ±16
0.23 0.6424 0.988 1.455 1.8736 2.3048 2.7057 3.1469 3.704 4.0435 4.6718 5.1338 6.0044 6.6531 7.2599 7.75
xn/λ 0.2147 0.5933 0.9648 1.4274 1.6723 2.241 2.4427 3.0332 3.295 3.8486 4.2331 4.7911 5.3142 6.0358 6.8735 7.6621
0.3434 0.4725 1.0118 1.2752 1.6229 2.1298 2.2678 2.8093 3.111 3.6546 4.1117 4.6534 5.1324 5.8091 6.587 7.3384
Score: #1 #2 #3
It is apparent from the results in Table 4.10 that score function #1 yields the best
sidelobe power with respect to the original uniform array (u = λ/Nd). However, both
score function #2 and #3 outperform score function #1 in the sidelobe region of the
optimized array. Despite terminating the optimization procedure after the maximum
variance of all elements exceeded eps, all three scores basically converged to their final
values within 150 iterations.
One interesting note that is not touched upon in array geometry optimization is the fact
that unless a constraint is placed on the spacings between absolute element positions then
it is possible for elements to occupy the same location. This result can be mechanically
impractical not to mention electrically. Consider for a moment an outcome produced by
score function #3 and the absolute element positions of elements 3 and 4 marked by red.
Element # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
0.2845 0.4623 1.1124 1.1329 1.8376 1.9316 2.5654 2.8242 3.3417 3.7679 4.3375 4.837 5.3989 5.977 6.6338 7.3452
These two elements basically occupy the same location. This result is mathematically
transparent to the array factor and this result would occur whether one is optimizing
absolute element positions or element spacings. What this result actually represents in
reality is a single element with twice the amplitude. For example, element 4 can be
81
0
Optimized
-5 Weighted

-10
Altered Score Function #3 Outcome
-15 Element 4 removed
Element 3 weighted: w3 = 2
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos φ
Figure 4.37. Altered non-uniformly spaced array accounting for overlapping element positions.
removed and an amplitude weight w3 = 2 can be applied to element 3. The resulting array
pattern is shown in Figure 4.37 and is nearly identical to the original.
4.6 INTRODUCING PATTERN NULLS WITH NON-UNIFORM ELEMENT POSITIONS
Here, the results of the previous section will be extended to demonstrate the feasibility
of introducing nulls in the radiation pattern by including (4.9) into score function #1. The
results here can be extended to score function #2 as well. The same scenario and setup as
the previous section will be used. The score function of (4.11) is augmented to,
⎡ ⎤
Score = 10 log10 ⎢ max(| FF (u ) |2 ) + ∑ | FF (uA ) |⎥ , λ / Nd ≤ u ≤ 1 (4.15)
⎣ A ⎦
for A = 1, 2,…, Nnull.

The two score corresponding to the peak sidelobe level and the null scores for each null
angle are added together before the logarithm is performed. This helps to ensure that the
null score won’t dominate the total score as it tends towards zero. Although the u-space
region is sampled with 1000 points, each of the null points is added to this sampling to
make sure it is included and the score is not calculated by some nearest neighbor.
For example, consider adding 16 nulls to the pattern at each of the original uniform
array null locations, nλ/(Nd) for n = 1, 2,…, 16. A single trial of the CE procedure was
performed and the results are shown below.
82
TABLE 4.12. ABSOLUTE ELEMENT POSITIONS FROM ORIGIN AND ELEMENT SPACINGS FOR BEST
PERFORMING SAMPLES OF NON-UNIFORM ARRAY SCENARIO INCLUDING NULL POSITIONS IN SCORE
Element
No.
±1 ±2 ±3 ±4 ±5 ±6 ±7 ±8 ±9 ±10 ±11 ±12 ±13 ±14 ±15 ±16
xn /λ 0.2172 0.7421 1.0892 1.5789 1.9281 2.4114 2.7823 3.2639 3.7019 4.2155 4.738 5.323 5.9152 6.4852 7.0441 7.6684
0
Original
-5 Optimized
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos φ
Figure 4.38. Far-field pattern plot of optimized array pattern for peak sidelobe level and null locations.
0
Mean Score
-2 Best Score
Score - 10log10(max|FF(u)|2 + Nulls)
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
No. Iterations
Figure 4.39. Progression of best and mean score of population versus the number of iterations for score
function which include the null score of the original ULA null positions.
83
8
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
No. Iterations
(a)
0
10
-10
10
-20
10
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
No. Iterations
(b)
Figure 4.40. Progression of (a) element positions x and (b) variance of Gaussian distribution for best
performing trials.
The peak sidelobe power of this single trial was measured as –16.87 dB. The final
composite score function including both the peak sidelobe power and null values was
–14.96 dB. This implies that the null score itself was non-zero, which can be seen from
Figure 4.38. With this formulation, the value of the far-field pattern at the location of the
original ULA’s first null (u = λ/Nd) was –20.27 dB, which is lower that the result
presented in Table 4.10. Ultimately, one can add as many nulls to the pattern as they
wish. In traditional optimization techniques, one might be limited to the number of
degrees of freedom in the array. Additionally, a series of consecutive nulls called a notch
can be easily introduced using the mask score function.
84
4.7 NON-UNIFORM ELEMENT SPACING FOR GRATING LOBE CANCELLATION
Periodic arrays with element spacings larger that λ/2 suffer from a reduced field of
view during beam scanning towards endfire due to the introduction of grating lobes in the
array pattern. This problem was solved recently by utilizing the Genetic Algorithm [49].
The maximum beamsteering angle from broadside of a uniformly spaced linear array
before a grating lobe is introduced is given by,
λ
u= −1 (4.16)
d
The goal of this scenario is to remove the grating lobe by optimizing the element
positions to suppress the grating lobe and achieve a minimum sidelobe power in the
scanned array pattern.
4.7.1 PROBLEM SETUP
Consider the optimization of an eight element x-axis array with a uniform element
spacing of d = 0.8λ for minimizing the sidelobe power of the scanned elevation (x-z)
plane pattern towards the angle uo = 0.866 or θ = 60o as shown in Figure 4.37. This array
has its phase center at the origin of x-z and since the array pattern is non-symmetric due
to the introduction of a grating lobe, the far-field pattern of this array is represented by,
N
1
FF ( u − uo ) =
N
∑ exp[− jkx (u − u )]
n =1
n o (4.17)
where the transformation u Æ u–uo was performed to scan the angle towards uo.
z
θ
w1 w2 … w8
FF
Figure 4.41. Eight element x-axis uniform array with spacing d = 0.8λ for suppressing grating lobe and
minimizing sidelobe power for scanned elevation pattern towards uo = 0.866.
85
The variables for optimization will be the absolute element positions from the origin of
the array. As a result, there are only N–1 element positions to optimize since the first
element is always located at the origin of the array (i.e., x1 = 0). The initial means of the
Gaussian distributions for each variable is set to (n–1)d/λ for n = 2,…, N corresponding to
the original element positions of the uniform array for n > 1. The variance of the
Gaussian distribution is set equal to 100 in order to initially consider a large portion of
the feasible region. The smoothing coefficient is chosen as 0.7 and ρK = 10 for K = 100
to compromise between convergence speed and accuracy. The limits on the element
positions was set equal to (N–1)d, so that the optimized array has at most the same length
as the original uniform array. The score function is defined as the maximum sidelobe
level in the sidelobe region of the original uniform array,
Score = max ⎡⎣ 20 log10 (| FF (u − uo ) |) ⎤⎦ , | u |≤ uo − λ / Nd (4.18)
To determine the average response achieved by the CE method, 100 trials were
performed. The results of these trials are detailed in Table 4.13 and Table 4.14 as well as
Figure 4.42 to Figure 4.47. Table 4.13 (presented in Sec. 4.7.3) includes the element
locations of the best performer over all 100 trials along with the element locations
computed by the GA in [49]. Table 4.14 summarizes the sidelobe power and first null
locations of the steered array for both CE and the GA of [49]. Figure 4.42 and Figure
4.43 depict the far-field pattern of the optimized array and clearly show that the grating
lobe of the original array has been eliminated. Figure 4.44 depicts the mean element
positions over all 100 trials. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the
element positions for each element in the array. It is clear that the variation in element
locations is greatest towards the middle of the array. The peak sidelobe power of the
optimized pattern is on average about –10 dB. So, with this optimized array, one can
steer the mainlobe of the pattern from broadside to u = 0.866 and maintain a peak
sidelobe power of –10 dB. This is an excellent result and achieved on average within 80
iterations and with a population size of 100 requires 800 performance evaluations. Figure
4.47 depicts the progression of the array element locations versus number of iterations as
well as the mean and variance of the Gaussian distributions for each element in the array.
86
Optimized Original
0
-2
-4

-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
u - sinθ
Figure 4.42. Plot of optimized far-field pattern for best performing trial versus original uniform linear
array. Notice that the grating lobe has been completely removed and the overall peak sidelobe level of the
optimized pattern is -11.1132 dB.
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
u = sinθ
Figure 4.43. Plot of optimized array patterns of all 100 trials versus the original uniform array.
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Element No.
Figure 4.44. Mean element positions of all 100 trials. Error bars indicate standard deviation of all 100
trials for each element position.
87
-3
Average Mean
-4 Average Best
Overall Mean
-5 Overall Best
Score - max|FF(u-uo)|2 (dB)

-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
No. Iterations
Figure 4.45. Convergence Curves for best and mean scores of population over 100 trials. Plotted are the
average best and mean population scores and the overall best and mean scores of all trials versus iteration
number.
-4 Average
5 Trials
-6
-8
-10
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

No. Iterations
-7 Average
5 Trials
-8
-9
-10
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

No. Iterations
populations scores.
88
5
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
No. Iterations
(a)
5
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
No. Iterations
0
10
Variance - σ 2 of N(μ,σ 2)
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

No. Iterations
(b)
Figure 4.47. Progression of (a) elements positions x and (b) mean and variance of Gaussian distribution
for best performing trial.
89
In comparison to the results presented in [49], the results are similar. The CE method
achieves a lower peak sidelobe power, but at the cost of an increased beamwidth. The
spread in the first null location of the steered pattern computed by GA is negligible, so
ideally one would expect that the peak sidelobe power observed is the best one could
achieve. It is not clear if the results reported in [49] are an average. Also, no
convergence information is provided for comparison.
TABLE 4.13. ABSOLUTE ELEMENT POSITIONS FROM ORIGIN AND ELEMENT

SPACING FOR BEST PERFORMING TRIAL OF GRATING LOBE SCENARIO
Element No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CE xn /λ 0 0.4936 0.9384 1.3848 2.4537 2.8581 3.3321 4.3761
GA xn /λ 0 0.5000 0.9010 1.8990 2.9410 3.3700 4.3830 4.9800
TABLE 4.14. SIDELOBE POWER AND BEAMWIDTH OF BEST ARRAY DESIGN OF GRATING LOBE SCENARIO
Score (dB) Maximum SLL (dB) Steered First Null Position (u-space)
Avg. Best at u = uo – λ/Nd for u < uo – λ/Nd Original Optimized % Increase
CE –10.06 –11.1132 –11.1132 –11.1132 0.7097 0.6657 6.2
GA N/A –9.4200 –26.2900 9.4200 0.7097 0.7057 ~ 0.0
0
CE
-2 GA
Original
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = sinθ
Figure 4.48. Comparison of far-field patterns computed by both the Cross Entropy method and the
Genetic Algorithm of [49] for the element positions presented in Table 4.13.
90
4.8 MULTI-OBJECTIVE APERIODIC ARRAY DESIGN BY NON-UNIFORM ELEMENT
SPACINGS
As can be seen from the results of the previous sections, there exists a tradeoff between
desired sidelobe power and the beamwidth of the radiation pattern. Typically the
beamwidth is increased slightly in the optimized pattern in order for the peak sidelobe
power to decrease. The reason for this is that the total energy of the pattern is always
conserved, so as you decrease the sidelobe level this displaced energy is introduced into
the mainlobe of the pattern and measured as an increase in mainlobe beamwidth. This
idea of energy conservation is similar to the volume of air inside a balloon. If you were
to take your hands and squeeze the outside of the balloon and deform the shape, the
amount of air inside the volume remains unchanged. Both beamwidth and sidelobe
power are good objectives for optimization since one can easily infer other properties of
the array pattern such as directivity, beam efficiency, etc from these two objectives.
Here, the results of the previous sections are extended to create a trade-off curve between
beamwidth and peak sidelobe power for aperiodic array designs with non-uniform
element spacings.
4.8.1 PROBLEM SETUP
The array under consideration is a non-uniformly spaced, uniformly weighted,

asymmetric, z-axis linear array as shown in Figure 4.49. The far-field pattern of this
array is defined by,
EP (u ) N
FF ( u ) = ∑ wn exp[ jk znu ]
FFmax n =1
(4.19)
where,
N = Number of elements in the array
wn = Weight of element n, equal to 1 for uniform weighting
zn = Distance of element n from coordinate origin
u = cosθ, 0o < θ < 180o with 2000 equally spaced points
FFmax = Peak value of far-field pattern = N
91
x
θ
z
z2
zN
w1 w2 … wN
FF
Figure 4.49. z-axis uniform array with non-uniform spacing for multi-objective optimization problem.
The formulation of (4.19) assumes that the incident wave is traveling in +z.
The inspiration for this scenario was derived from [44], [50], which utilized NSGA-II
to optimize the same problem. Therein, the optimization variable was the element
spacings themselves and not the absolute distance from the coordinate origin. The
spacings were limited to values between 0.5λ to λ. A minimum element spacing of 0.5λ
is imposed to reduce mutual coupling effects between elements. A maximum element
spacing of λ eliminates the presence of grating lobes in the optimized radiation pattern.
Since the element spacings are the optimization variable, then the absolute distance of
element n, zn is the cumulative sum of element spacings from element 1 to element n,
n −1
zn = ∑ d i (4.20)
i =1
This relationship is easily implemented in MATLAB using the cumsum command.
d1 d2
z
z1
z2
z3
Figure 4.50. Illustration of relationship between absolute distances from origin and element spacings.
92
For the array defined in Figure 4.49, element 1 is positioned at the coordinate origin,
thus z1 = 0 and only N–1 element spacings need to be optimized. Therefore, (4.19) can be
amended to,
1⎛ N
⎞
FF ( u ) = ⎜ 1 +
N ⎝ n=2
∑ exp[ jkznu ] ⎟
⎠
(4.21)
where, z2 = d1, z3 = d1+d2, and so on.

functions of this scenario are,
f1 = max ( 20 log10 | FF ( u ) |) (dB ), f2 = θ+ − θ− (deg) (4.22)
where, the score f1 represents the peak sidelobe power of the far-field pattern expressed in
dB and the score f2 represents the first null beamwidth of the mainlobe expressed as the
difference between the two first two nulls, θ+ and θ– on either side of the pattern mainlobe
peak defined as θ = 90o. The composite objective function for use with MOCE is simply
F = f1+f2. The two objective functions are expressed in decibels and degrees in order to
accentuate differences between objective values during optimization.
the MOCE procedure was set equal to 4. The clustering was performed on the objective
values f1, f2 themselves and after each iteration a new population of size K was produced
for each cluster despite the fact that the cluster size may be less than K. This forces
MOCE to explore more solutions in the feasible region. The MOCE procedure was
stopped in one of three cases, either the maximum variance of all clusters was less than
eps, or if the number of iterations was greater than 500, or if the MATLAB command
fcm used for fuzzy c-means clustering resulted in a cluster that was empty. Generally,
using the maximum variance of the Gaussian distributions as a stopping criterion does
not work well since the each cluster is re-populated with K candidates at each iteration.
To determine the average Pareto optimal set, 50 independent trials were performed for
N = 6, 8, 10 and 12 elements respectively and the Pareto front of each trial was recorded.
A typical result of a single trial is shown in Figure 4.51 for N = 10. The red dots mark all
93
TABLE 4.15. MOCE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR OPTIMIZATION OF
SIDELOBE POWER AND BEAMWIDTH OF APERIODIC LINEAR ARRAY
dn Limits on Array Element Spacings [0.5,1]λ
μm(0) Initial Values for Mean of Gaussian Distributions 0
σm2(0) Initial Values for Variance of Gaussian Distributions 100
Figure 4.51. Result of a single MOCE trial representing the trade-off curve between peak sidelobe power
and first null beamwidth for a ten element array.
the dominated solutions visited during the optimization procedure for all clusters. The
black circles are the set of non-dominated solutions which form the Pareto front of the
Pareto optimal set for this single trial. These values were calculated using a function
called paretofront available on the MATLAB central file exchange. Of note are the
subtle striations in Figure 4.51 with respect to the beamwidth recorded for each solution.
This is a result of sampling the elevation angle θ with 2000 points between 0 < θ < 180o, so
the number of samples would need to be increased if more resolution is desired.
The mean Pareto front was also computed to give an average performance over the 50
trials. This mean PF is supported with a 95% confidence interval. The numerical results
of the composite and mean Pareto fronts are detailed in Figure 4.52 and Figure 4.53 as
well as Table 4.16 and Table 4.17. In Figure 4.52, the Pareto optimal solutions (POS) for
94
N=6
N=8
N = 10
N = 12
Figure 4.52. Pareto front of non-dominated solutions for multi-objective aperiodic array design scenario
for beamwidth versus sidelobe power. Pictured are the individual Pareto fronts recorded for each
individual trial (marked in blue), the composite Pareto front of all trials (marked with black circles) and the
mean Pareto Front of all trials marked by a 95% confidence interval. The values for the composite and
mean Pareto fronts are given in Table 4.16 and Table 4.17.
95
TABLE 4.16. COMPOSITE PARETO OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS OF MULTI-OBJECTIVE APERIODIC ARRAY SCENARIO
N=6 N=8 N = 10 N = 12
BW SLL BW SLL BW SLL BW SLL
(deg) (dB) (deg) (dB) (deg) (dB) (deg) (dB)
19.4595 -0.4066 14.5946 -1.3356 11.7117 -4.9894 9.7297 -7.1076
19.6396 -2.1387 14.7748 -4.4655 11.8919 -8.0134 9.9099 -11.774
19.8198 -2.7644 14.955 -5.7278 12.0721 -11.1392 10.0901 -13.1173
20 -3.9953 15.1351 -7.9007 12.2523 -13.0185 10.2703 -13.127
20.1802 -4.3674 15.3153 -9.5762 12.4324 -13.0699 10.4505 -13.2229
20.3604 -6.4009 15.4955 -11.3542 12.6126 -13.1026 10.8108 -13.2746
20.5405 -6.4777 15.6757 -12.6743 12.7928 -13.153 10.991 -13.5469
20.7207 -7.8369 15.8559 -12.9369 13.3333 -13.1931 11.1712 -13.9562
20.9009 -8.4186 16.036 -12.9582 13.5135 -13.2917 11.3514 -14.4878
21.0811 -9.1892 16.2162 -13.021 13.6937 -13.4994 11.5315 -15.0911
21.2613 -10.0981 16.5766 -13.0433 13.8739 -13.78 11.7117 -15.4917
21.4414 -10.7371 16.7568 -13.1596 14.0541 -14.1944 11.8919 -15.6507
21.6216 -11.3749 17.6577 -13.1932 14.2342 -14.5043 12.0721 -15.7181
21.8018 -12.0443 17.8378 -13.2087 14.4144 -14.8531 12.2523 -15.8445
21.982 -12.5302 18.018 -13.3808 14.5946 -15.268 12.7928 -15.8834
22.1622 -12.6247 18.1982 -13.4372 14.7748 -15.6003 12.973 -15.9368
22.3423 -12.6471 18.3784 -13.6149 14.955 -15.6969 13.1532 -16.2025
22.5225 -12.6542 18.5586 -13.7631 16.036 -15.7191 13.3333 -16.3912
22.8829 -12.7231 18.7387 -14.1364 16.3964 -15.7669 13.5135 -16.5621
26.3063 -12.8439 18.9189 -14.4176 16.5766 -15.9305 13.6937 -16.6055
26.4865 -12.9312 19.0991 -14.5208 17.1171 -16.1169 13.8739 -17.3015
26.8468 -13.0795 19.2793 -14.8898 17.2973 -16.183
27.027 -13.2644 19.4595 -14.9511 17.4775 -16.4939
27.3874 -13.4418 19.6396 -15.0605 17.8378 -16.6199
27.5676 -13.5212 19.8198 -15.5011 18.018 -16.6874
27.9279 -13.5495 23.4234 -15.5689 18.5586 -16.9955
28.1081 -13.8615 23.7838 -15.9916
28.2883 -14.0378 24.1441 -16.1
28.6486 -14.2455
28.8288 -14.4044
29.009 -14.6581
30.4505 -14.7666
96
TABLE 4.17. MEAN PARETO OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS OF MULTI-OBJECTIVE APERIODIC ARRAY SCENARIO
N=6 N=8 N = 10 N = 12
BW SLL BW SLL BW SLL BW SLL BW SLL BW SLL
(deg) (dB) (deg) (dB) (deg) (dB) (deg) (dB) (deg) (dB) (deg) (dB)
19.6396 -1.2369 28.8288 -13.9329 14.5946 -1.1741 22.7027 -15.1071 11.7117 -4.1193 9.7297 -5.6143
19.8198 -1.695 29.009 -14.0597 14.7748 -3.1591 22.8829 -15.0503 11.8919 -7.1329 9.9099 -10.9541
20 -2.6971 29.1892 -14.0671 14.955 -5.1253 23.0631 -15.1459 12.0721 -10.5897 10.0901 -13.0926
20.1802 -3.4665 29.3694 -14.0099 15.1351 -6.9604 23.2432 -15.033 12.2523 -12.9926 10.2703 -13.1028
20.3604 -4.7803 29.5495 -13.9701 15.3153 -8.9467 23.4234 -15.2461 12.4324 -13.0222 10.4505 -13.1213
20.5405 -5.5336 29.7297 -14.2013 15.4955 -11.0658 23.6036 -14.9933 12.6126 -13.0506 10.6306 -13.1363
20.7207 -6.6556 29.9099 -14.0163 15.6757 -12.5466 23.7838 -15.3799 12.7928 -13.066 10.8108 -13.1912
20.9009 -7.6737 30.0901 -14.1668 15.8559 -12.8463 23.964 -15.3935 12.973 -13.0627 10.991 -13.4358
21.0811 -8.7354 30.2703 -14.1208 16.036 -12.8677 24.3243 -15.5664 13.1532 -13.0745 11.1712 -13.844
21.2613 -9.5296 30.4505 -14.509 16.2162 -12.8988 24.5045 -15.538 13.3333 -13.1165 11.3514 -14.3318
21.4414 -10.3784 30.6306 -14.156 16.3964 -12.9172 24.6847 -15.3879 13.5135 -13.163 11.5315 -14.8743
21.6216 -11.1767 31.1712 -14.2799 16.5766 -12.954 24.8649 -15.4415 13.6937 -13.3648 11.7117 -15.2501
21.8018 -11.9634 31.8919 -14.3548 16.7568 -12.9935 13.8739 -13.6198 11.8919 -15.4252
21.982 -12.4425 32.4324 -14.3872 16.9369 -13.0126 14.0541 -13.92 12.0721 -15.4868
22.1622 -12.4883 17.1171 -13.0287 14.2342 -14.2512 12.2523 -15.5076
22.3423 -12.5092 17.2973 -12.9681 14.4144 -14.6065 12.4324 -15.3756
22.5225 -12.5246 17.4775 -12.9967 14.5946 -14.8938 12.6126 -15.3784
22.7027 -12.5229 17.6577 -13.0165 14.7748 -15.1041 12.7928 -15.5435
22.8829 -12.6625 17.8378 -13.0452 14.955 -15.3238 12.973 -15.5643
23.0631 -12.5301 18.018 -13.1327 15.1351 -15.2179 13.1532 -15.7451
23.2432 -12.5533 18.1982 -13.227 15.3153 -15.3457 13.3333 -15.8107
23.4234 -12.6536 18.3784 -13.3909 15.4955 -15.2637 13.5135 -15.9248
23.6036 -12.5725 18.5586 -13.5869 15.6757 -15.3092 13.6937 -16.0158
23.964 -12.6086 18.7387 -13.746 15.8559 -15.2448 13.8739 -16.1185
24.3243 -12.5625 18.9189 -13.9004 16.036 -15.3358 14.0541 -16.1056
24.6847 -12.642 19.0991 -14.1435 16.3964 -15.7662 14.2342 -16.1025
25.7658 -12.6921 19.2793 -14.3972 16.5766 -15.4259 14.4144 -16.1556
26.1261 -12.6271 19.4595 -14.6138 16.7568 -15.5015 14.5946 -16.2217
26.3063 -12.706 19.6396 -14.6358 16.9369 -15.5277 14.955 -16.3781
26.4865 -12.7583 19.8198 -14.9133 17.1171 -15.717 15.1351 -16.5421
26.6667 -12.8038 20 -14.8522 17.2973 -15.7801 15.3153 -16.4755
26.8468 -12.9008 20.1802 -14.8849 17.4775 -15.6979 15.4955 -16.1688
27.027 -12.9805 20.3604 -14.8777 17.6577 -15.8264 15.6757 -16.3504
27.2072 -13.0687 20.5405 -14.689 17.8378 -15.981
27.3874 -13.1996 20.7207 -14.8966 18.018 -15.9492
27.5676 -13.2094 20.9009 -15.1018 18.1982 -15.7433
27.7477 -13.3427 21.0811 -15.1393 18.3784 -15.9578
27.9279 -13.4188 21.2613 -15.0853 18.5586 -16.4798
28.1081 -13.5236 21.4414 -14.828 18.7387 -16.1735
28.2883 -13.6522 21.8018 -14.9127 18.9189 -15.7507
28.4685 -13.6009 22.1622 -14.937 19.2793 -16.0453
28.6486 -13.9303 22.5225 -15.0881 19.4595 -16.0835
97
N=6
N=8
N = 10
N = 12
Figure 4.53. Pareto front of non-dominated solutions for multi-objective aperiodic array design scenario.
Pictured are both the mean and composite PF determined using MOCE and aperiodic spacing versus the
trade-off curve for a periodic array.
all trials are plotted with a blue dots. The composite PF representing the best Pareto
optimal solutions recorded for all trials are marked with black circles. Since the
beamwidth was discretized due to the sampling of θ an average sidelobe power was
computed for each unique beamwidth and marked by a red dot in the figure.
In Figure 4.53 both the composite and mean Pareto front are compared to the uniformly
spaced (periodic) z-axis linear array whose beamwidth is defined as,
⎡π ⎛ λ ⎞ ⎤ 180
BW ( deg ) = 2 ⎢ − cos −1 ⎜ ⎟⎥ (4.23)
⎣2 ⎝ Nd ⎠ ⎦ π
The periodic array beamwidth is plotted for 0.5λ < d < λ and truncated to a minimum of
0.8λ for N = 8, 10 and 12 for clarity. What is apparent is that an aperiodic array
computed using CE can achieve a much smaller sidelobe power for a given beamwidth
than a uniformly spaced array.
98
The results computed by the MOCE method are quite competitive with the results
presented in [44], [50] for NSGA-II. The accuracy of the solutions presented depends on
the resolution of sampling in the elevation plane when calculating beamwidth. Another
consequence of the MOCE method is that a large population of candidates is required,
with intelligent clustering of solutions in order to create a diverse Pareto front. Although
four clusters per trial were used here, the composite Pareto fronts presented for 50 trials
would be similar to a larger population size with a greater number of clusters with fewer
trials. Overall, it is again apparent that it is difficult to parameterize MOCE to determine
the non-dominated solutions towards the tail of the Pareto front. For arrays with 6 or 8
elements, MOCE is quite effective and the results are very similar to those in [44], [50];
however as the number of elements is increased to 10 or 12, then the tail of the curve
begins to deviate. NSGA-II appears to perform more consistently with an increase in the
number of elements and does not suffer from the same deficiency as MOCE.
4.9 SUMMARY
In summary, several scenarios were presented for designing aperiodic linear arrays
using the Cross Entropy method. The combinatorial form of CE was used to design
aperiodic arrays by thinning array elements and the continuous form of CE was used to
design non-uniform element spacings. A detailed parametric analysis of CE parameters
such as smoothing constant and elite sample size for a given population was performed
for the thinning scenario as a foundation for parameter choices of future scenarios. An
analysis of the three main score functions used in array synthesis was performed for non-
uniform element positions to achieve a low sidelobe power. Additionally the continuous
form of CE was used to design non-uniform element positions to remove grating lobes
during scanning. Multi-objective optimization using MOCE with fuzzy c-means
clustering was demonstrated on designs by both thinning and non-uniform spacings. For
all scenarios, several trials were performed to determine an ‘average’ performance and to
expose tendencies of the method when choosing an optimization routine to implement
when designing aperiodic arrays. The scenarios presented here were derived from the
99
literature for comparison with more popular techniques such as GA and PSO. Overall,
the CE method is a competitive alternative to these more popular techniques.
100
5. PHASED ARRAY SYNTHESIS
CHAPTER 5
PHASED ARRAY SYNTHESIS

BY THE CROSS ENTROPY METHOD
5.1 INTRODUCTION
A phased array is an array with non-uniform element excitation in order to direct

radiated power towards desired directions of interest while simultaneously suppressing
radiation in directions not of interest. Element excitation is represented as a complex
valued weight with amplitude and phase. The proportions of amplitude, phase or both
among elements can be altered to achieve a desired response. Altering the amplitude and
phase excitation of the transmitted/received signal at each element in the array modifies the
array response such that at particular angles in space the transmitted/received signals add
constructively producing maximum radiation/reception while at other angles signals add
destructively and no energy is radiated or received. In general, varying the amplitude and
phase excitation of each element offer more flexibility in the shaping of sidelobe power and
null placement than aperiodic spacings between elements does. In typical phased arrays
synthesis, the phase excitation is available to the designer for optimization. The amplitude
excitation is either uniform across the array aperture or possesses a built in amplitude taper.
The amplitude of each element is run at its maximum power in order to maximize the total
radiated power of the array.
The strategy of this chapter is to implement the Cross Entropy method to design phased
array antennas by controlling the weighted excitation applied to each element in the array
while maintaining periodic element spacings. A flow chart of this strategy is shown in
Figure 5.1. The continuous form of CE is employed to perform amplitude-only, phase-only
and complex (both amplitude and phase) synthesis. Each of these three conditions are
enforced for different practical examples such as the design of sector beam patterns much
wider than the minimum beamwidth of a uniform array, the correction of a double element
101
failure of Dolph-Chebyshev and Taylor amplitude weighted arrays, sidelobe power shaping
and null placement and the design of a switched beam array between sector and pencil
beam patterns using phase-only weights. Additionally, a multi-objective benchmark
problem concerning the optimal tradeoff curve between peak sidelobe power and
beamwidth produced by the Dolph-Chebyshev weighted array is addressed. The aim is to
demonstrate the convergence of the multi-objective form of the Cross Entropy method to
the optimal Pareto front of the Dolph-Chebyshev weighted array. Each of the scenarios
above were adopted from literature with solutions computed using the Genetic Algorithm
[52], [53], [59], [60], [62], [73], [75] and Particle Swarm Optimization [63], [64].
CE
ARRAY
WEIGHT
CONTROL
Phased
Array
Synthesis
(Ch. 5)
Continuous
Phase- Switched
Benchmark Array
Sector Only Beam
Chebyshev Failure
Pattern Synthesis Design
Pattern Correction
(Sec. 5.2) (Sec 5.4) (Sec. 5.5)
(Sec. 5.6) (Sec 5.3)
Multi- Single Single Single Multi-

Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective
Strict Relaxed Chebyshev Taylor Max Average Sector Pattern

SLL vs. Ripple, Ripple, Pattern Pattern SLL SLL vs.
Beamwidth Constant Tapered SLL Pencil Beam
SLL
Figure 5.1. Flow chart for phased array antenna design. Array weight control is employed for designing
sector beam patterns using complex weight synthesis, correcting double element failures of Chebyshev and
Taylor patterns using amplitude-only weighting, shaping sidelobe power and placing nulls, designing a
switched beam array between a sector pattern and pencil beam and benchmarking MOCE using the
Chebyshev array and amplitude-only weighting
102
5.2 SECTOR BEAM PATTERN SYNTHESIS
A sector beam radiation pattern is an array pattern with a beamwidth much wider than
the minimum array beamwidth (2λ/Nd) of the uniform array. The array beamwidth is
proportional to the largest dimension of the array, so complex valued weights are needed to
synthesize sector beams. The goal then becomes how to choose these weights based on a
desired sector beam pattern.
0 0
30 30 30 30
60 60 60 60
90 90 90 90
120 120 120 120
150 150 150 150

180 180
(Narrow Mainlobe of Uniform Array) (Sector Beam)
Figure 5.2. Illustration of sector beam pattern. The goal is to alter the amplitude and phase excitation of the
uniform array to produce a sector beam pattern capable of covering an angular region of space much wider
than the minimum beamwidth of the uniform array.
Recently significant attention has been paid to the design of sector beam patterns for
phased arrays motivated by the mobile communications community with applications to
both cellular telephones and wireless LAN networks [55], [56]. Traditionally, techniques
such as the Fourier method, Woodward-Lawson, Orchard-Elliott, Alternating Projection
Method and Power Pattern Synthesis were utilized to create sector beam patterns for the
radar and satellite communications communities [57]. Switched beam antennas such as the
Butler Matrix and smart antenna techniques have been used to provide sector coverage in
direction finding and cellular telephone systems using narrow mainlobe phased arrays [58],
but more recently sector beam synthesis has been performed with the Genetic Algorithm
[59]–[62], Particle Swarm Optimization [63], Quantum Particle Swarm Optimization [64],
Tabu Search [65] and Taguchi’s Method [66].
103
TABLE 5.1. PARAMETERS FOR SECTOR
BEAM PATTERNS FROM [59]1, [63]2
Parameter GA1 PSO2
N 40 20
SLL (dB) Tapered –25
HPBW (deg) 11.48o 24o
BW (deg) at SLL 17.25o 40o
Ripple (dB) 3 0.5
5.2.1 PROBLEM SETUP

Here, the continuous form of the Cross Entropy method will be utilized to design sector
beam patterns of phased arrays using complex weight control. In particular, two types of
sector patterns are considered. First, a sector pattern is designed with strict mainlobe ripple
and constant height sidelobes inspired from the work in [63] using PSO. Second, a sector
pattern is designed with a relaxed mainlobe ripple and tapered sidelobes inspired by the
work in [59] using GA. The pattern parameters of these scenarios are detailed in Table 5.1.
The goal is to employ the CE method to determine the amplitude and phase excitation
(represented as complex weights applied linearly to the array) required for producing the
sector patterns. The score function employed is the “don’t exceed” square error criterion
defined as,
1 ⎡ I 2⎤
N NJ
( ) ( )
⎢ ∑ | FF (ui ) | − Mask1(ui ) + ∑ | Mask 2(u j ) | − FF (u j ) ⎥
2
Score = 2 2
(5.1)
N tot ⎣ i =1 j =1 ⎥⎦
where, Mask1 is an upper bound on the array factor which controls the sidelobe power,
positive ripple in the angular region of the mainlobe and the outer width of the mainlobe
and Mask2 is a lower bound controlling the negative ripple and inner width of the
mainlobe. Figure 5.3 depicts the mask score functions of the two scenarios defined by the
pattern parameters in Table 5.1.
For the mask score function of the PSO scenario defined in column 3 of Table 5.1 (and
displayed in Figure 5.3a), Mask1 is used to enforce a peak sidelobe power of –25 dB in the
u-space region |u| > 0.3420. In [63], u = cosθ, thus the corresponding elevation angle
region is defined as 110o < θ < 70o. Also using Mask1, the upper limit on the mainlobe
ripple is defined as 0 dB in the region |u| < 0.3420 (or 70o < θ < 110o). Using Mask2 the
104
0 0
Mask1 Mask1
-5 Mask2 Mask2
-10
-10
-20
-15
-20 -30
-25
-40
-30
-50
-35
-40 -60
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
u u
(a) (b)
Figure 5.3. Sector beam mask score functions detailed in Table 5.1 for (a) PSO (b) GA.
lower limit of the mainlobe ripple is set as –0.5 dB in the region |u| < 0.2079 (or 78o < θ <
102o) and the lower limit in the sidelobe region |u| > 0.2079 is set to –200 dB (not shown).
For the mask score function of the GA scenario defined by column 2 of Table 5.1 (and
displayed in Figure 5.3b), Mask1 is used to enforce a sidelobe power taper in the u-space
region |u| > 0.15 defined by the straight-line equation,
SLL(dB) = −29.4 | u | −25.6, 0.15 ≤ | u | ≤ 1 (5.2)
This tapering of the sidelobes is to ensure that the sidelobes far from the main beam are
well-behaved. In [59], u = sinθ, thus the corresponding elevation angle region is defined as
| θ | > 8.6269o. Also using Mask1, the upper limit on the mainlobe ripple is defined as 0
dB in the region |u| < 0.15 (or | θ | < 8.6269o). Using Mask2 the lower limit of the mainlobe
ripple is set as –3 dB in the region |u| < 0.1 (or | θ | < 5.7392o) and the lower limit in the
sidelobe region |u| > 0.1 is set to –200 dB (not shown).
The “don’t exceed” criterion only considers those samples which exceed the bounds set
by the two mask functions, Mask1 and Mask2, respectively. These two masks are
compared to the far-field power pattern by creating two square errors computed as the
difference between angles ui and uj (of size NI and NJ) sampled from u which violate the
mask functions. The result is added together and normalized by the total number of
samples, Ntot used for sampling u-space. If at some iteration the array pattern is within both
boundaries defined by the two masks the total score is zero and is considered an optimal
105
solution. With this score formulation, the locations of sidelobe maxima and nulls are not
considered since it is often desired that the sidelobe and nulls just satisfy the mask. The
“don’t exceed” criterion is generally preferred to directly comparing each sample of the
pattern one by one since this tends to maximize nulls while simultaneously minimizing
sidelobes, resulting in poor solutions. The “don’t exceed” criterion neither penalizes nor
rewards those samples within the specified limits. Additionally, the errors are computed
with both the far-field pattern and mask quantities defined in decibels. This helps to
accentuate the differences between the two terms towards the end of the CE procedure.
The scenario presented in [63] is solved using the continuous form of the Cross Entropy
method to synthesize a sector beam pattern with strict mainlobe ripple and constant
sidelobes. The array under consideration is an asymmetric, z-axis array with uniform
spacing d = 0.5λ as shown in Figure 5.4. The goal is to determine the complex weights of
the array defined by w = [w1 w2 … wN] to produce a sector beam pattern subject to the
constraints of column 3 in Table 5.1. The far-field magnitude of this array is defined as,
EP(u ) N
FF ( u ) = ∑ wn exp[− jk (n − 1)du]
FFmax n =1
(5.3)
where,
wn = Complex valued weight of element n
d = Spacing between elements = 0.5λ
u = cosθ, 0o < θ < 180o with 500 equally spaced samples between u = [–1, 1]
FFmax = Peak value of far-field pattern
The weight wn of element n is complex valued with amplitude an and phase e jδ n ,
wn = an e jδ n , 0 < an, –π < δn < π (5.4)

As a result, there are 2N total variables for optimization.
Additionally, the u-space locations of the mask boundaries are also included in the
sampling plan.
106
TABLE 5.2. CE DESIGN PARAMETERS
FOR SECTOR BEAM SCENARIO OF [63]

α Smoothing Parameter for Mean 1
α Smoothing Parameter for Variance 0.3
a Limits on Amplitude [0,1]
b Limits on Phase [–π, π]
μ(0) Initial Means of Amplitudes 0.5
μ(0) Initial Means of Phases 0
σ2(0) Initial Variances of Amplitude & Phase 1
θ
z
d
w1 w2 … w20
FF
Figure 5.4. z-axis uniform array with spacing d = 0.5λ for sector beam synthesis problem. The formulation
of (5.3) assumes that the incident wave is traveling in +z.
The CE design parameters for this scenario are presented in Table 5.2. This particular
problem is quite pathological since the dimensionality is high and the feasible region is
large. As a result, a low smoothing constant of 0.3 was required for the variance to prevent
the procedure from converging to a unit mass prematurely and degenerating to a
suboptimal solution. This was the largest smoothing coefficient which consistently
resulted in a successful procedure. A smoothing constant of 1 for the mean removed the
smoothing of the mean from the procedure. Additionally, the variance was kept small to
contain the initial sampling of the candidate population to the feasible region. From
experience, if the initial variance was large, then no choice of smoothing would result in a
successful procedure. For this problem, it would not matter if the upper limit on the
amplitude excitation was chosen as 1, 10, 100 or even higher, but choices greater than one
107
would be wasteful since the array factor is normalized for all candidate solutions and the
same result would be observed regardless; however, as a minimum the upper limit must be
set equal to 1. The range of possible phases is cyclical in 2π and the limit was set between
[–π, π] to be consistent with the array definition of (5.3). Obviously, one could just as
easily set this limit as [0, 2π] and achieve the same result. Limiting the range to [0, π] may
still result in a successful procedure, but increases the difficulty of optimization. The
choice of population size and elite sample parameter were kept consistent with the results
of the parametric study on thinned arrays performed in Chapter 4 and represent a
compromise between speed of convergence and accuracy.
The scenario presented in [59] is also solved using the continuous form of the Cross
Entropy method to synthesize a sector beam pattern with a relaxed mainlobe ripple of –3
dB and tapered sidelobes subject to (5.2). The array under consideration is a symmetric, x-
axis array with uniform spacing d = 0.5λ as shown in Figure 5.5. The goal is to determine
the complex weights of the array defined by w = [w–N/2 w–1 w1 … wN/2] to produce a sector
beam pattern subject to the constraints of column 2 in Table 5.1. The far-field magnitude
of this array is defined as,
EP ( u ) N / 2
FF (u ) = 2∑ wn cos ( k ⋅ ( n − 0.5 ) d ⋅ u ) (5.5)
FFmax n =1
where,

u = sinθ, –90o < θ < 90o with 500 equally spaced samples between u = [–1, 1]
Since the array is symmetric and contains 40 elements, the total number of optimization
variables is 2N/2 = 40, which is the same number as the previous scenario.
The CE design parameters for this scenario are presented in Table 5.3. This problem was
quite difficult to solve and required an extremely low smoothing constant of 0.04, which
was the lowest smoothing constant of any scenario considered in this work. All other CE
parameters were the same as in the previous section.
108
FOR SECTOR BEAM SCENARIO OF [59]

a Limits on Amplitude [0,1]
μ(0) Initial Means of Amplitudes 0.5
μ(0) Initial Means of Phases 0
z
θ
x
d
w–N/2
… w w1 … w
–1 N/2
FF
Figure 5.5. x-axis uniform array with spacing d = 0.5λ for sector beam synthesis problem.
To determine average tendencies of the CE procedure for the scenario presented in [63]
concerning PSO, 50 trials were performed. For each trial the stopping criterion was set to
the point when the maximum variance was less than eps = 2.2204x10–16 as defined by
MATLAB, or when the total number of iterations exceeded 2000. Overall, only 7 trials
failed to reach a value of zero within 2000 iterations corresponding to an 86% success rate.
For the overwhelming majority of trials, the procedure was terminated when the number of
iterations reached the limit of 2000. For those trials which did satisfy the mask score, the
best population score reached zero on average in 445 iterations and the mean population
reached zero on average in 553 iterations. The best population score of the overall best
performing trial reached zero in 115 iterations and the mean population score in 214
iterations. Also, of those samples which satisfied the mask score, the best population score
of 10 trials reached zero between 1137 and 1447 iterations. So, of the remaining 33 trials
109
Number of Iterations for
Number of Successful Trials Best Sample to Reach Zero
50 50
40 40
Number of Trials
Number of Trials
Maximum Number
30 30
of Trials Performed Maximum Number
= 50 of Successful Trials
20 20 = 43 Avg No.
Iterations:
10 158
10
0 0
Unsuccessful Successful 1137 to 1447 < 427
Figure 5.6. Bar graph indicating the breakdown of convergence for current scenario. The number of
unsuccessful trials is the number of trials which did not reach zero within 2000 iterations. Success is defined
as a trial which achieved a score of zero within 2000 iterations.
(or 66% of the time), the procedure reached zero within a maximum of 427 iterations with
the average best population score converging within 158 iterations and the average
population score in 275 iterations. These results are detailed in Figure 5.6 through Figure
5.8.
Of note in Figure 5.7 is the wild variations in the overall mean population score of the
best performing trial marked by the green dotted line once the best score in the population
goes to zero. This phenomenon is also observed in the average results of the top 33 fastest
trials shown in Figure 5.8. These fluctuations occur when the elite samples of the
population score become zero valued. At this point, the variance is extremely small. The
proportion between the current best estimates and the previous solutions is not as
exaggerated as it once was at the beginning of the optimization procedure.
In the case of the top 43 or top 50 trials, the average convergence score is dominated by
the large number of iterations required by the 10 trials which reached zero between 1137
and 1447 iterations and the 7 trials which did not reach zero in 2000 iterations. These 17
trials degenerated to a unit mass much faster than the other 33 trials, which is apparent in
Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8 since the best and mean population scores are equal for t > 200.
Generally, it was the variance of the amplitude weights which degenerated too quickly,
with the maximum variance of all weights eclipsing 1x10-15 typically within 1000
iterations. Figure 5.9 depicts the resulting sector beam pattern of the best performing trial
along with a close-up view of the mainlobe ripple and plots of the amplitude and phase
110
weights for each element of the array which produced the sector pattern. Table 5.4
provides the numerical values of the complex weights for the best performing trial at the
2000th iteration. Also, Figure 5.12 depicts the progression of the amplitude and phase
weights for the best performing trial, with Figure 5.13 and Figure 5.14 displaying the mean
and variance of the Gaussian distribution for the phase and amplitude weights. Overall,
there were 43 successful trials resulting in 43 unique solutions for this scenario.
2
10
0
10
-2
10
Score (dB)
-4
10
-6
10
Average Mean
Average Best
10
-8 Overall Mean
Overall Best
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.7. Convergence Curves for best and mean scores of population over 50 trials. Plotted are the
number.
0
10 All 50 trials
-5
10
Score (dB)
-10
10 Top 33 trials,
Convergence Top 43 trials
Average Mean
trend 66 % of
Average Best
the time
-15
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.8. Convergence curves of different convergence groupings. Pictured are the convergence curves
for the top 33 performing trials, top 43 performing trials and all 50 trials.
111
TABLE 5.4. COMPLEX SECTOR PATTERN WEIGHTS AT FINAL ITERATION
Element Phase Weights (deg) Amplitude Weights (V)
No. Best Mean Std Best Mean Std
1 -151.7939 13.823 156.6945 0.2187 0.174 0.0796
2 -111.2995 -0.2551 129.6628 0.2444 0.1806 0.0922
3 -70.8467 3.1668 87.9531 0.3079 0.2548 0.1075
4 -39.5327 0.8361 53.8617 0.5663 0.4041 0.1503
5 -19.1057 -0.4867 34.0167 0.7697 0.5945 0.1619
6 -4.176 -1.4577 20.9225 0.8669 0.7006 0.1607
7 22.2321 0.7114 36.7701 0.8087 0.6849 0.1677
8 53.5401 -0.0645 57.4671 0.7606 0.6814 0.1461
9 83.6 2.7748 85.6638 0.9415 0.7862 0.1706
10 93.3244 1.3236 99.6731 0.9866 0.8988 0.1569
11 84.7882 -1.6215 97.1837 0.8602 0.8966 0.1876
12 56.0312 -1.8469 81.0514 0.7093 0.7725 0.1773
13 14.7078 -3.5221 51.8563 0.7361 0.6883 0.1101
14 -11.8848 -2.2434 26.1993 0.8426 0.7198 0.1161
15 -29.0528 -1.3756 22.5652 0.7835 0.7367 0.1307
16 -48.1885 -1.0712 33.4882 0.5969 0.6248 0.1597
17 -89.476 -0.157 54.1955 0.3637 0.4254 0.1486
18 -125.2066 -0.0276 88.8438 0.2639 0.2572 0.1101
19 -151.4297 1.5843 120.9056 0.2445 0.1726 0.0969
20 -176.8908 5.9907 154.8883 0.1549 0.1799 0.0858
0
0
-1
-5 -2
-0.2 0 0.2
Phase Weights (deg) Amplitude Weights (V)

-10 1
100
0
-15 0.5
-100
-20 -200 0
5 10 15 20 0 10 20
Element No. Element No.
-25
-30
-35
-40
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos θ
Figure 5.9. Sector beam pattern of best performing trial for scenario of [63] at the 2000th iteration. Insets:
Close-up of ripple in mainlobe region of sector beam pattern, phase weights (deg) of best performing trial and
amplitude weights (V) of best performing trial. The complex weight values are given in Table 5.4.
112
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos θ
Figure 5.10. Sector beam patterns of all 50 trials plotted for the final iteration of the optimization procedure.
150 1
100
0.8
50
0.6
0
0.4
-50
-100 0.2
-150
0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
(a) (b)
Figure 5.11. Mean of (a) phase and (b) amplitude weights of all 50 trials. The error bars represent the
standard deviation of each weight over all 50 trials. The numerical values are presented in Table 5.4.
113
1
Amplitude Weights (V)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
100
50
Phase Weights (deg)
-50
-100
-150
-200
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.12. Progression of amplitude and phase weights of the best performing trial for scenario of [63].
100
Mean (deg) of Gaussian pdf
50
for Phase Weights
-50
-100
-150
-200
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
0
10
Variance of Gaussian pdf
for Phase Weights
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.13. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for phase weights of best performing
trial for scenario of [63]. The best performer was terminated after 2000 iterations. Clearly the maximum
variance was greater than eps; however, the mean population score was zero valued since the 214th iteration.
114
1
Mean (V) of Gaussian pdf
0.8
for Amplitude Weights
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
0
10
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.14. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for amplitude weights of best
performing trial for scenario of [63]. The best performer was terminated after 2000 iterations. Clearly the
maximum variance was greater than eps; however, the mean population score was zero valued since the 214th
iteration.
115
To determine average tendencies of the CE procedure for the GA scenario of [59], 50
trials were again performed. For each trial the stopping criterion was set to the point when
the maximum variance was less than eps = 2.2204x10–16 as defined by MATLAB, or when
the best and mean population scores were equal to zero, or when the total number of
iterations exceeded 10,000. For this scenario, canceling the procedure after the best and
mean population scores equaled zero was necessary because of the extremely low
smoothing coefficient. Otherwise, the 50 trials would take a long time to compute without
increasing our knowledge of the CE method. Either way, any trial that results in a score of
zero is successful, so there is no real need to continue further. Overall, only 2 trials failed
to reach a value of zero within 10,000 iterations corresponding to a 96% success rate. For
the overwhelming majority of trials, the procedure was terminated when the best and mean
population scores equaled zero. For those trials which did satisfy the mask score, the best
population score reached a zero value on average in 1684 iterations and the average
population within 2425 iterations. The best population score of the overall best performing
trial reached zero in 1374 iterations with the mean population score reaching zero in 2545
iterations. Also, of those samples which satisfied the mask score, 1 trial had a best
population score reach zero value in 3708 iterations. So, of the remaining 47 trials (or 94%
of the time), the best population sample reached a value of zero within a maximum of 2123
iterations with the average best population score reaching zero within 1641 iterations and
the average mean population score in 2423 iterations. These results are detailed in Figure
5.15 through Figure 5.17.
Number of Iterations for

Number of Successful Trials Best Sample to Reach Zero
50 50
40 40
Number of Trials
Number of Trials
30 Maximum Number 30
of Trials Performed Maximum Number
of Successful Trials Avg No.
= 50
20 20 = 48 Iterations:
1641
10 10
0 0
Unsuccessul Successful = 3708 < 2123
Figure 5.15. Bar graph indicating the breakdown of convergence for current scenario. The number of
unsuccessful trials is the number of trials which did not reach zero in 10,000 iterations and success was
deemed as a trial which achieved a score of zero.
116
The success rate here is higher mostly because of the decreased smoothing constant.
This also contributes to the decreased fluctuations of the average population score once the
elite samples reach zero. In the previous section the smoothing constant was set to 0.3 to
improve the speed of convergence, but for this scenario was set to 0.04 to ensure a
successful procedure. Both scenarios presented are of the same dimensionality, but require
a much different parameterization in order to achieve a successful procedure.
0
10
-5
Score (dB)
10
-10
10
Average Mean
Average Best
Overall Mean
Overall Best
-15
10
0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.16. Convergence curves for best and mean scores of population over 50 trials. Plotted are the
number.
0
10
-5
Score (dB)
10
-10
10 Top 47 trials,
Convergence
Average Mean trend 94 % of
Average Best the time
-15
10
0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.17. Convergence curves of different convergence groupings. Pictured are the convergence curves
for the top 47 performing trials and all 50 trials.
117
TABLE 5.5. COMPLEX SECTOR PATTERN WEIGHTS AT FINAL ITERATION
(+/–) Element Phase Weights (deg) Amplitude Weights (V)
1 139.89 24.7203 101.0184 0.9982 0.9991 0.0012
2 137.9864 24.3665 99.729 0.9962 0.9959 0.0056
3 133.8341 23.1672 95.2446 0.9525 0.9433 0.017
4 125.1589 20.902 86.394 0.8685 0.8468 0.0223
5 110.6624 17.3806 73.6241 0.7663 0.7509 0.0159
6 93.3383 13.0452 58.2069 0.7126 0.6947 0.0248
7 74.6218 8.6583 44.4219 0.7076 0.6987 0.0415
8 57.5782 4.804 36.374 0.7666 0.7477 0.0507
9 45.452 1.8769 34.2362 0.8129 0.8123 0.0497
10 35.8408 -0.3094 35.4348 0.8308 0.8631 0.0437
11 28.3785 -2.0398 37.6724 0.8592 0.8837 0.0348
12 23.1039 -3.4552 40.1232 0.8261 0.866 0.0249
13 18.9306 -4.8325 42.819 0.7537 0.8101 0.0225
14 15.1053 -6.1985 45.9629 0.6502 0.7238 0.0262
15 9.9054 -7.5436 49.4953 0.5352 0.6213 0.0297
16 3.551 -9.0169 53.6026 0.4109 0.5088 0.0326
17 -7.0833 -10.8571 59.5231 0.282 0.3952 0.0346
18 -28.2029 -14.1976 71.096 0.2141 0.2913 0.029
19 -47.7053 -19.2436 90.0122 0.1564 0.2071 0.0253
20 -54.1572 -22.5528 104.6012 0.0604 0.0967 0.0166
0
150 1
100
-10
50
0.5
0
-50
-20
-100 0
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
-30
-40
-50
-60
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = sinθ
Figure 5.18. Sector beam pattern of best performing trial for scenario of [59] at the 2545th iteration. Insets:
Phase weights (deg) of best performing trial and amplitude weights (V) of best performing trial. The complex
weight values are given in Table 5.5.
118
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = sinθ
Figure 5.19. Sector beam patterns of all 50 trials plotted for the final iteration of the optimization procedure.
1
150
100 0.8
50
0.6
0
0.4
-50
-100 0.2
-150
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(a) (b)
Figure 5.20. Mean of (a) phase and (b) amplitude weights of all 50 trials. The error bars represent the
standard deviation of each weight over all 50 trials. The numerical values are detailed in Table 5.5.
119
1

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
No. Iterations
200
150
Phase Weights (deg)
100
50
-50
-100
-150
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
No. Iterations
Figure 5.21. Progression of amplitude and phase weights of the best performing trial for scenario of [59].
150
Mean (deg) of Gaussian pdf
100
for Phase Weights
50
-50
-100
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
No. Iterations
0
10
for Phase Weights
-5
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.22. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for phase weights of best performing
trial for scenario of [59].
120
1
Mean (V) of Gaussian pdf

0.8

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
No. Iterations
0
10
-2
10
-4
10
-6
10
-8
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.23. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for amplitude weights of best
performing trial for scenario of [59].
Of all the scenarios addressed in this work, this particular scenario was the most difficult
to optimize. The sidelobe taper is quite strict and as a result the amplitude distribution
shown in Figure 5.18 is similar to that presented in [59]. The phase distribution is quite
different due mostly to the fact that the phase range was limited to [0, π] in the reference,
but also because the locations of sidelobe maxima and nulls were not specified.
Overall, the CE method was able to successfully optimize the sector beam patterns of the
two scenarios. It is possible to use alternative scoring functions based on measuring the
peak sidelobe power, ripple and beamwidth; however, the mask score function is a bit
stricter and tends to provides better results. The convergence of the CE method appears to
be better than the results presented in the literature, although the details of convergence
were not rigorous, so it is left up to interpretation.
A direct comparison to the results of [59] can not be reported since the weights are
reported visually, no numeric or visual convergence information is reported and only the
optimized radiation pattern is displayed; however by visual inspection the array patterns
121
computed using both CE and GA satisfy the masks. In [63], the weights are reported
visually; however, by visual inspection of the convergence information the procedure
converged within approximately 1000 iterations. With a swarm size of 20, this corresponds
to 20,000 performance evaluations. In comparison to CE, the average number of iterations
for convergence (as shown in Figure 5.6 through Figure 5.8) was about 445 iterations with
a 86% success rate. With a population size of 100, the number of performance evaluations
was 44,500 which is almost twice as many as the PSO algorithm; however, the best overall
performer required 115 iterations or 11,500 performance evaluations which nearly half as
much.
5.3 ARRAY FAILURE CORRECTION
There exist two main types of array failure correction problems:

1.) Array performance is degraded by the introduction of outside interference sources
such as jamming signals in radar or competing mobile users in cellular telephone
systems. Array failure correction schemes are implemented to remove the
contribution of these interferers from the received signal.
2.) Mechanical array element failure can occur with either complete element failure
(where the current excitation applied to an element is zero valued) or partial failure,
which can take the form of either reduced current excitation at a given element or
perhaps bit errors in the phase shifter of an element.
The goal of this scenario is to consider the latter. In the event that an array element fails
mechanically, it is possible to adjust the amplitude and phase weights of the remaining
elements in the array to correct the damaged radiation pattern and restore it to an optimal
state. Specifically, two traditional amplitude tapers are considered for correction:
1.) Dolph-Chebyshev 2.) Taylor
Previously, array failure correction was considered by Mailloux [67]–[69] utilizing
digital beamforming arrays to combat interfering sources. Additionally, Peters [70]
employed the conjugate gradient method to correct mechanical element failures. Zainud-
Deen et. al. [71] used the orthogonal method for the same problem with Levitas et. al. [72]
introducing a practical, suboptimal compensation technique. Recently, the Genetic
122
Algorithm [73]–[76] and Simulated Annealing [77] have been used for correcting
mechanical element failures of both linear and planar arrays.
5.3.1 PROBLEM SETUP
First, the complete double element failure of a thirty-two element asymmetric, z-axis,
Dolph-Chebyshev weighted, uniformly spaced linear array is considered. This scenario is
inspired by the work presented in [73]. The goal is to determine the amplitude weights of
the array defined by w = [w1, 0, w3, w4, 0, w6 … wN] to restore the peak sidelobe power of a
damaged Dolph-Chebyshev array to an original value of –35 dB in the presence of
complete element failures at elements 2 and 5 (i.e., w2 = w5 = 0) by using only the
remaining element weights w1, w3, w4, w6,…, wN .
The far-field magnitude of this array is defined as,
EP(u ) N
FF ( u ) = ∑ wn exp[ jk (n − 1)du ]
FFmax n =1
(5.6)
where,
wn = Complex valued weight of element n, valued between 0 and 1
The weight wn of element n is an amplitude-only weight an applied linearly to the array,
wn = an , 0 < an, (5.7)
As a result, there are N–2 total variables for optimization.
The work presented in [73] employs complex weight synthesis to restore the damaged
array; however, this is not required and just increases computational complexity. The same
result can be accomplished with amplitude-only weights, simplifying the problem greatly.
The Dolph-Chebyshev array is a uniformly-spaced, non-uniformly weighted array design
method for producing sidelobe powers of constant height [54]. The score function
employed is the “don’t exceed” square error criterion defined as,
NI
∑ (| FF (u ) | − Mask (ui ) )
1 2
Score = i
2
(5.8)
N tot i =1
123
Chebyshev Taylor
0 0

-10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40
-50 -50
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
u = cos θ u = cos θ
(a) (b)
Figure 5.24. Original Dolph-Chebyshev and Taylor array patterns before element failure and mask score
functions used for correcting the damaged pattern.
where, Mask is an upper bound on the array factor enforcing a peak sidelobe power of
–35 dB in the u-space region |u| > 0.1 representing the first null location of the Dolph-
Chebyshev array. The mainlobe region is defined as the u-spaced region |u| < 0.1. In this
region, Mask is valued as 0 dB so that the mainlobe does not contribute to the calculation
of (5.8). The score function is computed using the samples ui of size NI which exceed
Mask and is normalized by the total number of samples Ntot used to sample u-space. Figure
5.24 depicts both the original Dolph-Chebyshev array pattern and the mask score function
used to restore the pattern. As can be seen from Figure 5.24, the sidelobes of the Dolph-
Chebyshev pattern are of a constant height. One could argue the use of a score function
based on the maximum sidelobe power of the pattern defined as,
Score = max | FF (u ) |2 , | u | ≥ 0.1 (5.9)
However, the mask score function enforces a stricter beamwidth constraint on the
restored pattern and also tends to provide overall better results.
The CE design parameters for this scenario are presented in Table 5.6. The corrected
array weight of element n is continuously defined on the interval 0 < wn < 1, therefore the
continuous form of CE is required. The initial means of the corrected array weights were
set to the original Dolph-Chebyshev array weights computed using MATLAB’s chebwin
function available in the Signal Processing Toolbox. The idea behind this is to assume that
array elements 2 and 5 have just failed, and the CE method is employed to transform the
remaining element weights from their current state and to a state where the sidelobe power
of the radiation pattern has been restored. The peak sidelobe power of the original pattern
124
TABLE 5.6. CE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR DOUBLE ELEMENT
FAILURE DOLPH-CHEBYSHEV ARRAY SCENARIO
K Number of Samples 100
a Limits on Amplitude Weights [0,1]
μ(0) Initial Means of Amplitudes wcheb
σ2(0) Initial Variances of Amplitudes 1
is quite strict and with the failure of two elements, two degrees of freedom have been
removed from the optimization procedure. Therefore, a lower smoothing constant of 0.5
for the variance is required to ensure consistent performance. The smoothing constant of
the mean is set to 1 to help counteract any decrease in convergence speed introduced by the
lower smoothing constant for the variance. The population size and elite sample parameter
are kept consistent with the results of the thinned array scenario in Chapter 4 and represent
a trade-off between speed of convergence and accuracy.
Next, the results of the Chebyshev correction scenario are extended to consider the
double element failure of another classic array design method produced by Taylor [54].
Where the Dolph-Chebyshev array represents the minimum possible beamwidth for a given
sidelobe power, Taylor weighted array patterns represent an optimal compromise between
sidelobe power and beamwidth. A subset of the sidelobes near the mainlobe of the
radiation pattern maintains a constant height much like that of the Dolph-Chebyshev array;
however, the sidelobes far from the mainlobe follow the monotonic tapering of the uniform
array. This results in an array pattern which is more efficient than the Dolph-Chebyshev
array and also one that is practical to implement.
The implementation of the CE optimization procedure is exactly the same as the previous
section. The mask score function of the 32 element Taylor weighted array is shown in
Figure 5.24. The number of constant sidelobes near the mainlobe is 4 with maximum
sidelobe power of –30 dB. The –30 dB peak sidelobe power was specified to account for
the tapering towards the ends of u-space, so that the sidelobe peak (on average) straddled
–35 dB. The weights for the Taylor array were determined using MATLAB’s taylorwin
function. For this particular scenario, the mask score function is well served to enforce the
125
envelope of the Taylor pattern in the sidelobe region. The mask function was created by
first locating the peaks of all the sidelobes in the u-space region 0.1 < |u| < 1, then a spline
interpolant with the same sampling rate as u-space was used to connect the sidelobe peaks.
This interpolation was implemented with help from MATLAB’s spline command.
In order to determine average tendencies of the CE method for the Dolph-Chebyshev

scenario of [73], 100 independent trials were performed. The stopping criterion was set as
the point when the maximum variance of all corrected array weights eclipsed the value eps
= 2.2204x10–16 set by MATLAB or when the total number of iterations exceeded 2000.
The results of the CE optimization procedure are depicted in Figure 5.25 through Figure
5.30 as well as Table 5.7 and Table 5.8. Figure 5.25 depicts the corrected array patterns of
all 100 trials. The first inset in the figure depicts the mean of the corrected array weights
for all 100 trials with error bars indicating the standard deviation of each weight for all
trials. Figure 5.26 presents the best performing trial versus the original Dolph-Chebyshev
array. The numerical results of both Figure 5.25 and Figure 5.26 are detailed in Table 5.7
and Table 5.8. The peak sidelobe power of the original Dolph-Chebyshev array was –35
dB in the sidelobe region |u| > 1. In Table 5.7, the average peak sidelobe power of the
corrected pattern is –28 dB. This value is defined on the mainlobe of the corrected pattern.
In terms of the first null beamwidth (FNBW) of the corrected pattern, the average peak
sidelobe power was –33.2783 dB which is about 5% higher than the original array. The
overall best performing trial was not too different than the average solution considering the
peak sidelobe power was –28.2 dB on the mainlobe and –33.3 dB in the sidelobe region of
the corrected array. In terms of beamwidth, the corrected pattern had an average FNBW of
12.61o compared to the 11.54o of the original array, which corresponds to an increase of
9.3%. Ultimately, these results represent a trade-off between beamwidth and peak sidelobe
power. To achieve a low sidelobe power one must allow for an increase in beamwidth.
For all 100 trials, the procedure was stopped by the maximum variance condition and not
the cap on number of iterations. Given this stopping condition, the average number of
iterations required for termination was 688. This means that for the constraints given in
Table 5.6 it takes (on average) 688 iterations for the CE method to converge to a unit mass.
126
TABLE 5.7. MEASURABLES FOR DOUBLE ELEMENT CHEBYSHEV FAILURE SCENARIO
Peak Sidelobe Power (dB) Beamwidth (deg)
Corrected Corrected
Original Original
Average Best Average Best
|u| = 0.1 |u| > FNBW |u| = 0.1 |u| > FNBW |u| > 0.1
12.6115 12.404 11.537
–28.0222 –33.2783 –28.1993 –33.2953 –35
0 Mean Corrected Weights MASK

Failed Weights Damaged Array
-5 Original Weights Restored Patterns
Array Weights (V) of all 100 Trials
1
-10 Close-up of FNBW
-30
-15
0.5 -35
-20 -40
0
-25 0 10 20 30 -45
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Element No.
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos θ
Figure 5.25. Plot of corrected array pattern of original Dolph-Chebyshev weighted array with peak sidelobe
power of –35 dB for all 100 trials. Inset 1: Mean of corrected weights for all 100 trials versus original array
weights. Error bars indicate standard deviation of each weight for all 100 trials. Inset 2: Close-up of the first
null beamwidth region of corrected patterns for all 100 trials.
Given this combination of smoothing coefficients for this scenario, the CE method is
more likely to degenerate to a unit mass than the lower smoothing constants used in the
sector beam scenarios presented earlier, for example. As discussed previously in the
background chapter on Cross Entropy, the degeneration of the method to a unit mass gives
a high probability of being in a small neighborhood of the optimal solution and by
smoothing sufficiently slow the accuracy of the solution is also high.
Overall the minimum number of iterations for convergence was 560 iterations and the
maximum number was 877. The number of iterations required by the best performing trial
127
TABLE 5.8. ORIGINAL AND CORRECTED WEIGHTS FOR
DOUBLE ELEMENT CHEBYSHEV FAILURE SCENARIO
Corrected Using CE
Element No. Original Corrected Using GA of [73]
Best Mean Std
1 0.2503 0.023 0.0207 0.0034 0.05154031-0.01497736j
2 0.1774 0 0 - 0
3 0.2341 0.1256 0.114 0.0109 0.12233283-0.00771323j
4 0.2976 0.2049 0.1924 0.0102 0.17110660+0.00158334j
5 0.3669 0 0 - 0
6 0.4406 0.3026 0.289 0.0122 0.28477727-0.02154652j
7 0.517 0.3201 0.3026 0.0147 0.35062150-0.03180481j
8 0.5943 0.41 0.3839 0.0226 0.47318948-0.02422230j
9 0.6703 0.4455 0.4293 0.0164 0.49495041-0.02796476j
10 0.7431 0.5425 0.5241 0.0191 0.59820219-0.01922468j
11 0.8103 0.623 0.6045 0.0193 0.65812510-0.02042224j
12 0.87 0.7103 0.6882 0.0219 0.74010398-0.01792784j
13 0.9202 0.7801 0.7605 0.0222 0.79391671-0.02261699j
14 0.9594 0.8422 0.8263 0.0233 0.85219414-0.02424158j
15 0.9863 0.8918 0.8799 0.0238 0.88666918-0.02359771j
16 1 0.9315 0.9221 0.0234 0.91229164-0.02095085j
17 1 0.9578 0.951 0.0222 0.91895081-0.01467082j
18 0.9863 0.9698 0.9661 0.0219 0.91147812-0.01211285j
19 0.9594 0.9665 0.9661 0.0225 0.88486647-0.00492927j
20 0.9202 0.9485 0.9515 0.0234 0.84312000-0.00426408j
21 0.87 0.9158 0.9215 0.0231 0.78781560+0.00141028j
22 0.8103 0.8693 0.8772 0.0217 0.72080771-0.00232503j
23 0.7431 0.8074 0.8176 0.0207 0.64170296+0.00249546j
24 0.6703 0.7321 0.7463 0.0208 0.55892723-0.00069730j
25 0.5943 0.6432 0.6626 0.0221 0.47334602+0.00663294j
26 0.517 0.5555 0.5774 0.021 0.39666461+0.00087765j
27 0.4406 0.4715 0.4893 0.0175 0.31623428+0.00737544j
28 0.3669 0.4129 0.423 0.013 0.25404895+0.00311330j
29 0.2976 0.3603 0.3648 0.0108 0.19345241+0.01158597j
30 0.2341 0.3206 0.3336 0.0129 0.16025616-0.00320436j
31 0.1774 0.2306 0.2514 0.0171 0.10543200-0.01017618j
32 0.2503 0.129 0.1534 0.0181 0.05718009-0.01637797j
was 570. Figure 5.27 depicts the convergence of the mask score function for the average
best and mean population scores as well as the best and mean score of the overall best and
mean score of the overall best performing trial. The average value of a particular iteration
was computed using all remaining score values which had not satisfied the stopping
criterion. There is an increase in the final score values after iteration 650 since those
remaining scores had higher values than the overall average preceding them. What is
128
0
Corrected Weights Corrected Pattern
Failed Elements MASK
-5
Original Weights Chebyshev Array
Weights (V)
-10
1
-15 0.8
0.6
-20
0.4
-25 0.2
0
-30 0 10 20 30
Element No.
-35
-40
-45
-50
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos θ
Figure 5.26. Corrected pattern for best performing trial. Inset: Corrected array weights of best trial versus
original Chebyshev weights.
apparent is that none of the 100 trials resulted in a mask score of zero. The average final
value for the best population score of all trials was computed using the score values at the
stopping criterion iteration and was valued at 0.1984, so to for the mean population score.
This is again a strong indication of the convergence of the procedure to a unit mass. Figure
5.28 illustrates the convergence of the best and mean population scores of five random
trials compared to the average best and mean population scores as shown in Figure 5.27. It
can be seen that these random trials oscillate about the average value with the largest
variance in scores observed along the direction of steepest descent. Figure 5.29 depicts the
progression of the array weights for the best performing trial and Figure 5.30 presents the
progression of the mean and variance of the Gaussian distributions for each weight of the
best performing trial.
129
Average Mean
2
10 Average Best
Overall Mean
Overall Best
1
10
Score
0
10
-1
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.27. Convergence curves for average best and mean population scores as well as that of the best
performing trial shown in Figure 5.26.
2
10 Average
5 Trials
1
10
0
10
-1
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
2
10 Average
5 Trials
1
10
0
10
-1
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
populations scores.
130
1
Corrected Amplitude Weights (V)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2
10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.29. Progression of corrected amplitude weights for the best performing trial.
1
Mean of Gaussian Distribution for
Corrected Amplitude Weights
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2
10 10 10
No. Iterations
0
10
Variance of Gaussian Distribution for
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
0 1 2
10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.30. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for corrected amplitude weights of
131
A comparison between the results achieved by CE and those computed using GA

presented in [73] is difficult because the author used complex weights (given in Table 5.8)
to restore the pattern when it was not necessary; however, for the sake of the argument the
corrected array patterns computed using CE and GA are presented in Figure 5.31.
0
CE
GA
-5
Original
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos θ
Figure 5.31. Comparison of corrected array patterns computed using both the Cross Entropy method and the
Genetic Algorithm of [73].
The best array pattern computed by CE has first sidelobes valued at –33.41 dB which is
higher than those computed by GA, which are valued at –34.9 dB; however, the beamwidth
of the pattern computed using CE is valued at 0.2148 in u-space as opposed to a value of
0.247 in u-space. This is an increase of 15% compared to the pattern computed using CE
and 21% compared to the original array value of 0.2038 in u-space, while using twice the
number of degrees of freedom as the array computed using CE. The population size of the
GA was 100 and the convergence of the solution converges in 200 generations or 20,000
performance evaluations, whereas the CE procedure settles roughly after 100 iterations or
132
10,000 population evaluations; however the GA again was using twice as many variables,
so not much can be inferred from this statement.
Next, the results for the Taylor array pattern are presented. They are quite similar to the
Dolph-Chebyshev results.
TABLE 5.9. MEASURABLES FOR DOUBLE ELEMENT TAYLOR FAILURE SCENARIO

Corrected Corrected
Original Original
Average Best Average Best
|u| = 0.1 |u| > FNBW/2 |u| = 0.1 |u| > FNBW/2 |u| > 0.1
12.3718 12.3694 10.96
–28.1398 –29.5263 –28.8051 –29.9368 –30
0 Mean Corrected Weights MASK

Failed Weights Damaged Array
-5 Original Weights Restored Pattern
Array Weights (V) of all 100 Trials
1
-10 Close-up of FNBW
-25
-15
0.5 -30
-20 -35
0
-25 0 10 20 30 -40
Element No. -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos θ
Figure 5.32. Plot of corrected array pattern of original Taylor weighted array with peak sidelobe power of
–35 dB for all 100 trials. Inset 1: Mean of corrected weights for all 100 trials versus original array weights.
Error bars indicate standard deviation of each weight for all 100 trials. Inset 2: Close-up of the first null
beamwidth region of corrected patterns for all 100 trials.
133
TABLE 5.10. ORIGINAL AND CORRECTED WEIGHTS FOR
DOUBLE ELEMENT TAYLOR FAILURE SCENARIO
Corrected
Element No. Original
Best Mean Std
1 0.2458 0.0138 0.0109 0.0103
2 0.2641 0 0 -
3 0.2994 0.0806 0.0871 0.0115
4 0.3493 0.1155 0.1203 0.01
5 0.4105 0 0 -
6 0.4795 0.2069 0.2186 0.0161
7 0.5526 0.2661 0.295 0.0256
8 0.6266 0.3475 0.3751 0.0348
9 0.6988 0.3954 0.4295 0.0369
10 0.7667 0.4686 0.5007 0.0369
11 0.8286 0.5362 0.5768 0.0361
12 0.883 0.6298 0.6565 0.034
13 0.9283 0.7144 0.7384 0.0319
14 0.9636 0.7821 0.8124 0.0311
15 0.9877 0.8443 0.877 0.0301
16 1 0.898 0.9239 0.0281
17 1 0.9322 0.9575 0.0263
18 0.9877 0.958 0.9768 0.0247
19 0.9636 0.9728 0.9823 0.0218
20 0.9283 0.9731 0.9767 0.0235
21 0.883 0.9534 0.954 0.0255
22 0.8286 0.9126 0.9135 0.0284
23 0.7667 0.8619 0.8539 0.0288
24 0.6988 0.7953 0.7869 0.029
25 0.6266 0.7118 0.708 0.031
26 0.5526 0.6393 0.6337 0.0366
27 0.4795 0.5698 0.5512 0.0362
28 0.4105 0.5016 0.4885 0.0329
29 0.3493 0.4371 0.4224 0.031
30 0.2994 0.3941 0.3777 0.0292
31 0.2641 0.2993 0.274 0.028
32 0.2458 0.1718 0.1595 0.0209
134
0
Corrected Weights Corrected Pattern
Failed Elements MASK
-5
Original Weights Taylor Array
Amplitude Weight
-10
1
-15 0.8
0.6
-20 0.4
0.2
-25
0
0 10 20 30
-30 Element No.
-35
-40
-45
-50
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos θ
Figure 5.33. Corrected pattern for best performing trial. Inset: Corrected array weights of best trial versus
original Taylor weights.
TABLE 5.11. MEASURABLES FOR CONVERGENCE CURVES OF DOUBLE ELEMENT TAYLOR FAILURE SCENARIO
Average Number of Iterations for Convergence: 716
Iteration
Minimum Number of Iterations for Convergence: 543 Average Final Value of Score: 0.0445
Score
Stats
Stats
Maximum Number of Iterations for Convergence: 937 Final Score of Best Performing Trial: 0.0073
Number of Iterations of Best Performing Trial: 669
135
2 Average Mean
10
Average Best
Overall Mean
Overall Best
1
10
Score
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.34. Convergence curves for average best and mean population scores as well as that of the best
performing trial shown in Figure 5.33.
2
10 Average
5 Trials
0
10
-2
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
2
10 Average
5 Trials
0
10
-2
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
populations scores.
136
1
Corrected Amplitude Weights (V)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2
10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.36. Progression of corrected amplitude weights for the best performing trial.
1
Mean of Gaussian Distribution for
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2
10 10 10
No. Iterations
0
10
Variance of Gaussian Distribution for
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
0 1 2
10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.37. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for corrected amplitude weights of
137
5.4 PHASE-ONLY ARRAY SYNTHESIS
The synthesis of phased array antennas can be performed using amplitude-only, phase-
only or complex (both amplitude and phase) weighting. In the previous sections, the
synthesis of sector beams is an example of pattern synthesis using complex weighting,
whereas the array failure correction problem was an example of amplitude-only weighting.
The emphasis on phase-only synthesis here is important for a number of reasons. First,
typical off-the-shelf phased arrays only posses digital phase shifters at each element. The
amplitude of each array element is fixed and is not available for optimization. The
introduction of dynamic amplitude weighting would require unique array designs, which
are not often available to the practicing engineer. Using phase-only weighting allows
portability of the design to other off-the shelf phased arrays. Second, the practical
implementation of amplitude weights is typically constrained by the feed network and it is
often desired that the amplifiers are operated at their peak power to maximize the total
radiating power of the array, further constraining practical amplitude weights.
In this section, phase-only array pattern synthesis is considered to produce array patterns
with low sidelobe powers for an array with unit amplitude weighting and an array with a
built-in Taylor amplitude taper. In addition to shaping sidelobe powers, phase-only
weighting is used to introduce nulls in the pattern at desired angles. The results of this
section will then be extended in the next section to the design of a switched beam array
where both designs share the same amplitude taper but possess individual phase tapers and
are capable of switching between a sector beam pattern (similar to that presented in Section
5.2) and a narrow mainlobe pencil beam pattern.
5.4.1 PROBLEM SETUP
Phase-only weighting will be used to introduce two nulls into the radiation pattern
located at u = [0.62 0.72] which corresponds to two sidelobe peaks of the original
uniformly weighted, uniformly spaced linear array. This scenario was inspired by the work
presented in [60] concerning the Genetic Algorithm. Here, in addition to null placement
the peak sidelobe power will be shaped subject to the following two score functions:
138
1. Score = ∑ max(| FF (u ) |2 ) (5.10)
i
uui
1
2. Score = ∑ ∫ | FF (u ) |
2
du, Δui = uui − uli (5.11)
i Δui uli
Score function #1 controls the peak sidelobe power of the array pattern. Optimal designs
produced by this score function tend to have sidelobes with a constant height, similar to the
Dolph-Chebyshev weighted arrays discussed previously. Score function #2 is based on the
integration of the array pattern in the sidelobe region [uli, uui] of u-space. The score
represents the area under the curve in the sidelobe region and generally reduces the peak
power of the sidelobes adjacent to the mainbeam and sidelobes far from the mainlobe
follow the envelope of the original uniform array. The locations of sidelobe maxima and
nulls of the original uniform array are preserved to some extent, but may shift in response
to the decrease in peak sidelobe power. By scoring the area under the curve, the null
positions are not included in the score calculation and are not penalized during
optimization. These two score functions can be combined with the null depth at a given
location in u-space defined as,
Score = ∑ | FF (uA ) | , for A = 1, 2,…, Nnull. (5.12)

A
where, Nnull is the number of null locations in the pattern to be optimized. Throughout this
work, the scores are calculated in decibels so that small differences between similar designs
are accentuated during the optimization process, especially towards the end of a run. To
combine either of the two score functions along with associated null depths requires that
both scores be calculated using their linear definitions, summed together and then this
composite score is converted into decibels. Otherwise, the small null depth values will
dominate the composite score function resulting in poor performance.
The array under consideration is an asymmetric, x-axis array with a uniform spacing of d
= 0.5λ as shown in Figure 5.38. The optimization is performed in the elevation plane
corresponding to u = sinθ. The far-field pattern of this array is defined as,
EP(u ) N
FF ( u ) = ∑ wn exp[− jk (n − 1)du ]
FFmax n =1
(5.13)
where,
139
z
θ
x
d
w1 w2 … w40
FF
Figure 5.38. x-axis uniform array with spacing d = 0.5λ for phase-only synthesis problem. The principal
plane for optimization is in elevation resulting in u = sinθ. The formulation of (5.13) assumes that the
incident wave is traveling in +x-z.

wn = Phase-only weight of element n, valued between –π and π
u = sinθ, –90o < θ < 90o with 1000 equally spaced samples between u = [–1, 1]
Weight wn of element n is a phase-only weight with amplitude an = 1 and phase e jδ n ,
wn = 1 ⋅ e jδ n , –π < δn < π (5.14)

As a result, there are N total variables for optimization.
The optimization takes place in the sidelobe region of the original uniform array defined
by the u-space region |u| > λ/Nd = 0.05. This formulation introduces a constraint on the
beamwidth of the optimized array. So, in the case of score function #2, |Δu| = 1 – λ/Nd.
The CE design parameters for this scenario are presented in Table 5.12. The smoothing
parameter was chosen as 0.3 to focus more on the accuracy of the solution than the speed
of convergence. The population size and elite sample parameter were chosen as a tradeoff
between speed of convergence and accuracy. The initial values for the means of the
Gaussian distributions used for sampling the phase weights was set to zero representing the
center of the feasible region of possible phase values. The initial variances were kept low
since the feasible region is cyclical in 2π radians.
140
FOR NULL PLACEMENT SCENARIO

μ(0) Initial Means of Phase 0
σ2(0) Initial Variances of Phase 1
In order to present average tendencies of the CE method for this scenario, 100 trials were
performed for both score functions. The stopping criterion for a single trial was set as the
point when the maximum variance was below eps = 2.2204x10–16 as defined by MATLAB
or if the number of iterations exceeded 2000. Ultimately, every trial was stopped by the
maximum variance condition. The results of the 100 trials are summarized in Table 5.13 to
Table 5.17 as well as Figure 5.39 through Figure 5.54.
The average final score defined in Table 5.13 and Table 5.15 is computed using the final
values of the scores for all trials when each met the stopping criterion. The beamwidth
presented is defined as the first null beam width (FNBW) of the optimized pattern. The
measured peak sidelobe power for the optimized pattern is characterized in terms of both
the sidelobe power at the first null location of the original uniform array (u = 1/Nd) and the
sidelobe power in the u-space region |u| > FNBW/2 of the optimized array. The u-space
locations of the nulls were included in the sampling plan of u-space and the null depths
represent exact values for the optimized patterns. The term ‘best’ indicates the value of the
Overall, the spread of null depth values was greater for score function #1 than for score
function #2 with the minimum null depths for u = 0.62 and 0.72 valued at –67.119 and –
69.3857 dB for score function #1 and –52.2497 and –52.8593 dB for score function #2.
The maximum null depths for u = 0.62 and 0.72 were –35.5885 and –38.1662 dB for score
function #1 and –51.5826 and –52.0167 dB for score function #2. The average null depths
for u = 0.62 and 0.72 were –46.6 and –44.2 dB for score function #1 and –51.8 and –52.3
dB for score function #2. The optimized patterns produced by score function #2 for the
141
100 trials are quite similar to each other as seen in Figure 5.47. The constraint on the
envelope of the optimized pattern for score function #2 limited the variance of resulting
null positions as seen in Figure 5.48. By minimizing the values of the pattern gain at u =
0.62 and 0.72 a symmetric increase in the sidelobe maxima at u = –0.62 and –0.72 was
experienced with an average value of –25.326 and –25.9945, respectively. Overall, the
envelope of the original uniform array is maintained near the mainlobe and towards the end
of u-space along with the locations of sidelobe maxima and nulls. The beamwidth of the
optimized patterns produced by score function #1 had little variance over the 100 trials;
however the sidelobe maxima and null positions were quite varied as seen in Figure 5.39.
Overall, the average peak sidelobe power of the patterns produced by score function #1 was
about –17.5 dB with the average value produced by score function #2 valued at –17.2 dB.
The CE design parameters were chosen to sacrifice speed of convergence for the sake of
accuracy in the solution. This is apparent in the convergence curves of Figure 5.43 and
Figure 5.51. The average score values of these two figures do not vary much towards the
end of the procedure. This demonstrates that first the resulting score values did not vary
wildly and on average converged at about the same times. Although a single trial
converged in 574 iterations for score function #2, this was not the norm and did not
produce the best performer. What is interesting to note is that the best performing trial was
not the fastest trial for either score function, but was slightly greater than the average. Also
of note is the outcome of the procedure for score function #2 depending upon the initial
mean and limits imposed on feasible solutions. The results presented are for a zero mean
initial solution defined for the full range of phase values from –π to π. If one were to start
either score function at say a mean of π/2 for 0 to π, then the resulting phase weights would
be distributed about π/2, with the outcomes nearly the same. One could continue to
decrease the width of the feasible range and still observe similar outcomes. The same can
not be said for score function #1. This decrease in the feasible region can improve
convergence speed.
142
Score Function #1:
TABLE 5.13. MEASURABLES FOR CONVERGENCE CURVES OF NULL PLACEMENT SCENARIO FOR SCORE FUNCTION #1
Iteration
Minimum Number of Iterations for Convergence: 790 Average Final Value of Score: –17.5086
Score
Stats
Stats
Maximum Number of Iterations for Convergence: 1036 Final Score of Best Performing Trial: –17.9661
TABLE 5.14. MEASURABLES OF NULL PLACEMENT SCENARIO FOR SCORE FUNCTION #1

Null Depth (dB)
u = 0.62 u = 0.72
Average Best Average Best Average Best Average Best
|u| = 0.05 |u| > FNBW/2 |u| = 0.05 |u| > FNBW/2
6.3268 6.3211 –46.6451 –47.8584 –44.2182 –46.8316
–17.5262 –17.5262 –17.9821 –17.9821
Score Function #2:
TABLE 5.15. MEASURABLES FOR CONVERGENCE CURVES OF NULL PLACEMENT SCENARIO FOR SCORE FUNCTION #2
Iteration
Minimum Number of Iterations for Convergence: 574 Average Final Value of Score: –22.8044
Score
Stats
Stats
Maximum Number of Iterations for Convergence: 2371 Final Score of Best Performing Trial: –22.8230
TABLE 5.16. MEASURABLES OF NULL PLACEMENT SCENARIO FOR SCORE FUNCTION #2

Null Depth (dB)
u = 0.62 u = 0.72
Average Best Average Best Average Best Average Best
|u| = 0.05 |u| > FNBW/2 |u| = 0.05 |u| > FNBW/2
10.6495 5.8601 –51.7823 –52.0924 –52.2981 –52.8593
–13.2211 –17.2240 –13.2186 –17.7096
143
Score Function #1:
Score Function #1
0
Nulls
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = sinθ
Figure 5.39. (Score Function #1) Plot of optimized phase-only array patterns for all 100 trials.
Score Function #1
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8

u = sinθ
Figure 5.40. (Score Function #1) Close-up of null region. Plotted are the gain patterns and resulting null
positions for all 100 trials.
144
Score Function #1
50
Phase Weights (deg)
-50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Element No.
Figure 5.41. (Score Function #1) Mean of phase-only weights of all 100 trials. Error bars represent the
standard deviation of the weight values over all 100 trials. The values of mean and standard deviation were
calculated with the final iteration of each trial.
Score Function #1
0
Phase Weights (deg) Optimized
100
Original
-5 Nulls
0
-10
-100
0 10 20 30 40
-15 Element No.
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = sinθ
Figure 5.42. (Score Function #1) Plot of best performer of all 100 trials. The two null positions are plotted
as well as the original uniformly array. Inset: Phase-only weights for the best performer at the final iteration.
145
Score Function #1
-6 Average Mean
Average Best
Overall Mean
-8 Overall Best
Score -10
-12
-14
-16
-18
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.43. (Score Function #1) Convergence curves for best and mean score of population over 100 trials.
Plotted are the average best and mean population scores and the overall best and mean score of all trials.
-6 Average
5 Trials
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
-6 Average
5 Trials
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
populations scores.
146
Score Function #1
150
100
Phase Weights (deg)
50
-50
-100
-150
0 1 2
10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.45. (Score Function #1) Progression of phase-only weights for the best performing trial shown in
the inset of Figure 5.42.
100
Mean of Gaussian Distribution
50
for Phase Weights
-50
-100
-150
0 1 2
10 10 10
No. Iterations
0
Variance of Gaussian Distribution
10
for Phase Weights
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
0 1 2
10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.46. (Score Function #1) Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distributions for best
performing trial.
147
Score Function #2:
Score Function #2
0
-10
Nulls
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = sinθ
Figure 5.47. (Score Function #2) Plot of optimized phase-only array patterns for all 100 trials.
Score Function #2
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8
u = sinθ
Figure 5.48. (Score Function #2) Close-up of null region. Plotted are the gain patterns and resulting null
positions for all 100 trials.
148
Score Function #2
15
10
Phase Weights (deg)
-5
-10
-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Element No.
Figure 5.49. (Score Function #2) Mean of phase-only weights of all 100 trials. Error bars represent the
standard deviation of the weight values over all 100 trials. The values of mean and standard deviation were
calculated for the final iteration of each trial.
Score Function #2
0
Phase Weights (deg) Optimized
20 Original
Nulls
-10 0
-20
0 10 20 30 40
Element No.
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = sinθ
Figure 5.50. (Score Function #2) Plot of best performer of all 100 trials. The two null positions are plotted
as well as the original uniformly array. Inset: Phase-only weights for the best performer at the final iteration.
149
Score Function #2
-6
Average Mean
-8 Average Best
Overall Mean
-10 Overall Best
-12
-14
Score
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.51. (Score Function #2) Convergence curves for best and mean score of population over 100 trials.
Plotted are the average best and mean population scores and the overall best and mean score of all trials.
Average
5 Trials
-10
-15
-20
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Average
5 Trials
-10
-15
-20
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
populations scores.
150
Score Function #2
100
Phase Weights (deg)
50
-50
-100
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.53. (Score Function #2) Progression of phase-only weights for the best performing trial shown in
the inset of Figure 5.50.
20
10
for Phase Weights
-10
-20
-30
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
0
10
for Phase Weights
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.54. (Score Function #2) Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distributions for best
performing trial.
151
TABLE 5.17. PHASE-ONLY WEIGHTS (IN DEG)
FOR BEST PERFORMING TRIALS OF NULL PLACEMENT SCENARIO
Element Score Function 1 Score Function 2
1 -4.138 -0.32 15.239 13.3007 -1.0339 7.3262
2 27.7056 4.396 21.6392 19.4034 8.5696 5.8862
3 -73.3071 -5.4187 31.995 6.6206 -4.2421 5.6854
4 85.5928 -13.1328 51.3949 11.8033 -0.3203 6.2198
5 12.762 26.4084 54.5468 15.5274 5.6721 5.3485
6 77.8142 -18.4403 56.1931 7.4301 -2.2883 5.1817
7 -111.2184 7.2997 50.4196 9.8796 0.1502 5.2716
8 -53.3873 2.6076 36.357 11.3983 2.7833 4.8284
9 39.5166 -5.9438 27.6884 7.888 -0.2922 4.6544
10 -17.1049 -0.8456 24.2302 8.0838 0.3801 4.4751
11 11.9344 1.353 16.4942 7.4026 0.2195 4.284
12 13.2064 -0.2476 10.8367 8.088 1.497 4.0842
13 -8.9992 -0.0488 8.757 6.2582 0.3875 3.8389
14 -1.5596 0.1273 7.4397 3.8622 -1.8261 3.7603
15 5.7798 -0.1773 6.8324 7.7289 2.8554 3.5724
16 3.7417 -0.8372 6.7116 4.4094 0.2489 3.387
17 4.3354 -0.2679 5.5442 0.7393 -3.2269 3.3369
18 9.1885 -0.4093 5.1243 6.6913 3.6231 3.1979
19 8.1982 -0.0067 5.1784 2.5584 0.0214 3.1235
20 -0.7147 0.6949 5.2106 -1.6833 -3.9009 3.0946
21 1.4614 0.2433 5.6703 4.9521 3.6878 3.0587
22 6.2591 -0.3213 4.9775 0.7034 -0.2321 3.0702
23 -4.8712 0.0776 4.9244 -3.4159 -3.8345 3.1093
24 2.7308 -0.2959 4.819 2.5094 3.0118 3.1822
25 5.4081 0.393 6.3012 -1.1494 -0.4646 3.229
26 -10.9215 -0.1795 6.5268 -4.457 -3.0678 3.3729
27 1.1612 -0.3125 7.2713 -0.5703 1.612 3.5245
28 -6.0508 0.7853 9.9619 -3.0029 -0.6057 3.5953
29 -3.1955 -1.0445 11.4554 -4.8383 -1.709 3.8178
30 2.7177 0.5583 13.6518 -4.2056 -0.4356 3.9986
31 -1.1971 0.3785 24.0474 -4.7977 -0.5886 4.1667
32 -4.2964 0.8926 31.2001 -4.6924 0.0828 4.3325
33 5.0293 -10.6881 41.4411 -8.1157 -3.0045 4.5277
34 -27.8171 8.4463 59.5939 -6.5293 -0.3703 4.933
35 32.6609 17.9068 59.9896 -4.1075 2.0687 4.8613
36 27.5693 -26.5865 52.197 -12.2819 -5.8926 5.0201
37 13.2069 7.7811 44.3381 -8.4696 0.1173 5.8535
38 -7.88 8.0945 37.707 -3.446 3.9759 5.3314
39 5.3355 -6.0339 23.1166 -16.2051 -8.7768 5.5279
40 -27.9588 1.0427 15.449 -10.2339 0.7772 6.9588
152
5.5 SWITCHED-BEAM ARRAY DESIGN
Here, a switched-beam array design is considered. The design is capable of switching

between a wide beamwidth sector beam pattern and a narrow mainlobe pencil beam
pattern. The key to this scenario is that the two designs share the same amplitude weights,
but use different phase weights. By sharing the same amplitude weights, the element
excitations can be operated at full power, thereby maximizing the total radiated power of
the array. As a result, the element phases are responsible for switching between the beam
patterns. The design process is achieved with complex weight synthesis using both
amplitude and phase weights of each element, but the resulting operational array only
varies phase.
Previously, both the Genetic Algorithm [60] and Particle Swarm Optimization [63] have
been applied to the same problem. The two designs presented in [60] and [63] are similar.
They both enforce the same peak sidelobe power and have the same beamwidths, but the
design in [63] has a stricter mainlobe ripple of –0.5 dB in the mainlobe region of the sector
pattern. For this reason, the design of [63] will be considered here. In fact, the sector beam
design portion of the switched-beam array was addressed individually in Section 5.2.
5.5.1 PROBLEM SETUP
The constraints of the two switched-beam designs are presented in Table 5.18. The score
function employed for satisfying these constraints will be the ‘don’t exceed’ square error
mask score function defined by,
1 ⎡ I
N
(
⎢ ∑ | FF (ui ) | − Mask1(ui ) )
2
Score = 2
N tot ⎣ i =1
(5.15)
NJ
⎤
+ ∑( )
2
| Mask 2(u j ) | − FF (u j ) ⎥
2
j =1 ⎥⎦
where, Ntot is the total number of samples used for sampling u-space, NI is the number of
samples which violate Mask1 and NJ is the number of samples which violate Mask2.
Mask1 is an upper bound on the array factor which controls the sidelobe power, positive
ripple in the angular region of the mainlobe and the outer width of the mainlobe and Mask2
is a lower bound controlling the negative ripple and inner width of the mainlobe. Figure
5.55 depicts the mask score functions of the two designs defined by the pattern parameters
153
TABLE 5.18. PARAMETERS FOR
SWITCHED-BEAM ARRAY DESIGN FROM [62]
Parameter Sector Pencil
N 20 20
SLL (dB) –25 –30
HPBW (deg) 24o 6.4o
BW (deg) at SLL 40o 20o
Ripple (dB) 0.5 N/A
0 0
Mask1 Mask1
-5 Mask2 -5 Mask2
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
-25 -25
-30 -30
-35 -35
-40 -40
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
(a) (b)
Figure 5.55. ‘Don’t exceed’ square error score masks for (a) Sector beam (b) Pencil beam.
in Table 5.21. The composite score function is the weighted summation of the individual
scores,
Score = 10 log10 ( ΔScoreSector + (1 − Δ) ScorePencil ) (5.16)
where, Δ equals 0.5 corresponding to equal weighting between both scores. The resulting
sum is converted to a log scale to help accentuate differences between scores near the end
of the procedure.
The sector beam mask of Figure 5.55b was addressed previously in Section 5.2. For the
pencil beam mask score function defined in column 3 of Table 5.18 (and displayed in
Figure 5.55b) Mask1 is used to enforce a peak sidelobe power of –30 dB in the u-space
region |u| > 0.1736. In [63], u = cosθ, thus the corresponding elevation angle region is
defined as 100o < θ < 80o. Also using Mask1, the upper limit on the mainlobe ripple is
defined as 0 dB in the region |u| < 0.1736 (or 80o < θ < 100o). Using Mask2 the lower limit
154
of the mainlobe is set as –3 dB in the region |u| < 0.0558 (or 86.8o < θ < 93.2o) and the
lower limit in the sidelobe region |u| > 0.1736 is set to –200 dB (not shown).
The array under consideration is an asymmetric, z-axis array with uniform spacing d =
0.5λ as shown in Figure 5.4. The far-field magnitude of this array is defined as,
EP(u ) N
FF ( u ) = ∑ wn exp[ jk (n − 1)du ]
FFmax n =1
(5.17)
where,
The u-space region under consideration was sampled evenly with 500 points between
[–1, 1]. Additionally, the points defining the boundaries of the mask scores were also
included in the sampling plan. As a result, u-space contains 508 total samples.
The weight wn of element n is complex valued with amplitude an and phase e jδ n ,
wn = an e jδ n , 0 < an, –π < δn < π (5.18)

The sector beam pattern requires complex weights; however, the pencil beam pattern
only requires amplitude weights. As a result, the phases weights are set to zero for each
element of the pencil beam array design, thus there are only 2N total variables for
optimization.
The CE design parameters for this scenario are detailed in Table 5.19. The smoothing
parameter for the variance was set equal to 0.2 as a compromise between accuracy and
speed of convergence. To improve the speed of convergence, the smoothing parameter for
the mean was set to 1. This results in an unsmoothed mean throughout the procedure. The
elite sample parameter and population size are kept consistent with previous scenarios and
again represent a compromise between accuracy and speed of convergence. The limits on
the amplitudes for both patterns were set between 0 and 1. Increasing the upper limit on
the amplitudes greater than 1 does not buy much since the resulting pattern is normalized.
The limits of the phase for each element are between –π and π since the array factor is
155
TABLE 5.19. CE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SWITCHED-BEAM ARRAY DESIGN

a Limits on Amplitude for Sector & Pencil Beam [0,1]
b Limits on Phase of Sector Beam [–π, π]
μ(0) Initial Means of Amplitudes for Sector & Pencil Beam 0.5
μ(0) Initial Means of Phases for Sector Beam 0
*Note: Element phases of pencil beam are set equal to zero.
cyclical in 2π and also to be consistent with the array defined in (5.17). The initial
variances of both amplitude and phase were set equal to 1 in order to constrain the initial
solutions near to the feasible region of solutions defined by the limits on amplitude and
phase.

In order to understand average tendencies of the CE method for this scenario, 100
independent trials were performed. For each trial, the stopping criterion was set as the
point when either the maximum variance exceeded eps = 2.2204x10–16 as defined by
MATLAB or if the number of iterations exceeded 3000. The results of these trials are
detailed in Figure 5.56 through Figure 5.63 and Table 5.20. The convergence curves for
the average scores for both the sector and pencil beam are detailed in Figure 5.56. Of note
is that first, the sector beam dominates the composite score function defined in (5.16) since
it is more difficult to optimize than the pencil beam and second, for a small portion of the
procedure, the pencil beam is zero valued, but the resulting optimized composite score
contains a non-zero pencil beam score. The resulting switched-beam designs for all 100
trials are depicted in Figure 5.57. Although no mask score achieved a final composite
score of zero (corresponding to complete mask satisfaction), the results are quite
acceptable. Typically, the sector beam score was violated at the boundaries of the
mainlobe ripple region as well for some peak sidelobe power locations. The pencil beam
score violated the mask for the first sidelobes near the mainlobe. The overall best
performing trial is presented in Figure 5.59 and Figure 5.60. Table 5.20 details the
156
complex weights of the best performing trial as well as the mean and standard deviation of
the complex weights for all 100 trials, which is illustrated in Figure 5.58.
2
10
Composite Score
0
10
Average Mean
Average Best
-2 Overall Mean
10
Overall Best
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
(a)
2
10
Sector Beam Score
0
10
Average Mean
Average Best
Overall Mean
-2
10 Overall Best
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
0
Final Score
10 is non-zero
Pencil Beam Score
-5
10 Average Mean Zero valued
Average Best pencil beam
Overall Mean scores
Overall Best
-10
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
(b)
Figure 5.56. Convergence curves for mask score functions for (a) Composite score (b) Individual sector and
pencil beam scores. The sector beam score dominates the composite score and the pencil beam score is zero
valued for a small period of the optimization procedure but the final result is non-zero.
157
Sector Beam Pencil Beam
0 0
-5 -5

-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
-25 -25
-30 -30
-35 -35
-40 -40
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
(a) (b)
Figure 5.57. Optimized switched beam patterns of all 100 trials for (a) Sector beam (b) Pencil beam. Each
trial is plotted at the final iteration which satisfied the stopping criterion.
200
Phase Weights (deg)
100
-100
-200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Element No.
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Element No.
Figure 5.58. Mean amplitude and phase weights of switched-beam design for all 100 trials. The error bars
represent the standard deviation of each element weight over all 100 trials. *Note: Element phases of pencil
beam are set equal to zero.
158
0 Amplitude Weights (V)
Phase Weights (deg)
1
100
-5 0 0.5
-100
-200 0
-10 0 10 20 0 10 20
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos θ
Figure 5.59. Sector beam pattern of best performing trial. Inset: Complex weights for best performer.
0 Amplitude Weights (V)

Phase Weights (deg)
1
100
-5 0 0.5
-100
-200 0
-10 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u = cos θ
Figure 5.60. Pencil beam pattern of best performing trial. Inset: Complex weights for best performer.
159
TABLE 5.20. COMPLEX WEIGHTS OF SWITCHED-BEAM ARRAY DESIGN
Element Phase (deg) Amplitude (V)
1 -175.763 10.6991 166.6879 0.1454 0.1396 0.0348
2 -122.354 1.9166 134.9655 0.1366 0.1721 0.042
3 -113.684 -1.1793 111.1048 0.2558 0.291 0.0526
4 -53.0821 -2.107 68.6931 0.351 0.4133 0.0866
5 -25.0245 -1.6688 42.5561 0.5106 0.559 0.0813
6 -4.7941 -1.2673 27.93 0.5997 0.6392 0.0525
7 14.1411 -1.3377 24.9266 0.6938 0.7226 0.0443
8 41.9606 -0.8586 47.1854 0.7304 0.7798 0.0523
9 82.8002 -1.5809 72.5714 0.7733 0.8609 0.0851
10 102.6271 -0.8389 84.5684 0.9221 0.9541 0.0531
11 106.5359 -0.5066 85.1957 0.9779 0.9553 0.0515
12 100.2838 -0.2792 73.7891 0.935 0.8678 0.0872
13 78.194 -0.3053 49.8661 0.7982 0.7821 0.0541
14 40.4031 0.2096 28.0176 0.7467 0.7239 0.0448
15 16.9461 0.2034 28.8204 0.668 0.6466 0.0518
16 -2.3237 0.5178 42.7319 0.6128 0.5596 0.081
17 -22.1121 0.2545 67.58 0.4798 0.422 0.0874
18 -59.425 -0.171 110.5843 0.3221 0.2951 0.0541
19 -91.6044 1.3383 133.0229 0.209 0.175 0.0428
20 -144.176 1.1745 165.3305 0.1478 0.1427 0.0363
*Note: Element phases of pencil beam are set equal to zero.
150
100
Phase Weights (deg)
50
-50
-100
-150
-200
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.61. Progression of complex weights for best performing trial.
160
150

100
for Phase Weights

50
-50
-100
-150
-200
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
0
10
for Phase Weights
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.62. Mean and variance of Gaussian distributions governing phase weights of switched-beam design
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
0
10
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
No. Iterations
Figure 5.63. Mean and variance of Gaussian distributions governing amplitude weights of switched-beam
design
161
In comparison to the results presented in [63], we saw earlier in Section 5.2 that the
weights are reported visually, so it is not possible to determine if the array patterns
computed using PSO actually satisfy the mask score functions. In the case of CE, there
were some violations in the mask scores, but they were not glaring and the computed
patterns are acceptable. Typically, the violations were constrained to the sidelobe peaks
and the corners of the mainlobe regions. By visual inspection of the convergence
information the PSO procedure for the switched beam case converged within
approximately 1500 iterations. With a swarm size of 20, this corresponds to 30,000
performance evaluations. In comparison, CE typically reached a steady state within 500
iterations and degenerated to a unit mass in less than 1000 iterations. With a population
size of 100, this corresponds to 50,000 performance evaluations. So, in spite not having
information about the resulting array pattern computed using PSO, it appears that more
performance evaluations are required by CE than for PSO.
5.6 MULTI-OBJECTIVE ARRAY DESIGN BY AMPLITUDE-ONLY ARRAY WEIGHTING
In order to demonstrate the performance of the CE method for multi-objective

optimization, a benchmark problem involving the optimization of uniform element
spacings to achieve a minimum beamwidth for a given sidelobe power is considered. The
benchmark is the weighted Dolph-Chebyshev array as detailed in [54]. The Dolph-
Chebyshev array is a uniformly-spaced, non-uniformly weighted array design method for
producing sidelobe powers of constant height. The non-uniform weights of the Dolph-
Chebyshev array are related to the Chebyshev polynomials. MATLAB has a built-in
function called chebwin as part of the Signal Processing Toolbox which produces
Chebyshev weights given the size of the array and peak sidelobe power.
A uniformly spaced array designed by the Dolph-Chebyshev method is optimal in the
sense that for a given peak sidelobe power the array beamwidth is as small as possible.
Ultimately, the Chebyshev weighted array represents a lower bound on this minimum
achievable beamwidth for a given sidelobe power. The inspiration for this scenario was
derived from [52], [53] which utilized NSGA-II for the same problem.
162
5.6.1 PROBLEM SETUP
The array under consideration is a z-axis array with a uniform spacing of d = 0.5λ
between elements as shown in Figure 5.64. The far-field pattern is defined by,
EP(u ) N
FF ( u ) = ∑ wn exp[− jk (n − 1)du ]
FFmax n =1
(5.19)
where,
wn = Weight of element n, valued between 0 and 1
u = cosθ, 0o < θ < 180o with 2000 equally spaced points
θ
z
w1 w2 … wN
FF
Figure 5.64. z-axis uniform array with spacing d = 0.5λ for benchmark multi-objective problem. The
formulation of (5.19) assumes that the incident wave is traveling in +z.
functions of this scenario are,
f1 = max ( 20 log10 | FF ( u ) |) (dB ), f2 = θ+ − θ− (deg) (5.20)
where, the score f1 represents the peak sidelobe power of the far-field pattern expressed in
dB and the score f2 represents the first null beamwidth of the mainlobe expressed as the
difference between the two first two nulls, θ+ and θ– on either side of the pattern mainlobe
peak defined as θ = 90o. The composite objective function for use with MOCE is simply F
= f1+f2. The two objective functions are expressed in decibels and degrees in order to acce-
163
TABLE 5.21. MOCE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SYMMETRIC,
LINEAR ARRAY SCENARIO
wn Limits on Array Element Weights [0,1]
μm(0) Initial Values for Mean of Gaussian Distributions 0
σm2(0) Initial Values for Variance of Gaussian Distributions 100
ntuate differences between objective values during optimization.

the MOCE procedure was set equal to 4. The clustering was performed on the objective
values f1, f2 themselves and after each iteration a new population of size K was produced
for each cluster despite the fact that the cluster size may be less than K. This forces MOCE
to explore more solutions in the feasible region. The MOCE procedure was stopped in one
of three cases, either the maximum variance of all clusters was less than eps, or if the
number of iterations was greater than 500, or if the MATLAB command fcm used for fuzzy
c-means clustering resulted in a cluster that was empty. Generally, using the maximum
variance of the Gaussian distributions as a stopping criterion does not work well since each
cluster is re-populated with K candidates at each iteration.
Figure 5.65. Result of a single MOCE trial representing the trade-off curve between peak sidelobe power
and first null beamwidth for a ten element array.
164
To determine the average Pareto optimal set, 100 independent trials were performed for
N = 6, 8, 10 and 12 elements respectively and the Pareto front of each trial was recorded.
A typical result of a single trial is shown in Figure 5.65 for N = 10. The red dots mark all
the dominated solutions visited during the optimization procedure for all clusters. The
black circles are the set of non-dominated solutions which form the Pareto front of the
Pareto optimal set for this single trial. These values were calculated using a function called
paretofront available on the MATLAB central file exchange. The average solution is
difficult to obtain since the Pareto front of a single trial does not align with the outcome of
other trials. As a result, the average result is presented as a 6th order polynomial fit through
each of the 100 trials using MATLAB’s polyfit command. Figure 5.66 depicts both the
polynomial fit (red line) and the Pareto fronts of all trials (blue dots). The polynomial
coefficients for each element N = 6, 8, 10 and 12 are presented in Table 5.22 for use with
MATLAB’s polyval command. For a given sidelobe level, the polynomial fit is of the
form,
f ( x) = p1 x 6 + p2 x5 + p3 x 4 + p4 x3 + p5 x 2 + p6 x + p7 (5.21)
N=6
N=8
N = 10
N = 12
Figure 5.66. Plot of the average Pareto front determined using MOCE. The average value is represented as a
6th order polynomial fit through all the outcomes of the trials. The polynomial coefficients for each are
presented in Table 5.22 for use with MATLAB’s polyval command.
165
TABLE 5.22. POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS FOR 6TH ORDER
POLYNOMIAL FIT USING MATLAB’S POLYFIT COMMAND
p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7
N=6 0 0 0.0001 0.0025 0.01 1.1206 22.9477
N=8 0 0 0.001 0.0147 0.1034 -0.5321 16.7453
N = 10 0 0.0001 0.0017 0.0273 0.2194 0.1387 14.0211
N = 12 0 0 -0.0004 -0.0018 0.0233 -0.2825 11.4737
Using (5.21) evaluated at –26 < x (dB) < 0 along with the values in Table 5.22 will
produce the results of Figure 5.66.
It is obvious that the greatest sources of error in estimating the optimal trade-off curve
represented by the Chebyshev array are towards the tails of the Pareto front and become
increasingly large with increasing N. This is a consequence of MOCE as discussed in the
background chapter on CE and can be combated by increasing the number of clusters.
Figure 5.67 is a plot of the best and mean Pareto front achieved over all trials compared
to the Chebyshev weighted array. In certain cases, the Pareto front determined by MOCE
exceeds the Chebyshev limit only slightly. This is attributed to the fact that the elevation
plane was sampled with 2000 points from 0 < θ < 180o. As a result, some error is
introduced into the numerical calculation of the pattern beamwidth. Overall, MOCE was
able to accurately estimate the optimal Chebyshev bound.
55
Best PF
50 Mean PF
Chebyshev
45 N=6 d t 4
First Null Beamwidth (deg)
40
35 N=8
30 N = 10
25
20
N = 12
15
10
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Peak Sidelobe Power (dB)
Figure 5.67. Plot of best Pareto front achieved over all trials, mean Pareto front over all trials and the ideal
Chebyshev curve.
166
The authors of [52] quantified their results and the accuracy of the NSGA-II multi-
objective optimization algorithm in converging to the optimal Pareto front defined by the
Chebyshev weighted array using a mean square error. Their error was defined as,
error = BW ( SLL) NSGA− II − BW ( SLL)Chebyshev (5.22)
where, BW(SLL)NSGA-II is the beamwidth computed by the NSGA-II algorithm for a given
sidelobe power and BW(SLL)Chebyshev is the beamwidth of the Chebyshev weighted array for
a given sidelobe power. The authors reported two measurables, the mean square error and
error standard deviation for reference. Table 5.23 summarizes the results for both CE and
NSGA-II.
TABLE 5.23. ACCURACY OF MULTI-OBJECTIVE METHODS QUANTIFIED BY ERROR ESTIMATES

CE* NSGA-II
N Mean Error (deg) Error Stand dev. (deg) Mean Error (deg) Error Stand dev. (deg)
6 0.0279 0.0996 0.1948 0.0266
8 0.0367 0.1915 0.2463 0.0303
10 0.1468 0.3562 0.2177 0.0283
12 0.4042 0.5674 0.2119 0.0283
* Results computed using the average values over all trials
What is apparent is again the inability of MOCE to accurately estimate the tails of the
Pareto front for N = 10 and 12. This is corroborated by the visual evidence of Figure 5.67.
What we expect to see reflected in Table 5.23 is that as the number of elements increases,
both the mean square error and error standard deviation increases since the tails of the
Pareto front computed using MOCE diverge from the optimal Pareto front of the
Chebyshev weighted array. This deficiency can be overcome by increasing the number of
clusters and population size; however, at the same time, the NSGA-II algorithm performs
about the same for an increase in element number. So, despite the fact that MOCE
outperforms NSGA-II for smaller element numbers (indicated by the smaller mean square
error values), as the dimensionality of the problem increases this is no longer the case.
167
5.7 SUMMARY
In summary, the synthesis of phased array antennas was considered by controlling the
weighted excitation applied to each element in the array while maintaining periodic
element spacings. The weighted excitation can be applied using either amplitude-only,
phase-only or complex (both amplitude and phase) valued weights. Each of these three
conditions was enforced for different practical examples such as the design of sector beam
patterns much wider than the minimum beamwidth of a uniform array, the correction of a
double element failure of Dolph-Chebyshev and Taylor amplitude weighted arrays,
sidelobe power shaping and null placement, switched beam array design between sector
and pencil beam patterns using phase-only weights. Additionally, a multi-objective
benchmark problem concerning the optimal tradeoff curve between peak sidelobe power
and beamwidth produced by the Dolph-Chebyshev weighted array was addressed. The aim
was to demonstrate the convergence of the multi-objective form of the Cross Entropy
method to the optimal Pareto front of the Dolph-Chebyshev weighted array.
168
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 SUMMARY OF WORK
This dissertation addressed the use of the Cross Entropy method for synthesizing both
aperiodic and phased arrays to shape the sidelobe power of the far-field array pattern.
The synthesis of aperiodic arrays was addressed by controlling the geometry of the array
through the introduction of non-uniform element spacings and also controlling the
weighted excitations applied to each element to perform element thinning. The
continuous and combinatorial forms of CE were employed to optimize single-objective
measurables such as the peak sidelobe power of the radiation pattern, beamwidth, null
depth and location, as well as mitigate the effects of grating lobes in beamsteered array
patterns. Additionally, trade-off curves were developed for peak sidelobe power vs.
number of elements and peak sidelobe power vs. beamwidth using the multi-objective
form of the Cross Entropy method and the concept of Pareto dominance. The synthesis
of phased array antennas was addressed by controlling the weighted excitation applied to
each element in the array while maintaining periodic element spacings. The weighted
excitation can be applied using either amplitude-only, phase-only or complex (both
amplitude and phase) valued weights. Each of these three conditions were enforced for
different practical examples such as the design of sector beam patterns much wider than
the minimum beamwidth of a uniform array, the correction of a double element failure of
Dolph-Chebyshev and Taylor amplitude weighted arrays, sidelobe power shaping and
null placement and a switched beam array design between sector and pencil beam
patterns using phase-only weights. Additionally, a multi-objective benchmark problem
concerning the optimal tradeoff curve between peak sidelobe power and beamwidth
produced by the Dolph-Chebyshev weighted array was addressed.
169
6.2 SPECIFIC TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
The specific technical contributions of this dissertation are the synthesis of aperiodic
arrays using the Cross Entropy method, the synthesis of phased arrays using the Cross
Entropy method, the original application procedures for implementing the Cross Entropy
method, the estimated optimal solutions computed using the Cross Entropy method as
well as several detailed examples (provided in the appendices) in order to illustrate the
properties of the Cross Entropy method. The scenarios addressed in this dissertation
were chosen for their complexity, relevance, detail and popularity. The number of
scenarios attempted was chosen purposefully large so as to cover the entire range of array
design problems. For each scenario, the parameterized probability distribution is
carefully chosen to reflect the structure of the problem and the smoothing coefficient,
number of elite samples and population size are selected to achieve the best results.
These variables were iterated upon to determine the best smoothing constant and elite
sample number for a fixed population size to produce the best score with the fewest
number of performance evaluations. In two cases (for both continuous and combinatorial
optimization), the iterative results for nine pairs of smoothing coefficient and elite sample
number over the entire range of possible values were reported to expose the tendencies of
these pairs on the resulting score and number of iterations for convergence. Multi-
objective optimization was considered using the concept of Pareto dominance for
sidelobe power vs. number of active elements and sidelobe power vs. beamwidth. The
resulting trade-off curves are compared to solutions predicted by statistical density
tapering and also the optimal Dolph-Chebyshev array to demonstrate the ability of the
multi-objective form of the Cross Entropy method to converge towards these known
solutions.
Overall, the Cross Entropy method is a competitive alternative to more popular
algorithms such as the Genetic Algorithm or Particle Swarm Optimization. The
popularity of these algorithms for solving electromagnetic optimization problems
motivated this work into the Cross Entropy method. Anytime a new way of solving a
problem is introduced a proper comparison of the new technique with traditional methods
must be first addressed. Here, a cursory comparison is presented to allow the reader to
from his/her own opinion as to the superiority of one method over another since for some
170
cases the Cross Entropy method outperformed the algorithms in the literature in terms of
score, convergence speed or both and other times it did not. One would need higher level
information unknown to this author to make that assertion. Nonetheless, the most
attractive feature of the Cross Entropy method is its speed of convergence. For this
reason alone, it deserves consideration when choosing a stochastic optimization
technique; however, it does require a large population size in order to operate. The Cross
Entropy method is seeing widespread application to all types of problems, mainly outside
of the electromagnetics community; therefore, this dissertation represents the first work
utilizing the Cross Entropy method for solving electromagnetic optimization problems.
In the near future as the Cross Entropy method becomes more popular, different
modifications and hybridizations improving upon the accuracy of solutions along with
the already attractive speed of convergence will continue to appear. Some simple
modifications were summarized in the background chapters; however, this is a small
portion compared to the vast amount attributed to the Genetic Algorithm and Particle
Swarm Optimization. Much like research into Genetic Algorithms for electromagnetics
in the 1990’s fueled the current research into Particle Swarm Optimization techniques in
this new century, this author believes that the next decade belongs to the Cross Entropy
method.
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
There exists many different avenues one could pursue to apply the Cross Entropy
method to their own electromagnetics problems. Nearly any piece of literature
concerning either GA or PSO could be solved using CE and compared. Some obvious
extensions to the work presented here would include the synthesis of different array
geometries such as planar, circular, spherical or perhaps conformal. Furthermore, one
could consider the effect of a particular array element on the optimization solutions such
as the introduction of microstrip patches or slot antennas, both of which are typically
elements used in phased arrays. The introduction of antenna elements would not be
complete without considering a full-wave model using computational electromagnetic
techniques such as Method of Moments, Finite Differences or Finite Elements to include
mutual coupling effects between array elements and other irregularities introduced by
171
non-isotropic elements. Additionally, instead of considering an array of elements, one
could consider the design of a single antenna element for a given gain pattern, frequency,
bandwidth, impedance, etc. by controlling the antenna’s physical dimensions or electrical
characteristics such as impedance match to the feed line. Another obvious extension
would then be to consider reconfigurable antenna structures. This extension is currently
being worked on by the Machine Intelligence Lab here at the FAMU/FSU College of
Engineering with support from the National Security Agency. For anyone interested in
this work and/or simulation software, please contact Professor Simon Foo of the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the FAMU/FSU College of
Engineering (foo@eng.fsu.edu).
172
A. EXAMPLE: SIMPLE, ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONTINUOUS
OPTIMIZATION
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE: SIMPLE, ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONTINUOUS

OPTIMIZATION
In order to illustrate the CE method for continuous optimization, consider the

maximization of the score function S(x) as presented in [4], [17],
2 2
S ( x) = e − ( x − 2) + 0.8e − ( x + 2) , x ∈ \ . (A.1)
0.8
0.6
S(x)
0.4
0.2
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
x
Figure A.1. Plot of score function S(x) for continuous CE optimization example. The goal is to locate the
global maximum of S(x*) = 1 at x = 2.
A plot of the score function is shown in Figure A.1. Note from this figure that the
function S(x) has two maxima located at x = –2 and 2, respectively. The maximum
located at x = –2 is a local maximum, whereas the maximum located at x = 2 is the global
maximum whose value is equal to one. The location of the maximum at x = 2 is the goal
for this example. The optimization will be performed using the continuous form CE
procedure of Algorithm 3.2. The initial parameters chosen are μ(0) = –6, σ2(0) = 100, α =
0.7, ρ = 0.1 and K = 100. The stopping criterion computed in step 6 of Algorithm 3.2 is
defined as max(σ2(t)) < ε where ε is set to eps = 2.2204x10-16 corresponding to the
173
floating-point relative accuracy in the MATLAB programming environment. The value
ρK = 10 employs the top 10% best performers in H in the update of the distribution
parameters. The initial position of the mean is arbitrary given that ρ is small, K is large
and the variance is sufficiently large such that the choice of smoothing coefficient does
not freeze the procedure in a suboptimal solution. One could bias early solutions by
initializing the mean close to the optimal solution.
The results of this optimization example are presented in Table A.1 as well as Figures
A.2 – A.4. Examining the last column of Table A.1 (corresponding to the value of x
which produced the worst score evaluation at each iteration) reveals that the CE
procedure located the global maximum in no worst than 14 iterations. With a population
size of 100, the optimal position can be located at worst with 1,400 evaluations of the
score function. Of note is the progression of the Gaussian distribution towards a unit
mass. As the variance of the Gaussian distribution begins to decrease towards zero (or as
γˆ (t ) becomes close to γ*), the values of both the best and average score in the population
become identical. Also, this decrease in variance positions most of the probability mass
close to the optimal solution x* = 2; thereby as the mass nears unity, the final position and
mean are themselves equal to each other. Furthermore, the estimate of the optimal score
γˆ (t ) begins to equal the best score in the population and eventually all score values in the
population become equal to the best score. This is suggested by the convergence of the
best and average scores to the same value. Overall, the smoothing coefficient value of
0.7 was low enough to ensure (on average) that the simulation converged to the optimal
solution, but could have been chosen larger in order to improve the convergence speed.
A value of 0.9 was about the highest one could choose and still locate the optimal
solution. However, accuracy in locating the optimal solution is sacrificed for speed of
convergence. One thing of note is the exponential convergence behavior of the alpha
smoothing procedure. The values of the variance are plotted on a log scale, notice that
the variances values are linearly decreasing with increasing t, confirming this assertion.
174
TABLE A.1. PROGRESSION OF CE PARAMETERS, SCORE AND POSITIONS FOR CONTINUOUS CE EXAMPLE
t μ̂ σˆ
2
γˆ = sρ K S ( x )best = s1 S ( x ) avg xbest = x 1 xworst = x K
1 -6 100 0 0.7993 0.0366 -1.9697 86.1722
2 -2.4827 33.6173 0 0.9199 0.0895 1.711 30.6506
3 -0.2491 12.2014 0 0.9924 0.1614 2.0876 11.9388
4 1.2773 3.7473 0 0.9986 0.3857 1.963 4.9787
5 1.8025 1.1488 0.3045 0.9999 0.788 2.0074 2.949
6 1.951 0.3461 0.9013 1 0.974 2.003 2.2969
7 1.9907 0.1039 0.9897 1 0.9974 2.0005 2.0938
8 1.9964 0.0312 0.9992 1 0.9998 2 2.0274
9 1.9989 0.0094 0.9999 1 1 1.9999 2.0081
10 1.9997 0.0028 1 1 1 2 2.0025
11 2 0.0008 1 1 1 2 2.0008
12 2 0.0003 1 1 1 2 2.0002
13 2 0.0001 1 1 1 2 2.0001
14 2 2.2731e-05 1 1 1 2 2
15 2 6.8193e-06 1 1 1 2 2
16 2 2.0458e-06 1 1 1 2 2
17 2 6.1374e-07 1 1 1 2 2
18 2 1.8412e-07 1 1 1 2 2
19 2 5.5236e-08 1 1 1 2 2
20 2 1.6571e-08 1 1 1 2 2
21 2 4.9713e-09 1 1 1 2 2
22 2 1.4914e-09 1 1 1 2 2
23 2 4.4720e-10 1 1 1 2 2
24 2 1.3422e-10 1 1 1 2 2
25 2 4.0267e-11 1 1 1 2 2
26 2 1.2080e-11 1 1 1 2 2
27 2 3.6241e-12 1 1 1 2 2
28 2 1.0872e-12 1 1 1 2 2
29 2 3.2617e-13 1 1 1 2 2
30 2 9.7850e-14 1 1 1 2 2
31 2 2.9355e-14 1 1 1 2 2
32 2 8.8065e-15 1 1 1 2 2
33 2 2.6419e-15 1 1 1 2 2
34 2 7.9258e-16 1 1 1 2 2
35 2 2.3778e-16 1 1 1 2 2
175
2 2
2
N(μ,σ )
S(x)
1.5 1.5
N(μ,σ 2)
S(x)
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
x
Figure A.2. Progression of Gaussian pdf as distribution converges to the optimum. As γˆ becomes close
to γ*, the variance of the Gaussian pdf decreases and the majority of its probability mass is deposited about
the mean, thereby locating the optimal solution, which in this case is x = 2.
2 0
10
0
-5
Variance, σ 2
10
Mean, μ
-2
-10
10 4
-4
Mean
Variance -15
10
-6
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
iterations, t
Figure A.3. Progression of the mean and variance of the Gaussian distribution versus the number of
iterations. Note that as the variance decreases towards zero, the mean settles to a constant value, x = 2.
1 80 Best X
Worst X
Best Position, Worst Position
70
Best Score, Average Score
0.8
60
50
0.6
40
0.4 30
20
0.2 Best Score
10
Avg Score
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
iterations, t iterations, t
(a) (b)
Figure A.4. (a) Progression of the best and average population score versus number of iterations. (b)
Progression of the best and worst population position versus number of iterations. As the Gaussian pdf
degenerates to a unit mass, the best and average score become equal since all samples in the population are
identical.
176
B. EXAMPLE: ANTENNA ARRAY NULL PLACEMENT
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE: ANTENNA ARRAY PATTERN NULL PLACEMENT
In this example, a six element, uniformly spaced x-axis linear array with element
spacing d = 0.5λ is considered with symmetric phase-only weighting coefficients applied
to elements 1, 2, 5 and 6 as shown in Figure B.1.
φ d
x
δ2 δ1 -δ1 -δ2
Figure B.1. Six element uniform linear array with phase-only weights applied to elements 1, 2, 5 & 6.
This goal of this example is to place nulls at specific angular locations in the azimuthal
plane of the array radiation pattern by solely controlling the phase of elements 1, 2, 5 and
6. The degrees of freedom available in this example are the two phase coefficients, δ1, δ2.
This example was adopted from [23] in which a Genetic Algorithm was employed to
solve the same problem. This particular scenario is a good exercise for a number of
reasons. First, since only two phase coefficients, δ1, δ2 are considered, the cost surface is
two-dimensional and can be easily visualized. Secondly, the application of phase-only
weights is typical in antenna array synthesis, since often times the amplitude weights are
fixed and operate at full power to maximize the total radiated power of the array. Lastly,
the introduction of phase weights makes the problem non-linear since they are defined in
the argument of an exponential function, whereas amplitude weights are applied linearly
to each element in the array. The non-linearity of phase weights makes using traditional
techniques difficult, whereas amplitude weights can be solved with conventional linear
177
programs. It will be shown that the CE method solves this problem rather easily.
The normalized array factor of the array in Figure B.1 is expressed as,
1 jδ 2
AF ( u ) =
6
( e + e jδ1 e jkdu + e j 2 kdu + e j 3kdu + e − jδ1 e j 4 kdu + e − jδ 2 e j 5 kdu ) (B.1)
where, u = cos φ , 0 < φ < π and –π < {δ1, δ2} < π , k = 2π/λ.
The cost surface to be optimized is comprised of all possible values of AF(u) evaluated
at each δ1, δ2. In this example it is desired to minimize the value of the array factor in the
x-y plane for three particular angles of interest: φ = 31.8o, 69.5o, 120o. By finding the
minimum value of the cost surface, nulls are being introduced into the radiation pattern.
Ideally it is desired that the array factor equal zero in value corresponding to complete
nulls, but since phase weights are cyclical in 2π, this might not be entirely possible. The
cost surface is defined as the summation of the array factor given in (B.1) evaluated at the
three angles of interest,
1 3 jδ 2
AF ( u (i ) ) = ∑ ( e + e jδ1 e jkdu (i ) + e j 2 kdu (i ) + e j 3kdu ( m) + e− jδ1 e j 4kdu (i ) + e− jδ2 e j 5kdu (i ) ) (B.2)
6 i =1
where, u(i) = cos( [31.8o, 69.5o, 120o] ) = [ 0.8499, 0.3502, –0.5 ]. The cost surface is
plotted in Figure B.2.
The CE procedure for continuous optimization employed in the previous example will
again be used here. The initial parameters of the distribution are μ(0) = [π, π], σ2(0) = [100,
100] for both variables δ1, δ2, respectively. The initial values for the means are arbitrary
for reasons previously discussed, but by setting their values to π (rad) the initial results
are biased far away from the optimal solution. The population size is set at K = 100 with
worst elite sample selection parameter, ρ set equal to 0.1. Alpha smoothing is employed
with smoothing parameter α = 0.7. The global minimum γ* is valued at 0.1162 for phase
values [δ1*, δ2*] = [–0.8122, –1.5299]. The results of the CE optimization procedure are
shown in Figure B.3.
The final optimized values of the CE procedure were [ δˆ1* , δˆ2* ] = [–0.8154, –1.5274]
with the estimate of the global minimum valued at γˆ = 0.1172. The convergence criteria
was again set to max(σ2) < 2.2204x10–16 ; however, the CE procedure settled upon the
final values of δˆ1* and δˆ2* after 20 iterations.
178
Figure B.2. Cost surface for placing nulls in array radiation pattern at angles φ = 31.8o, 69.5o, 120o. The
optimum values of δ1 and δ2 are generated by locating the global minimum of the cost surface.
179
4
δ1
3
δ2
2
Mean, μ
-1
-2
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
10 δ1
δ2
Variance, σ 2
-5
10
-10
10
-15
10
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
iterations, t
(a)
1
Best Score
0.8 Avg Score
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
iterations, t
(b)
Figure B.3. Results of CE optimization for null placement example. (a) Mean and Variance of Gaussian
distribution (b) Best & average population score.
180
1
Optimized
0.9
Original
0.8 Nulls
0.7
0.6
|AF(φ )|
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
φ - deg
Figure B.4. Optimized array factor for null placement example.
Figure B.4 depicts a plot of the final optimized array factor. It is clearly seen that the
optimization procedure was able to produce two distinct nulls at φ = 31.8o and 120o;
however, the null at φ = 69.5o is not completely zero as desired. This makes sense since
the global minimum of the cost surface is greater than zero, therefore it could not be
expected that all nulls at the desired angles would have zero value. One small point
worth noting is that this particular procedure for placing nulls is not practical since there
are no conditions on the location of the mainlobe peak, which has been shifted by about
ten degrees in the optimized array. Typically it is desired to place nulls while radiation
pattern properties such as the mainlobe peak, peak sidelobe power and beamwidth remain
unchanged.
Figure B.5 depicts the progression of the best and worst samples in the population
towards the optimal solution. This figure illustrates quite nicely the convergence
characteristics of the CE method. Initially, the best sample of the population is close to
the optimal solution and makes small adjustments over time, whereas the worst sample is
far away and makes large adjustments at first. As the procedure arrives in the
neighborhood of the optimal solution, the probability distribution converges towards one
with unit mass about the respective means of each phase. In this small neighborhood, the
CE procedure oscillates about the global minimum before degenerating to a solution
which is close to the optimal minimum. Eventually both the best and worst samples
converge to the same value which is indicative of the pdf converging to a unit mass.
181
Best
Worst
(a)
(finish)
(start)
(b)
Figure B.5. (a) Progression of best and worst samples in population as CE procedure converges towards
optimal solution. (b) Close-up view of the global minimum.
182
C. EXAMPLE: BLIND SEQUENCE ESTIMATION
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE: BLIND SEQUENCE ESTIMATION
In this example (as first presented in [17]), the elements of an unknown binary
sequence will be estimated using the Cross Entropy Method. Although the elements of
the binary sequence are unknown, it is assumed that a deterministic scoring function, S(x)
can be measured in response to user defined inputs, x. Using information about these
user defined inputs and the corresponding scoring response, CE can be utilized to form an
estimate of the unknown sequence ŷ . A figure of this scenario is shown below.
x y (hidden) S(x)
=1111100000
M
S (x) = M − ∑ ( xi − yi ) 2
i =1
CE
ŷ
Figure C.1. Blackbox experiment to determine unknown binary sequence.
The unknown binary sequence, y is the ten element sequence,

y = [1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0] (C.1)
The known scoring function is,
M
S (x) = M − ∑ ( xi − yi ) 2 (C.2)
i =1
where, M = 10 is the number of elements in the sequence.

The scoring function attempts to minimize the sum square error between x and y. The
result is then subtracted from the total number of elements, M in order to create a
maximization problem. So, the global maximum of S(x*) = γ* is equal to ten
corresponding to all elements of x and y being equal.
For this example, the Bernoulli probability density function will be employed with the
183
optimal success probabilities estimated using (3.27). The initial success probabilities of
the CE procedure are set to p(0) = 0.5 for each element of y. An initial value of p = 0.5
provides all elements of the initial population with an equally likely chance of being zero
or one. Values of p less than 0.5 bias solutions towards zero, whereas values of p greater
than 0.5 bias solutions towards one. The population size is set at K = 100 with worst elite
sample selection parameter, ρ set equal to 0.1. Alpha smoothing was not employed in
this example to show the fast convergence of the CE procedure. The procedure was
stopped when all elements of p̂ were either zero or one and the average score of the
population was equal to γ*, representing complete degeneration of the pdf to a unit mass.
The results of the CE optimization procedure are presented in Table C.1 and Figure C.2.
TABLE C.1. PROGRESSION OF CE PARAMETERS AND SCORE FOR COMBINATORIAL OPTIMIZATION EXAMPLE
t p̂1 p̂2 p̂3 p̂4 p̂5 p̂6 p̂7 p̂8 p̂9 p̂10 sρ K S(X)best S(X)avg
1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 7 8 4.83
2 0.73 0.82 0.91 0.73 0.64 0.36 0.27 0.36 0.18 0.27 9 9 7.46
3 1 1 0.91 0.91 1 0.27 0 0.09 0.09 0.36 10 10 8.94
4 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10
1 10
Success Probability, p
0.8 8
0.6 6
0.4
4
0.2
2 Best Score
0 Avg Score
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
No. Iterations No. Iterations
(a) (b)
Figure C.2. Results of CE method for blind estimation example. (a) Progression of success probabilities
(b) Best & average population score.
From the results, it is clear that CE is very effective at solving combinatorial

optimization problems. The absence of parameter smoothing resulted in an extremely
fast convergence. On a few rare occasions, convergence was observed in as little as three
iterations; however, on average the procedure converged in four iterations as shown.
184
D. EXAMPLE: THINNING ANTENNA ARRAY ELEMENTS
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE: THINNING ANTENNA ARRAY ELEMENTS
Thinning antenna arrays is the strategic elimination of a subset of active elements in the
array in order to maintain similar radiation properties as the full array, but using a smaller
number of elements in doing so. Thinning arrays has been a popular optimization
problem because of the practical value in both reducing the overall cost and mechanical
complexity of large antenna arrays. Typically, optimization techniques are applied to
thinning arrays only when it is not feasible to exhaustively evaluate all possible
combinations to determine the best performer. Here, a simple array thinning example is
addressed in which the best performer can be exhaustively searched in order to verify that
the CE optimization procedure successfully determined the optimal solution. This
particular problem will be discussed in further detail later on in this dissertation.
In this example an eighteen element, uniformly spaced, x-axis linear array with
isotropic elements and element spacing d = 0.5λ is considered.
φ d
x
w1 w2 w3 w16 w17 w18
Figure D.1. Eighteen Element, Uniform Linear Array Considered For Thinning Example.
185
The array is weighted with a series of coefficients w = [w1, w2,…, w18] ∈ [0,1]. These
weights are real valued, binary coefficients applied linearly to the array. By setting the
weight of element n to a value of ‘1’, then element n is turned ‘on’, whereas if element n
is weighted with a value of ‘0’, then element n is turned ‘off’ and does not contribute to
the array radiation pattern. Expressed mathematically, the array factor for this example is
N
AF ( u ) = ∑ wn exp[− jkxn u ] (D.1)
n =1
where, u = cos φ , 0< φ <π, k = 2π/λ, xn = (n–1)d is the distance of element n from the
origin.
The goal of this example is to reduce the total number of active elements in the array to
minimize the maximum relative sidelobe power of the array radiation pattern. In this
case, the array factor is normalized to its peak value, which is the number of active
elements in the thinned array. The resulting score function is then the maximum sidelobe
power in the u-space region cλ/Nd < |u| < 1 of the thinned array,
2
( ) cλ
N
1
Score = max AFn ( u ) ∑w
2
= max n exp[− jkxnu ] , for ≤ | u | ≤ 1 (D.2)
AFmax n =1 Nd
where, c is a constant which is used to adjust the first null location of the thinned array.
The optimization problem is then to use CE to determine the combination of thinned
array elements which minimizes the maximum sidelobe power.
In order to determine the optimal solution to (D.2), all possible combinations of array
weights are exhaustively evaluated for the eighteen element array. The total number of
array elements for this example was chosen as eighteen since it was the largest array in
which the MATLAB programming environment could calculate the score without
experiencing ‘Out of Memory’ errors. A function called combn was used to calculate all
possible combinations and is available from MATLAB’s Central File Exchange. The set
of all possible combinations provided by combn are listed in an order starting from a
vector of all zeros and finishing with a vector of all ones as shown in (D.3).
186
⎡0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎤ Combination 1
⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ⎥⎥ Combination 2
⎢
⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ⎥ Combination 3
⎢ ⎥
X = ⎢# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #⎥ (D.3)
⎢1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ⎥ Combination 262,142
⎢ ⎥
⎢1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ⎥ Combination 262,143
⎢1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ⎥⎦ Combination 262,144
⎣
Since there are eighteen elements in the array, then there exist 218 = 262,144 possible
combinations to consider. After performing this exhaustive search, the global solution to
(D.2) was found to be –16.32105 dB at |u| = 0.5098, which was achieved by four
different combinations, the results of which are displayed in Table D.1. The normalized
array factor plots for each combination are identical and shown in Figure D.2.
TABLE D.1. OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS TO (D.2)

Solution No. Array Weights, wn Combination
1 010011111111111111 81920
2 011111111111111001 131066
3 100111111111111110 163839
4 111111111111110010 262131
-5
-10
-15
|AFn|2 (dB)
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
u = cos φ
Figure D.2. Plot of the Normalized Array Factor for the Optimal Solutions Presented in Table D.1.
187
The initial parameters for the CE procedure are the same as in the previous example,
except that now alpha smoothing will be employed with smoothing constant α = 0.7. The
lower limit on the u-space region containing the sidelobe maxima was set to 0.135. This
corresponds to a sidelobe constant, c = 1.215. The results of a single trial of the CE
optimization procedure are shown in Figure D.3. The optimized array smoothed by a
coefficient of 0.7 was able to locate one of the four optimal solutions 87% of the time.
Figure D.4(b) depicts the frequency of the suboptimal solutions in terms of the peak
sidelobe power observed. Overall, five unique solutions were encountered, the most
common of which was –15.7373 dB which had four inactive elements and occurred in six
different combinations.
Max SLL = -16.3203, NT = 15
0 -6
Best Score
-10 -8 Avg Score
-20 -10
|AF(u)| (dB)
Score
-30 -12
-40 -14
-50 -16
-60 -18
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
u = cos φ
No. Iterations
(a)
(b)
1
0.8
Success Probability, p
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
No. Iterations
(c)
Figure D.3. Results of CE Procedure for a Single Trial. (a) Array Factor versus u for thinned array. Inset:
Thinned array elements. Active elements are marked with a dot and inactive elements are marked with a
circle. (b) Best and average score of population. (c) Progression of success probabilities for each element.
188
350 70
300 60
Number of Instances
Number of Instances
250 50
200 40
150 30
100 20
50 10
0 0
Comb1 Comb2 Comb3 Comb4 Other -16.2565 -15.7373 -15.5919 -15.5895 -15.4814
Combinations Peak Sidelobe Power (dB)
(a) (b)
Figure D.4. Results of 1000 independent trials of the CE procedure for α = 0.7. (a) Number of instances of
the four optimal solutions (b) Number of instances in which the procedure degenerated to a suboptimal
solution expressed in terms of the unique peak sidelobe powers observed.
Despite degenerating to suboptimal solutions 13% of the time, 95% of these instances
were within 0.7 dB of the optimal solution and included four inactive elements as
opposed to the three inactive elements of the optimal solutions.
189
E. EXAMPLE: CONVERGENCE PROPERTIES OF CONTINUOUS
APPENDIX E
EXAMPLE: CONVERGENCE PROPERTIES OF CONTINOUOUS

To understand the effects of the smoothing constant, elite sample parameter and
population size on the outcome of the continuous form CE method consider the
minimization of the n-dimensional trigonometric test function given in [17],
n
S ( x ) = 1 + ∑ 8sin 2 (η ( xi − xi* ) 2 ) + 6sin 2 (2η ( xi − xi* ) 2 ) + μ ( xi − xi* ) 2 (E.1)
i =1
where, n = 100, η = 7, μ = 1, xi* = 0.9. The optimal solution for this problem is defined as
x* = (0.9, 0.9, … ,0.9) resulting in a score function of S(x*) = 1. The trigonometric test
function was chosen because alpha smoothing is sufficient to determine the optimal
solution given the proper choice of [α, ρK]. The dimensionality, n was set high to
challenge the algorithm. A plot of the cost surface in \2 defined by (E.1) is displayed in
Figure E.1.
Overall, nine pairs of [α, ρK] were computed for α = [0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9]
and ρK = [1 2 5 10 20 35 50 75 100] corresponding to ρ = [0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.35
0.5 0.75 100] for a constant population size set equal to 100. Larger population sizes
could be considered, but the idea it to keep the number of performance evaluations as low
as possible while still achieving an accurate result. A population size equal to 100 is a
good starting point for most problems. For each pair, a total of 100 trials were performed
and pairs which failed to converge after 20,000 iterations were terminated. Convergence
was defined as the point when all elements of the variance vector for a given run were
less than eps = 2.2204x10–16 as defined by MATLAB. The initial mean and variance of
190
Figure E.1. Plot of trigonometric cost surface in \2.
the Gaussian distribution for each dimension was set to zero and 100, respectively. The
untruncated population X was generated by the following MATLAB code,
X = mugen+sqrt(sig2gen).*randn(K,M); (E.2)
where, randn is a MATLAB command which generates normally distributed pseudo-
random numbers with mean 0 and standard deviation 1. This quantity is multiplied by
the desired standard deviation and the mean is added to generate a number with mean μ
and variance σ2. The variables mugen and sig2gen are KxM matrices with K identical
rows generated with MATLAB’s repmat command,
mugen = repmat(mu,K,1); (E.3)
sig2gen = repmat(sig2,K,1);
where, mu, sig2 are 1xM row vectors indicating the mean and variance of each variable.
The results of this study are given in Table E.1 and Table E.2 as well as Figure E.2 and
Figure E.3. The results are presented in terms of the number of iterations required for
convergence to a unit mass and the final score computed by the CE procedure. Both of
these quantities are required to determine the quality of a given [α, ρK] pair. Table E.1
details the number of iterations, while Figure E.2 graphically depicts these table entries.
191
TABLE E.1. AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITERATIONS FOR CONVERGENCE
ρK 1 2 5 10 20 35 50 75
α
0.1 1392.93 4657.05 1787.16 2000.56 2441.17 3163.2 4133.26 7642.65
0.2 686.61 1627.94 2804.59 1072.97 1230.4 1591.73 2084.04 3896.84
0.3 453.05 827.95 1966.3 1677.63 867.75 1077.88 1412.91 2808.16
0.4 334.59 506.11 1240.61 1883.62 930.82 877.95 1120.28 2700.48
0.5 263.36 342.09 845.95 1437.16 1384.29 866.15 1060.82 3576.28
0.6 216.23 238.66 603.22 1080.55 1573.59 1281.05 1346.3 4187.1
0.7 182.78 173.45 453.07 827.8 1337.92 1556.51 1782.18 4011.65
0.8 157.92 127.97 344.41 639.51 1110.73 1565.34 1896.76 3504.25
0.9 138.7 93.35 266.28 516.99 908.67 1358.55 1768.32 3008.2
* Shaded areas correspond to pairs which successfully produced the optimal solution on average.
4
10
Average Number of Iterations for Convergence
3
10
ρK =1
ρK =2
ρK =5
ρK = 10
ρK = 20
ρK = 35
2 ρK = 50
10
ρK = 75
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Smoothing Constant - α
Figure E.2. Average number of iterations required before convergence for each pair [α, ρK]
192
TABLE E.2. AVERAGE SCORES ACHIEVED BY BEST & MEAN POPULATION SCORES
ρK 1 2 5 10 20 35 50 75
α
1 4.8991 1.0135 1 1 1 1 1
0.1
1 4.8991 1.0135 1 1 1 1 1
1 60.2458 2.0238 1.0494 1 1 1 1
0.2
1 60.2458 2.0238 1.0494 1 1 1 1
1 194.7341 9.4554 1.5155 1.0046 1 1 1.0048
0.3
1 194.7341 9.4554 1.5155 1.0046 1 1 1.0048
1 437.1739 28.1336 3.3104 1.1769 1.0675 1.0091 1.0597
0.4
1 437.1739 28.1336 3.3104 1.1769 1.0675 1.0091 1.0597
1 739.8894 68.1211 8.9152 1.528 1.095 1.0811 1.3833
0.5
1 739.8894 68.1211 8.9152 1.528 1.095 1.0811 1.3833
1 1139.858 129.3101 19.6517 3.0923 1.4546 1.2201 2.1278
0.6
1 1139.858 129.3101 19.6517 3.0923 1.4546 1.2201 2.1278
1 1629.966 226.1281 36.2852 5.6219 1.9068 1.7748 3.9556
0.7
1 1629.966 226.1281 36.2852 5.6219 1.9068 1.7748 3.9556
1 2217.309 363.3996 61.8927 10.8669 3.7879 2.6402 6.9474
0.8
1 2217.309 363.3996 61.8927 10.8669 3.7879 2.6402 6.9474
1 2844.135 572.7858 103.2821 16.7368 5.1285 4.2048 10.8503
0.9
1 2844.135 572.7858 103.2821 16.7368 5.1285 4.2048 10.8503
Legend: Best Mean
ρK =1
ρK =2
3 ρK =5
10
ρK = 10
ρK = 20
ρK = 35
ρK = 50
Average Best Population Score
ρK = 75
2
10
1
10
0
10
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Smoothing Constant - α
Figure E.3. Average best population score for each pair [α, ρK]. Error bars represent 95% confidence
intervals about the mean values.
193
What is apparent from Figure E.2 is that for α > 0.7, increasing the number of elite
samples increases the number of iterations (with the exception of the single elite sample).
As one decreases the smoothing coefficient below 0.7 this is no longer the case; however,
it would be expected that this holds true for all values of α for problems with a smaller
dimension. Of note is the sinusoidal appearance of the results for ρK > 20. For example,
choosing ρK = 20 and α = 0.3 would produce more accurate results in a shorter amount of
time than any other value of α. This is also true for ρK equal to 35 and 50 with α = 0.4.
This curvature also seems present in ρK = 0.05 and 0.1 as well, except that its appearance
is shifted slightly. The shape of the curves for ρK = 0.01 and 0.02 tend to be what one
would expect for less difficult problems and overall as one increases the value of α, the
number of iterations will decrease.
In Figure E.3, (with the exception of the elite sample) as ρK is increased from 2 to 50,
the accuracy of the score is improved. Also as α is decreased, the accuracy of the
solution is improved. This is typically what one would expect from the CE procedure.
The dimensionality of the problem was high, which made the problem quite difficult. As
a result, the smoothing constants which produced accurate results are quite low. For less
pathological problems, larger smoothing constants can be used. For ρK > 50, the
accuracy of the result begins to decrease as evidenced by ρK = 75 curve. The results for
ρK = 100 were so poor that they were not even reported. Of note is that the elite sample
successfully determined the optimal solution for all pairs of [α, ρK]. This is more of an
aberration, since often times using the elite sample results in poor performance. Overall,
from experience values of smoothing constants less than or equal to 0.7 and choices of
ρK between 10 and 50 tend to provide good results.
194
F. EXAMPLE: MULTI-OBJECTIVE CROSS ENTROPY METHOD
APPENDIX F
EXAMPLE: MULTI-OBJECTIVE CROSS ENTROPY METHOD
To illustrate a few properties of the MOCE method, consider the FON and ZDT1 test
functions presented in [28].
⎡ n ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎤
2
FON: f1 (x) = 1 − exp ⎢ −∑ ⎜ xi − ⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ i =1 ⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎥⎦
, ∀xi ∈ [−4, 4], n = 3 (F.1)
⎡ n ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎤
2
f 2 (x) = 1 − exp ⎢ −∑ ⎜ xi + ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ i =1 ⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎥⎦
ZDT1: f1 (x) = x1
f 2 (x) = g (x) ⎡⎣1 − f1 (x) / g (x) ⎤⎦ , ∀xi ∈ [0,1], n = 3, 30 (F.2)
9 ⎛ n ⎞
g (x) = 1 + ∑ xi
n − 1 ⎜⎝ i = 2 ⎟⎠
FON:
The CE parameters for this set are: K = 100, ρ = 0.1, α = 0.7, Nc = 3, μm(0) = 0, σm2 =
100. Clustering was performed on the objective values themselves and the new
populations created by each cluster were of size K. MATLAB’s Fuzzy c-means
clustering function fcm was used to perform the clustering. Additionally, a function
called paretoGroup was used to determine the non-dominated solutions. This function is
available on MATLAB’s central file exchange. The outcome of the optimization
procedure is represented by the non-dominated solutions of the Pareto front, the results of
which are provided in Figure F.1.
195
(a) (b)
Figure F.1. (a) Pareto front of non-dominated solutions for FON test objectives. Black circles represent
the non-dominated solutions, whereas red dots represent all solutions visited during the optimization
procedure. (b) Progression of the three clusters towards Pareto front. *Note: Figures (a) and (b) produced
with two separate runs.
ZDT1:
The CE parameters for this set are: K = 1000, ρ = 0.01, α = 0.7, Nc = 3, μm(0) = 0, σm2 =
100. For this example, K was increased and ρ was decreased due to the larger
dimensionality. The outcome of the optimization procedure is again represented by the
non-dominated solutions of the Pareto front, the results of which are provided in Figure
F.2 for n = 3 and 30.
From the results, the first thing worth noting is that if the dimensionality of the problem
is small, then the Pareto front can be successfully determined using a smaller population
size when clustering the objective function values. For higher dimension problems, a
larger population size is required to ensure sampling of the front’s tails before
convergence is achieved. The curvature of the Pareto front in Figure F.1 is uniform,
which makes it easy to determine the entire front given the nature of the CE procedure.
The Pareto front of Figure F.2 is incomplete. The curvature is non-uniform and the non-
dominated solutions near the knee of the curve are easily determined, but not near the
tail. Proper care is required to obtain the entire front.
For completeness, consider the ZDT1 test objectives with clustering population
candidates instead of objective values as shown in Figure F.3. It is observed that for this
196
(a) (b)
Figure F.2. Pareto fronts of non-dominated solutions for ZDT1 test objective. Clustering of the objective
values was performed. Black circles represent the non-dominated solutions, whereas red dots represent all
solutions visited during the optimization procedure. (a) n = 3 (b) n = 30.
(a) (b)
Figure F.3. Pareto fronts of non-dominated solutions for ZDT1 test objective. Clustering of the population
candidates was performed. Black circles represent the non-dominated solutions, whereas red dots represent
all solutions visited during the optimization procedure. (a) n = 3 (b) n = 30.
this particular test set, that clustering the population samples instead of the objective
values can improve the results.
197
REFERENCES
[1] T. M. Cover, and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, New York: Wiley, 1991.
[2] J.N. Kapur, and H.K. Kesavan, Entropy Optimization Principles with Applications. New
York: Academic Press, 1992.
[3] R. Y. Rubinstein, “Optimization of Computer Simulation Models with Rare Events,”

European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 99, 1997, pp. 89-112.
[4] R. Y. Rubinstein, “The Cross Entropy Method for Combinatorial and Continuous
Optimization,” Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, vol. 1, Jan. 1999, pp.
127-190.
[5] J. Liu, “Global Optimization Techniques Using Cross Entropy and Evolution Algorithms,”
Master’s Thesis, Department of Mathematics, The University of Queensland, 2004.
[6] P. T. de Boer, “Analysis and Efficient Simulation of Queuing Models of Telecommunications

Systems,” PhD Dissertation, University of Twente, 2000.
[7] J Keith, and D. P. Kroese, “Sequence Alignment by Rare Event Simulation,” Proceedings of
the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference, San Diego, 2002, pp. 320—327.
[8] L. Margolin, “Cross Entropy Method for Combinatorial Optimization,” Master’s Thesis, The
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, July 2002.
[9] K Chepuri, and T. Homem de Mello, “Solving the Vehicle Routing Problem with Stochastic
Demands Using Cross Entropy Method,” Annals of Operations Research, Kluwer Academic,
2004.
[10] I. Szita and A. Lorincz, “Learning Tetris Using the Noisy Cross Entropy Method”, Neural
Computation, vol. 18, no. 12, Dec. 2006, pp. 2936–2941.
[11] Y. Chen and Y. T. Su, “Maximum Likelihood DOA Estimation Based on the Cross Entropy
Method”, Information Theory, 2006 IEEE International Symposium on, July 2006, pp. 851–
855.
[12] M. Joost and W. Schiffmann, “Speeding Up Backpropagation Algorithms By Using Cross

Entropy Combined With Pattern Normalization”, International Journal of Uncertainty,
Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems, 1997.
[13] M. Dorigo, M. Zlochin, N. Meuleau and M. Birattari, “Updating ACO Pheromones Using
Stochastic Gradient Ascent and Cross Entropy Methods”, Applications of Evolutionary
Computing in vol. 2279 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002, pp. 21–30.
[14] Z. Liu, A. Doucet, and S. Singh. “The Cross Entropy Method for Blind Multi-user
Detection,” Information Theory, 2004 ISIT 2004, Proceedings, International Symposium on,
July 2004, pp. 510.
198
[15] Y. Zhang, et.al, “Cross Entropy Optimization of Multiple-Input Multiple-Output Capacity by
Transmit Antenna Selection”, IET Microwaves, Antennas & Propagation. vol. 1, no. 6, Dec.
2007, pp. 1131–1136.
[16] http://iew3.technion.ac.il/CE/pubs.php
[17] R. Y. Rubinstein, and D. P. Kroese, The Cross-Entropy Method: A Unified Approach to

Combinatorial Optimization, Monte-Carlo Simulation and Machine Learning. New York:
Springer, 2004.
[18] P. Boer, D. Kroese, S. Manor, R. Rubinstein, “A tutorial on the cross-entropy method,”

http://iew3.technion.ac.il/CE/tutor.php, 2002.
[19] http://iew3.technion.ac.il/CE/ (formerly www.cemethod.org)
[20] http://www.maths.uq.edu.au/CEToolBox/
[21] R. Y. Rubinstein, and D. P. Kroese, The Cross-Entropy Method: A Unified Approach to

Combinatorial Optimization, Monte-Carlo Simulation and Machine Learning. New York:
Springer, 2004, pp. 200.
[22] Z. Botev and D. P. Kroese. “Global Likelihood Optimization via the Cross-Entropy Method
with an Application to Mixture Models”. IEEE Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation
Conference. vol. 1. Dec. 2004.
[23] R. L. Haupt and D. H. Werner, Genetic Algorithms in Electromagnetics, Hoboken, New

Jersey: Wiley, 2007, pp. 45–53.
[24] A. Costs, O. D. Jones and D. P. Kroese, “Convergence Properties of the Cross-Entropy

Method for Discrete Optimization,” Operations Research Letters, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 573-
580, Sept. 2007.
[25] L. Margolin, “On the Convergence of the Cross-Entropy Method”, Annals of Operations
Research, vol. 134, 2004, pp. 201–214.
[26] M. Laguna, A. Duarte and R. Marti, (2006, Dec. 12), “The Accelerated Cross Entropy
Method: An Application to the Max-Cut Problem”, [Online]. Available:
http://www.uv.es/sestio/TechRep/tr02-07.pdf
[27] I. Szita and A. Lorincz, “Online Variants of the Cross Entropy Method”, [Online].
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1988v1
[28] A. Uenveren and A. Acan, “Multi-Objective Optimization with Cross Entropy Method:
Stochastic Learning With Clustered Pareto Fronts”, Evolutionary Computation, 2007, CEC
2007, IEEE Congress on. Sept. 2007, pp. 3065–3071.
[29] R. O. Duda, P. E. Hart and D. G. Stork, Pattern Classification, New York: Wiley, 2001.
[30] Y. T. Lo, “A Mathematical Theory of Antenna Arrays with Randomly Spaced Elements,”
IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagat. Vol. AP-12, pp. 257-268, May 1964.
199
[31] B. D. Steinberg, Microwave Imaging with Large Antenna Arrays. New York: Wiley, 1983,
pp. 37–39.
[32] M. Skolnik, “Statistically Designed Density-Tapered Arrays”, IEEE Trans. Antennas and
Propagat. Vol. AP-12, pp. 408-417, Jul. 1964.
[33] Y. T. Lo and S. W. Lee, Antenna Handbook, New York: Springer, Ch. 14, 1993.
[34] R. L. Haupt, “Thinned Arrays Using Genetic Algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Antennas and
Propagat. Vol. 42, No. 7, pp. 993–999, Jul. 1994.
[35] R. L. Haupt, “Interleaved Thinned Linear Arrays”, IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagat.
Vol. 53, No. 9, pp. 2858–2864.
[36] G. K. Mahanti, “Synthesis of Thinned Linear Antenna Arrays with Fixed Sidelobe Level
Using Real-Coded Genetic Algorithm”, Progress in Electromagnetics Research, PIER 75,
pp. 319–328, 2007.
[37] C. A. Meijer, “Simulated Annealing in the Design of Thinned Arrays Having Low Sidelobe
Levels,” in Proc. 1998 South African Symp. On Communications and Signal Processing. pp.
361-366.
[38] N. Jin and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Advances in Particle Swarm Optimization for Antenna
Designs: Real-Number, Binary, Single-Objective and Multiobjective Implementations,”
IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagat. Vol. 55. No. 3, pp. 556-567, Mar. 2007.
[39] O. Quevedo-Teruel and E. Rajo-Iglesias, “Ant Colony Optimization in Thinned Array

Synthesis with Minimum Sidelobe Level,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagat Lett., Vol.
5, pp. 349-352.
[40] A. Razavi and K. Forooraghi, “Thinned Arrays Using Pattern Search Algorithms”, Progress
In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 78, pp. 61–71, 2008.
[41] R. J. Mailloux, Phased Array Antenna Handbook. Norwood, MA: Artech House, 2nd Ed,
2005, pp. 92–106.
[42] M. Khodier and C. Christodoulou, “Linear Array Geometry Synthesis with Minimum
Sidelobe Level and Null Control Using Particle Swarm Optimization,” IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag., vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 2674-2679, Aug. 2005.
[43] K. Deb, Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, New York: Wiley,
2001.
[44] M. A. Panduro, C. A. Brizuela, D. Covarrubias and C. Lopez, “A Trade-Off Curve

Computation for Linear Antenna Arrays Using an Evolutionary Multi-Objective
Approach”, Soft-Computing – A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and
Applications, vol. 10, no. 2, Jan 2006, pp. 125–131.
[45] A. Uenveren and A. Acan, “Multi-Objective Optimization with Cross Entropy

Method: Stochastic Learning With Clustered Pareto Fronts”, Evolutionary
Computation, 2007, CEC 2007, IEEE Congress on. Sept. 2007, pp. 3065–3071.
200
[46] A. Tennant, M.M. Dawoud, and A.P Anderson, “Array Pattern Nulling By Element Position
Perturbations Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Electron. Lett., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 174-176, Feb.
1994.
[47] V. Murino, A. Trucco, and C. Regazzoni, “Synthesis of Unequally Spaced Arrays By

Simulated Annealing,” IEEE Trans. on Antennas Propag., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 119-123, Jan.
1996.
[48] J. A. Rodrıguez, L. Landesa, J. L. Rodrıguez, F. Obelleiro, F. Ares and A. Garcıa-Pino,

“Pattern Synthesis of Array Antennas with Arbitrary Elements By Simulated Annealing and
Adaptive Array Theory,” Microwave and Optical Tech. Letts. vol. 20, no. 1, pp.48-50, Jan.
5, 1999.
[49] M. G. Bray, D. H. Werner, D. W. Boeringer and D. W. Machuga, “Optimization of Thinned

Aperiodic Linear Phased Arrays Using Genetic Algorithms to Reduce Grating Lobes During
Scanning”, IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagat. vol. 50, no. 12, Dec 2002, pp. 1732–1742.
[50] M. A. Panduro, D. H. Covarrubias, C. A. Brizuela and F. R. Marante, “A Multi-Objective

Approach in the Linear Antenna Array Design”, AEU-International Journal of Electronics
and Communications, vol. 59, no. 4, June 15, 2005, pp. 205 – 212.
[51] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory, Analysis and Design, 3rd Ed., New York: Wiley, 2005.
[52] M. A. Panduro, C. A. Brizuela, D. Covarrubias and C. Lopez, “A Trade-Off Curve

Computation for Linear Antenna Arrays Using an Evolutionary Multi-Objective Approach”,
Soft-Computing – A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and Applications, vol. 10, no. 2,
Jan 2006, pp. 125–131.
[53] M. A. Panduro, D. H. Covarrubias, C. A. Brizuela and F. R. Marante, “A Multi-Objective

Approach in the Linear Antenna Array Design”, AEU-International Journal of Electronics
and Communications, vol. 59, no. 4, June 15, 2005, pp. 205 – 212.
[54] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory, Analysis and Design, 3rd Ed., New York: Wiley, 2005.
[55] A. Sabharwal, D. Avidor and L. Potter, “Sector Beam Synthesis for Cellular Systems Using
Phased Antenna Arrays”, IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Tech., vol. 49, no. 5, Sept. 2000, pp.
1784–1792.
[56] K. I. Pedersen, P. E. Mogensen and J. Ramiro-Moreno, “Application and Performance of

Downlink Beamforming Techniques in UMTS”, IEEE Communications Magazine, Oct.
2003, pp. 134–143.
[57] R. J. Mailloux, Phased Array Antenna Handbook. Norwood, MA: Artech House, 2nd Ed,
2005, pp. 92–106.
[58] F. B. Gross, “Smart Antennas for Wireless Communications With MATLAB”, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2005, pp. 94.
[59] D. W. Boeringer, D. H. Werner, and D. W. Machuga, “A Simultaneous Parameter

Adaptation Scheme for Genetic Algorithms with Application to Phased Array Synthesis,”
IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 53, no. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 356-371.
201
[60] R. L. Haupt and J. M. Johnson, “Dynamic Phase-Only Array Beam Control Using a Genetic
Algorithm”, Evolvable Hardware, 1999. Proceedings of the First NASA/DoD Workshop On,
July 1999, pp. 217–224.
[61] D. J. Sadler, “Sector Beam Synthesis Using Antenna Arrays”, DSPenabledRadio, 2005. The
2nd IEE/EURASIP Conference on (Ref. No. 2005/11086), Sep. 2005, pp. 29/1–29/5.
[62] G. K. Mahanti and A. Chakrabarty, “Phase-Only and Amplitude-Phase Synthesis of Dual-

Pattern Linear Arrays Using Floating-Point Genetic Algorithms”, Progress in
Electromagnetics Research, PIER 68, 2007, pp. 247–259.
[63] D. Gies, and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Particle Swarm Optimization for Reconfigurable Phase-
Differentiated Array Design,” Wiley-Interscience Journals: Microwave and Optical
Technology Letters, vol. 38, no. 3, Aug 2003, pp. 163-175.
[64] S. M. Mikki and A. A. Kishk, “Quantum Particle Swarm Optimization for

Electromagnetics”, IEEE Trans. on Antennas and Propagat., vol. 54, no. 10, Oct. 2006, pp.
2764–2775.
[65] A. Akdagli and K. Guney, “Shaped-Beam Pattern Synthesis of Equally and Unequally
Spaced Linear Antenna Arrays Using a Modified Tabu Search Algorithm”, Wiley-
Interscience Journals: Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, vol. 36, no. 1, Jan. 2003,
pp. 16–20.
[66] W. C. Weng, F. Yang and A. Z. Elsherbeni, “Linear Antenna Array Synthesis Using
Taguchi’s Method: A Novel Optimization Technique in Electromagnetics”, IEEE Trans. on
Antennas and Propagat., vol. 55, no. 3, Mar. 2007, pp. 723–730.
[67] R. J. Mailloux, “Phased Array Error Correction Scheme”, IEEE Elect. Letts., vol. 29, no. 7,
Apr. 1993, pp. 573–574.
[68] _______, “Array Failure Correction with a Digitally Beamformed Array”, IEEE Trans. on
Antenna and Propagat., vol. AP-44, no.12, Dec. 1996, pp. 1543–1550.
[69] H. Steyskal and R. J. Mailloux, “Generalization of an Array Failure Correction Method”,

IEE Proc., vol. 145, issue 4, Aug. 1998, pp. 332–336.
[70] T. J. Peters, “A Conjugate Gradient-Based Algorithm to Minimize Sidelobe Level of Planar

Arrays with Element Failures”, IEEE Trans. on Antennas and Propagat., vol. 39, no. 10,
Oct. 1991, pp. 1497–1504.
[71] S. H. Zainud-Deen et. al., “Array Failure Correction with Orthogonal Method”, Radio
Science Conference, 2004. NRSC 2004, Proc. of the Twenty-First National, Mar. 2004, pp.
B7: 1–9.
[72] M. Levitas, D. A. Horton and T. C. Cheston, “Practical Failure Compensation in Active

Phased Arrays”, IEEE Trans. on Antennas and Propagat., vol. 47, no. 3, Mar. 1999, pp.
524–535.
[73] B. K. Yeo and Y. L. Lu, “Array Failure Correction with a Genetic Algorithm”, IEEE Trans.
on Antennas and Propagat., vol. 47, no. 5, May 1999, pp. 823–828.
202
[74] J. A. Rodríguez and F. Ares, “Finding Defective Elements in Planar Arrays Using Genetic
Algorithms”, Progress in Electromagnetics Research, PIER 29, 2000, pp. 25–37.
[75] J. A. Rodriguez, F. Ares, E. Moreno and G. Franceschetti, “Genetic Algorithm Procedure for
Linear Array Failure Correction”, IEEE Elect. Letts., vol. 36, no. 3, Feb. 2000, pp. 196–198.
[76] A. Taskin and C. S. Gurel, “Antenna Array Pattern Optimisation in the Case of Array
Element Failure”, IEEE 33rd European Microwave Conference, 2003. Oct. 2003, pp. 1083–
1085.
[77] J. A. Rodríguez and F. Ares, “Optimization of the Performance of Arrays with Failed
Elements Using Simulated Annealing Technology”, Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and
Applications, vol. 12, 1998, pp. 1625–1637.
203
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Jeffrey Connor was born on February 11, 1981 in Stoneham, MA. After graduating as
Salutatorian from Shawsheen Vocational High School in Billerica, MA in 1999, he
attended the University of Massachusetts, Amherst campus as a University Scholar where
he earned a Bachelor’s of Science in Electrical Engineering in 2003. Soon thereafter, he
earned a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering from The Florida State University in
Tallahassee, FL in 2005 where he participated as a research assistant with the Sensor
Systems Research Lab at the FAMU/FSU College of Engineering under the direction of
Dr. Frank Gross. Currently, he is continuing his studies at The Florida State University
where he is a PhD candidate in Electrical Engineering supported as a research assistant
by the Machine Intelligence Laboratory at the FAMU/FSU College of Engineering under
the direction of Dr. Simon Foo. He previously performed work as an intern for the Argon
ST Corporation of Fairfax, VA and after the completion of the PhD program, he will be
returning to Argon ST as a systems engineer.
Jeffrey has contributed work for Smart Antennas for Wireless Communications with
MATLAB by Frank Gross (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005) and has published several
journal articles in the IEEE Transactions on Antenna and Propagations and the IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems. He has also worked on several
research projects supported by the Naval Research Laboratory, National Science
Foundation and the National Security Agency. His research interests are in the area of
array pattern synthesis, smart antenna systems, reconfigurable antennas, numerical
techniques for electromagnetics, wireless propagation, and geolocation.
204

Antenna Array Synthesis Using The Cross Entropy Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antenna Array Synthesis Using The Cross Entropy Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Florida State University

Antenna Array Synthesis Using the Cross Entropy

Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

ANTENNA ARRAY SYNTHESIS USING THE CROSS ENTROPY METHOD

A Dissertation submitted to the

Victor DeBrunner, Chair, Electrical and Computer Engineering

C. J. Chen, Dean, College of Engineering

List of Tables ................................................................................................ vii

1.1 Antenna Array Synthesis ......................................................................... 1

5. PHASED ARRAY SYNTHESIS ................................................................... 101

5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 101

6 . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 169

6.1 Summary of Work.................................................................................... 169

APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 173

Table 4.3. Average Number of Iterations For Convergence............................... 56

Table 4.3. Comparison of CE Results to Literature............................................ 53

Table 4.6. Composite Pareto Optimal Solutions of Multi-Objective Thinned Array

Table 4.7. Mean Pareto Optimal Solutions of Multi-Objective Thinned Array

Table 4.16. Mean Pareto Optimal Solutions of Multi-Objective Aperiodic Array

Table 5.6. CE Design Parameters for Double Element Failure Dolph-Chebyshev

Table 5.12. CE Design Parameters for Null Placement Scenario....................... 141

Table 5.20. Complex Weights of Switched-Beam Array Design....................... 160

Table 5.23. Accuracy of Multi-Objective Methods Quantified by Error Estimates167

Table A.1. Progression of CE Parameters, Score and Positions for Continuous CE

Table C.1. Progression of CE Parameters and Score For Combinatorial

Table D.1. Optimal Solutions to (D.2)................................................................ 187

Table E.1. Average Number of Iterations For Convergence .............................. 192

Figure 1.1. Top level flow chart of dissertation.................................................. 9

Figure 2.1. Geometric array configurations........................................................ 10

Figure 2.2. Antenna Coordinate System ............................................................. 11

Figure 2.3. Wavefront sampled by a discrete antenna array............................... 12

Figure 2.5. x-axis linear array with z variation. ................................................. 14

Figure 2.8. 11 element uniform linear array with d = 0.5λ. ............................... 20

Figure 3.1. FACE Algorithm Flowchart ............................................................. 38

Figure 4.2. Flow chart for aperiodic antenna design .......................................... 47

Figure 4.14. Pareto Front of non-dominated solutions ....................................... 63

Figure 4.37. Altered non-uniformly spaced array accounting for overlapping

Figure 4.44. Mean element positions of all 100 trials......................................... 87

Figure 4.52. Pareto front of non-dominated solutions for multi-objective aperiodic

Figure 4.53. Pareto front of non-dominated solutions for multi-objective aperiodic

Figure 5.2. Illustration of sector beam pattern.................................................... 103

Figure 5.8. Convergence curves of different convergence groupings ................ 111

Figure 5.14. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for

Figure 5.17. Convergence curves of different convergence groupings. ............. 117

Figure 5.23. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for

Figure 5.25. Plot of corrected array pattern of original Dolph-Chebyshev weighted

Figure 5.26. Corrected pattern for best performing trial..................................... 129

Figure 5.30. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for

Figure 5.33. Corrected pattern for best performing trial...................................... 135

Figure 5.37. Progression of mean and variance of Gaussian distribution for

Figure 5.63. Mean and variance of Gaussian distributions governing amplitude

Figure A.2. Progression of Gaussian pdf as distribution converges to the

Figure B.5. (a) Progression of best and worst samples in population as CE

Figure D.3. Results of CE Procedure for a Single Trial ..................................... 188

Figure E.1. Plot of trigonometric cost surface in \2........................................... 191

1.1 ANTENNA ARRAY SYNTHESIS

In modern signal transmission/reception systems such as radar, sonar, AM/FM &

1.2 OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS APPLIED TO ARRAY SYNTHESIS

1.3 CROSS-ENTROPY METHOD

1.4 MOTIVATION FOR WORK

This work is motivated by the popularity of evolutionary algorithms and nature-

1.5 SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES

Aperiodic Aperiodic Phased