INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. ‘The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g, maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI ABel & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles GENETIC ALGORITHMS IN ENGINEERING ELECTROMAGNETICS A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering by J. Michael Johnson 1997‘UMI Number: 9807671 LUMI Microform 9807671 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. ‘This microform edition is protected against unauthorized ‘copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48103‘The dissertation of J. Michael Johnson is approved YortRan: Nathaniel Grossman. ALL Tatsuo Itoh oa Yahya Rahmat-Samii, Committee Chair Kung Yao University of California, Los Angeles 1997DEDICATION I dedicate this work to the two most important people in my life. To my mother, MaryLou S. Johnson, without whom I would, of course, have no life and to my wife, Elizabeth E. Leitereg without whom my life would have no meaning.TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS: LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ACRONYMS Vira PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Buletecs INTRODUCTION | GENETIC ALGORITHM OVERVIEW 2.1 GLOBAL Vs. LOCAL OPTIMIZATION 14 2.2 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENETIC ALGORITHM. 18 CHAPTER 3 22 A SIMPLE GENETIC ALGORITHM. 3.1 CHROMOSOMES AND PARAMETER CODING 24 3.2 SELECTION STRATEGIES 26 3.2.1 POPULATION DECIMATION 27 3.2.2 PROPORTIONATE SELECTION 29 3.2.3 TOURNAMENT SELECTION 31 3.3. GA OPERATORS 33 3.4 ‘FITNESS FUNCTIONS 35 3.5 EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SIMPLE GA OPTIMIZER 36 3.5.1 ELITIST STRATEGY 37 3.5.2 FITNESS SCALING 38 3.5.3. STEADY STATE GENETIC ALGORITHMS 403.5.4 THE TRAVELING SALESMAN PROBLEM (TSP) 42 CHAPTER 4 46 STEP BY STEP IMPLEMENTATION: A CASE STUDY 4.1 A More DIFFICULT PROBLEM 54 4.2 A COMPARISON OF STEADY STATE AND GENERATIONAL GA. PERFORMANCE 56 CHAPTERS 0 ARRAY DESIGN USING GENETIC ALGORITHMS 5.1 Low SIDELOBE LEVELS IN THINNED AND NON-UNIFORM ARRAYS 61 5.2 SHAPED BEAM ARRAYS 65 CHAPTER6 08 MULTI-OBJECTIVE ARRAY DESIGN WITH GA 6.1 PHASE CONTROLLED SWITCHED BEAM ARRAY DESIGN 16 6.1.1 PATTERN-B DESIGN FOLLOWED BY GA OPTIMIZATION To PRODUCE PATTERN-A. 79 6.1.2 PATTERN-A DESIGN FOLLOWED BY GA OPTIMIZATION To PRODUCE PATTERN-B 86 6.1.3 SIMULTANEOUS PATTERN A AND PATTERN B GA OPTIMIZATION 90 CHAPTER7 98 ARRAY BASED REFLECTOR DISTORTION COMPENSATION USING GA OPTIMIZATION 7.1 DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS AND THE MULTI-BEAM ANTENNA APPROACH 97 7.2, MULTI-BEAM APPROACH TO ARRAY OPTIMIZATION 99 7.3 COMPENSATION OF DISTORTION USING GA OPTIMIZATION 102 7.4 CONCLUSION 106CHAPTERS WIRELESS NETWORK LAYOUT USING GENETIC ALGORITHMS 8.1 GA NETWORK OpTIMIZATION FITNESS FUNCTION 113, 8.2 RESULTS FOR SIMPLE NETWORKS 1S 8.3. A More REALISTIC Case 11g CHAPTER 9 121 GA/MOM: PATCH ANTENNA DESIGNS USING GA AND METHOD OF MOMENTS 9.1 GA/MoM METHoDoLocy 124 9.2. WIDEBAND PATCH ANTENNA DESIGN EXAMPLE. 130 9.3. DUALBAND PATCH ANTENNA DESIGN 135 9.4 FDTD SIMULATION OF OPTIMIZED PATCH ANTENNA 139 9.5 MEASURED RESULTS OF OPTIMIZED PATCH ANTENNA 142 9.6 _ INVESTIGATION OF DUAL BAND PATCH OPERATION 144 CHAPTERIO, tc CONCLUSIONS AND SUGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 10.1 CoNcLusIons 150 10.2 GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF GA TO ELECTROMAGNETIC PROBLEMS 152 10.3 SUGGESTIONS FoR FUTURE WORK 155 APPENDIX A057 DOPLH-CHEBYSHEV ARRAY SYNTHESIS APPENDIX BO SURFACE PATCH METHOD OF MOMENTS AND THE RAO, WILTON GLISSON BASSIS FUNCTION B.1 THE ELECTRIC FIELD INTEGRAL EQUATION 162 B.2_ THE METHOD OF MoMENTS 167 B.3_ THERAO, WILTON BASIS FUNCTION 169APPENDIX 0 A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO FINITE DIFFERENCE TIME DOMAIN (FDTD) ANALYSIS BIBLIOG! 180LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Real life optimization of a broadband patch antenna design might include finite numbers of available dielectric substrates, material costs and material weights as well as the usual paramters such as size of the atch and location of the probe. GA optmizers are robust enough to handle such diverse parameter sets. 3 Figure 1-2: Linear array GA optimization problem. 7 Figure 1-3: Antenna beam specifications for the patterns required in the example of chapter 6. 7 Figure 1-4: GA is used to compensate for distorted, array fed reflector antennas by adjusting the array excitation coefficients in chapter 7. (Figure courtesy of R. Hoferer). 8 Figure 1-5: The problem explored in chapter 8 involves the automatic GA based layout of wireless, point to point networks. 9 Figure 1-6: The problem explored in chapter 9 involves GA optimization of the shape of a patch antenna. 10 Figure 2-1: Important concepts and terminology associated with genetic algorithms. 12 Figure 2-2: The major optimization methods can be classified as either global or local techniques. IS Figure 2-3: Genetic Algorithm (GA) optimization compared qualitatively to conjugate gradient (CG) and random search (Random). 16 Figure 2-4: Holland's schemata concept. 18 Figure 2-5: Some schema of a 7-bit binary chromosome. 19 Figure 3-1: Block diagram of a simple genetic algorithm optimizer. 23 Figure 3-2: Chromosomes can be entirely encoded (usually binary), floating point or mixed binary and floating point. Generally a parameter is equivalent to a gene. Figure 3-3: Proportionate Selection represented as a roulette wheel with spaces on the wheel proportional to an individual's relative fitness. ____30 Figure 3-4: Tournament Selection, where N individuals are selected at random from the population and the individual with the highest fitness in the selected sub-population becomes the selected individual. 31 25Figure 3-5: The single point crossover operator redistributes the characteristics of a pair of parents and creates a pair of children. 34 Figure 3-6: The mutation operator randomly modifies elements within the chromosome. $$$ Figure 3-7: The Partially Matched Crossover operator redistributes the characteristics of a pair of parents and creates a pair of children while preserving a valid tour. Figure 3-8: The TSP mutation operator randomly selects and interchanges a air of elements within the chromosome. 45 Figure 4-1: A plot of the solution surface for the 2D magnitude SINC function example problem of equation (4.1) which has a global maximum at (x = 3.0, y = 3.0).. Figure 4-2: The genetic algorithm optimization converges to the optimal solution (fimess = 1.0) much faster, on average, and with smaller variance over a number of successive, independent trials than the random search method. Figure 4-3: Distribution of a GA population at the first generation and after 100 generations showing the convergence of the population toward the peak and the general alignment of the population along planes that intersect the peak. Figure 4-4: Distribution of a GA population on a bi-modal surface at the initialization point and after 100 generations once again showing alignment of the population on planes intersecting the peak. 55 Figure 4-5: Comparison between average progress towards convergence for generational and steady state replacement schemes showing better convergence for the steady state schemes. S7 Figure 4-6: Comparison between average progress towards convergence for roulette wheel versus tournament selection in both generational and 43 47 steady state replacement schemes. 59 Figure 5-1: Minimum sidelobe through array decimation using GA optimization. 62 Figure 5-2: Results of thinning an array to achieve an optimal low sidelobe Pattern using GA.. 63 Figure 5-3: Results of thinning an array to achieve an optimal low sidelobe pattern using GA. 64 Figure 5-4: Geometry for the flat top beam design case, 66Figure 5-5: Excitation coefficient magnitudes for continuously variable GA optimized flat-top beam design.. Figure 5-6: Excitation coefficient phases for continuously variable GA optimized flat-top beam design. 69 Figure 5-7: Pattern for the continuously variable case optimization results.____71 Figure 5-8: Pattern for case-2 GA optimization results where only 4 amplitude sates and 2 phase states were used during the optimization 69 process. 72 Figure 5-9: Close-up plot of the main beam region of case-2 showing difference in the ripple when compared with a pattern produced by rounded off excitation coefficients of case-1. 73 Figure 6-1: Pattern specifications for the widebeam pattern, pattern-A._____77 Figure 6-2: Pattern specifications for the narrowbeam pattern, pattern-B.__78 Figure 6-3: Amplitude of excitation coefficients of an 18 element array as determined by the Dolph-Chebyshev synthesis procedure. 81 Figure 6-4: Array pattern for an 18 element array using the excitation coefficients determined by the Dolph-Chebyshev synthesis procedure. ____ 82 Figure 6-5: Four array design produced by GA optimization using the fitness function of equation (6.9) where both excitation coefficient amplitude ‘and phase were optimized. 83 Figure 6-6: Some example results of phase only GA optimization of the Dolph-Chebyshev design using the fitness function of equation (6.9). 85 Figure 6-7: Pattern produced by application of Orchard synthesis to an 18 element array with pattern-A specifications. 86 Figure 6-8: Four example patterns produced by GA optimization of the 18- element array using the pattern-B fitness function. 88 Figure 6-9: Pattern produced by GA phase only optimization of excitation coefficients produced by the Orchard synthesis, = 89 Figure 6-10: Widebeam pattern for best results from combined GA optimization. 9 Figure 6-11: Narrowbeam pattern for best results from combined GA optimization. 92 Figure 6-12: Amplitude distribution of the best result obtained from combined GA optimization. 93Figure 6-13: Phase distribution of the best result obtained from combined GA optimization. ee Figure 7-1: Reflector geometery and array feed layout.___97 Figure 7-2: Plot of reflector surface distortion term Fy.__________99 Figure 7-3: Performance of an undistorted 20 A. center fed parabolic reflector with various feed configurations. 102 Figure 7-4: Pattern of the undistorted reflector with pre-distortion optimized excitation coefficients compared to the 10 dB taper single feed pattern. __ 104 Figure 7-5: Performance of an undistorted 20 A.center fed parabolic reflector with an optimized array feed, performance with distortion added and the recovered performance with GA optimization. ___105 Figure 8-1: Typical Network Structures used in Backbone Data Distribution Networks where a) depicts an open path backbone and b) shows a ring backbone. Ring backbones and open path backbones differ only in that the there is no connection between the first and last elements in an open backbone. Figure 8-2: Example of Two Encoding Schemes for the Path Length Minimization Problem. I Figure 8-3: Example 5 bit Chromosome Encoding Scheme for the Maximization of SNR at the nodes. Figure 8-4: A set of 10 nodes a) arranged in a rectangle were interconnected using b) the TSP measure of optimum and c) the SNR measure of optimum. Figure 8-5: a) Given a set of 14 nodes at known locations, similar results to those obtained with 10 nodes for the SNR measure are obtained. b) Including sidelobes in the antenna pattern modifies the pattern somewhat. 7 Figure 8-6: GA optimized minimum distance network layout for 20 nodes.. U8 Figure 8-7: GA optimized maximum SNR network layout for 20 nodes. 9 Figure 9-1: Block diagram of GA/MoM Direct Matrix Manipulation approach. Figure 9-2: Comparison the MoM block diagram and the block diagram of GA/MoM Direct Matrix Manipulation approach,_____ 127 Figure 9-3: Matrix fill time and matrix inversion time comparison. 128 108 12 116 125Figure 9-4: Calculated S11 for patch antenna before and after GA/MoM optimization. Figure 9-5: Patch antenna with simple wire feed above an infinite ground plane before (a) and after (b) GA optimization. ___ 3B Figure 9-6: Double density MoM discretized version of optimized patch antenna to test for convergence. Figure 9-7: Double density MoM discretized version of optimized patch antenna to test for convergence. A Figure 9-8: Calculated S11 for the dual band patch antenna before and after GA/MoM optimization. 137 Figure 9-9: Dual band optimized patch antenna structure shown over an infinite ground plane. Figure 9-10: Principle plane radiation patterns of the original patch antenna and the dual band optimized patch. a) f = 0 degrees plane cut; b) f = 90 degrees plane. 138 Figure 9-11: Dual band optimized patch antenna structure shown FDTD discretization grid. Figure 9-12: Comparison of MoM and FDTD predictions of \S11\ for the optimized dual band patch antenna. __ 4 Figure 9-13: Comparison of FDTD predictions of \S1\ for the optimized dual band patch antenna with two different dielectrics. 141 Figure 9-14: Photograph of the prototype dual band GA optimized antenna. ___142 Figure 9-15: Measured and MoM modeled |S11\ performance for the GA optimized dual band antenna. 143 Figure 9-16: Several substructures of the dual band patch antenna are readily identifiable including (a) the main body without holes and (b) the main body with holes, (c) the main body with the central tab, (d) the main body with the two small tabs, (¢) the main body plus the large and small tabs and (f) the complete dual band antenna with tabs and holes. _144 Figure 9-17: Magnitude 511 results for the main body with and without holes compared to that of the complete dual band patch antenna.___145 Figure 9-18: Magnitude S11 results for the main body with the central tab and the main body with the smaller tabs both without holes as shown in Figure 9-16 (c) and (d). 146 131 137 139Figure 9-19: Magnitude S11 results for the main body with both the central tab the smaller tabs without holes as shown in Figure 9-16(e) and the results of the complete dual band patch structure shown in Figure 9-16(9). 147 Figure 9-20: The GA/MoM results can be improved by slightly lengthening the tabs and leaving out the holes. 148 Figure B-1: A volume V surrounded by surfaces S,...Sy 164 Figure B-1: Key geometrical parameters for the RWG basis function. 170 Figure C-1: The H-fields are calculated from the surrounding E-fields. 175 Figure C-2: The Yee cell approach to spatial discretization in FDTD. 176ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘The author wishes acknowledge the support, patience, love and understanding of my wife, Elizabeth Leitereg. She put her life on hold for 6 years so that I could pursue this research and the Ph. D. degree that it represents and I am most grateful. The author would also like to acknowledge Yahya Rahmat-Samii for his counsel and invaluable advice during the course of this research. Many times the author thought a dead-end had been reached only to have a comment or suggestion from Professor Rahmat-Samii lead to a significant step forward. The author would also like to express his appreciation to Nathaniel Grossman, Tatsuo Itoh, and Kung Yao for agreeing to serve on his thesis committee. The author would like to express sincere appreciation to Richard Hodges for the use of his JPOHM method of moments code, Dah-Weih Daun for the use of his DUAL PO/PTD code, and Michael Jensen for the use of his FDTD code. These codes where developed as part of the developer’s Ph.D. research at UCLA. It was only the availability of these codes that made possible the extensive range of application of GA that is presented herein. Finally the author would like to acknowledge his lab colleagues, especially Joseph Colbum and Robert Hoferer, who have over the course of this study provided much encouragement, helpful criticism and even a figure or two.LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ACRONYMS The definition of a given symbol or acronym is intended to apply to the entire document except when followed by a reference to a particular chapter or appendix. RCS Radar Cross Section GA Genetic Algorithm POPTD Physical Optics/Physical Theory of Diffraction. Peras probability of crossover Patton probability of mutation ca conjugate gradient optimization k alphabet cardinality (chapter 2) L length of chromosome m(H,t) number of a particular schemata H contained in the Population at time t H a given schemata fO fitness function F population average fitness oH) schema order (chapter 2) Siparent,) fitness of ith parent Pretecion probability of selection O(n) complexity order n P probability Max number larger than the largest expected fimess value ‘fitness OF frcated fitness value after scaling abe user selected integer used in scaling (chapter 3) f imermediate fimess f raw fitness Socr deviation from average fitnesstraveling salesman problem Partially matched crossover parameter value, a real number (chapter 4) ‘maximum value in parameter range (chapter 4) minimum value in parameter range (chapter 4) number of bits in chromosome (chapter 4) binary bit in the nth position in the chromosome (chapter 4) wavelength average directivity (chapter 5) directivity at ith angle root mean squared array factor (chapter 5) fitness weight value, integer wave number (2n/A) array scan angle array factor nth excitation coefficient in an array number of elements in array equals 2N+1 for odd number of elements and 2N for even number of elements (chapter 6) amplitude of array excitation coefficient (chapter 6) phase of array excitation coefficient (chapter 6) decibels sidelobe level factor (equation 6.5) fitness weight value ‘maximum sidelobe level in dB (chapter 6) ‘maximum ripple in 4B (chapter 6) arbitrary number chosen by user combined fitnessFa LO EO SNR WGN Pry 2O RO) GO GO PO NO SNR) NEC DMM aN LJ ress LonZme x focal length of undistorted reflector distortion term (equation 7.2) linear operator E-field radiated by reflector array combination (chapter 7) signal to noise ratio minimum spanning tree white gaussian noise power received by the ith node from the jth node power received radial distance gain of transmitting antenna gain of receiving antenna power transmitted noise at mth node signal to noise ratio at mth node method of moments ‘numerical electromagnetic code direct matrix manipulation finite difference time domain electric field integral equation impedance matrix of MoM ‘current vector (aka solution) of MoM inverse of Z source term of MoM modified Z or ¥ matrices block sub-matrix of Z that is modified by DMM block sub-matrices of Z that are modified by DMM. block sub-matrix of Z that is not modified by DMM.3 Somme asarvaqgeeFY x Gr) cAG) Ty Ax, Ay, Az Pe voltage standing wave ratio relative permittivity (a.k.a. dielectric constant) mth order Chebyshev polynomial vector electric field vector magnetic field ‘magnetic current vector electric current permeability permittivity radian frequency curl operator divergence operator electric charge ‘magnetic charge (appendix B) volume surface scalar free space Green’s function surface normal for $ radial distance gradient operator basis function for the MoM (appendix B) triangle attached to the plus side of the nth edge area of nth triangle (appendix B) magnetic conductivity electric conductivity FDTD grid spacing in the x, y and z direction respectively (appendix C) partial derivative operator w.r.t. xSeptember 3, 1957 June 1980 1980-1984 June 1983 1984. 1984-1986 1986-1988 1988-1989 1989-1994 1994-Present VITA Born, El Paso, Texas B.S. Biological Sciences University of California, Irvine Member of Technical Staff ‘Advanced Hybrid Technology Department Solid State Products Division Hughes Aircraft Company MS.E. Electrical Engineering University of California, Irvine Major Field: Control Systems Best Paper Award International Society for Hybrid Microelectronics Symposium, Dallas, TX, Research Engineer, Sr. Communication Systems Hardware Department Communications Systems Engineering Space Systems Division Lockheed Missiles and Space Company Member of Technical Staff Systems Engineering Condor Systems, Inc. Member of Technical Staff Deskin Research Group Sr. Staff Systems Engineer Systems Engineering Condor Systems, Inc. President and Founder North Shores AssociatesPUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Johnson, J. M., et al, "Solar Powered Hybrid Sensors and their Application”, Proceedings of the International Society for Hybrid Microelectronics, Dallas, TX, 1984. Johnson, J. M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii "Genetic Algorithm Optimization and its Application to Antenna Design,” [EEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium Digest, Seattle, WA, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 326-329. Johnson, J. M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii “Genetic Algorithm Optimization of Wireless ‘Communication Networks,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium Digest, Newport Beach, CA, June 18-23, 1995, vol. 4, pp. 1964-1967. Johnson, J. M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii “Genetic Algorithm Optimization for Aerospace Electromagnetic Design and Analysis” IEEE Aerospace Applications Conference Proceedings, Snowmass at Aspen, CO, 1996 vol. 1, pp. 87-102. Johnson, J. M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii "Multiple Region FDTD (MR/FDTD) and its Application to Microwave Analysis and Modeling” IEEE MTT-S 1996 Symposium Digest, San Francisco, CA, June 17-21, 1996 vol. 3, pp. 1475-1478. Johnson, J. M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii "Wideband Tab Monopole Antenna Array for Wireless Adaptive and Mobile Information Systems Application” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium Digest, Baltimore, MD, July 21-26, 1996, vol. 1, pp. 718-721. Johnson, J. M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii, "Genetic Algorithms in Electromagnetics” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium Digest, Baltimore, MD, July 21-26, 1996, vol. 2, pp. 1480-1483. Johnson, J. M. and ¥. Rahmat-Samii, “The Tab Monopole,” IEEE Trans. Antennas. and Propagat., vol. 45, no. 1, January 1997, pp.187-188. Johnson, J. M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “MR/FDTD: Multiple Region Finite Difference Time Domain Method,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, vol. 14, no. 2, February 1997, pp. 101-105. Johnson, J. M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “A Novel Integration of Genetic Algorithms and Method of Moments (GA/MoM) for Antenna Design,” Applied Computational Electromagnetic Society Symposium, March 17-21, 1997.Johnson, J. M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Genetic Algorithms and Method of Moments (GA/MoM): A Novel Integration for Antenna Design,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium Digest, Montreal, Canada, July 14-18, 1997. Johnson, J. M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii "Multiple Region Finite Difference Time Domain (MR/EDTD)" USNC/URSI Radio Science Meeting, Baltimore, MD, July 21- 26, 1996, URSI Digest, pg. 120. Elsherbeni, A, J. M. Johnson and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Impedance Characterization using Finite Difference Time Domain Analysis,” 1997 Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium, 6-9 January 1997.ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION GENETIC ALGORITHMS IN ENGINEERING ELECTROMAGNETICS By J. Michael Johnson Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering University of California, Los Angeles, 1997 Professor Yahya Rahmat-Samii, Chair ‘The application of modern electromagnetic theory in real world radiation and scattering problems, especially antenna problems, often requires or at least benefits from the use of optimization. Common features of many real world electromagnetic optimization problems include the involvement of large numbers of parameters either continuous or discretized, constraints in the parameters, and a desire to locate global maxima or minima. The origins of the work presented in this dissertation can be found in the question “Is there a better way to solve modem, real-world electromagnetic design problems?”. This dissertation focuses on a relatively new approach to optimization called the genetic algorithm (GA) in an attempt to answer ‘yes to this question. Genetic algorithms are robust, stochastic based search methods that can handle the common characteristics of electromagnetic optimization problems that are not readily handled by other traditional optimization methods. The goal ofthis dissertation is to explore genetic algorithms and their application to a variety of electromagnetic, particularly antenna, and related problems. An overview of GAs is presented and the relationship between traditional optimization techniques and GA is discussed. Step by step implementation aspects of GA are detailed by way of a numerical example. The overview and step by step implementation discussion is followed by a presentation of several electromagnetic problems to which GA has been applied and has proved useful. The applications include the use of GA optimization for thinned and shaped beam linear arrays, multi-objective array optimization, reflector distortion compensation by feed array optimization, wireless network layout optimization, and patch antenna design optimization. Throughout the work summarized in this dissertation, a consistent theme was the coupling of GA optimization to traditional, high accuracy electromagnetic modeling and simulation methodologies. This coupling is most completely realized in the coupling of GA and the method of moments for patch antenna design optimization. Where appropriate, physical prototypes of GA produced designs were manufactured and tested to validate the design results. In general, Genetic algorithm optimization is shown to be robustness and suitable for optimizing a broad class of problems of interest to the electromagnetic community.Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ‘The application of modern electromagnetic theory to radiation and scattering problems often cither requires, or at least benefits from, the use of optimization. Among the typical problems requiring optimization are shaped reflector antenna design [1], target image reconstruction (2], and layered material, anti-reflective coating design for low radar cross section (RCS) [3]. Other problems, such as antenna array beam pattem shaping [4,5], while sometimes solvable without optimization, are often more readily handled using optimization particularly when one is faced with realization constraints imposed by manufacturing considerations or environmental factors. Electromagnetic optimization problems generally involve a large number of parameters. The parameters can be either continuous, discrete or both and often include constraints in allowable values. The goal of the optimization is to find a solution that represents a global maximum or minimum. In addition, the solution domain of electromagnetic optimization problems often have non-differentiable and/or discontinuous regions and often utilize approximations or models of the true electromagnetic phenomena to conserve computational resources. Thesecharacteristics sorely test the capabilities of many of the traditional optimization techniques and often require hybridization of traditional optimization methods if these ‘methods are to be applied at all. This dissertation focuses on a relatively new approach to optimization called the genetic algorithm (GA). Genetic algorithms are robust, stochastic based search methods that can handle the common characteristics of electromagnetic optimization problems that are not readily handled by other traditional optimization methods. The goal of this dissertation is to explore genetic algorithms and their application to a variety of electromagnetic and electromagnetic related problems. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the genetic algorithm and discusses the relationship of GA optimization to other traditional optimization methods. Chapter 3 describes a simple genetic algorithm and provides some of the details of its implementation and use. Chapter 4 presents a couple of case studies of the use of GAs to find the maximums of several ‘two dimensional surfaces. Chapter 4 is intended to acquaint the reader with the GA concepts as used in practice as well as to attempt to substantiate the claim that GA ‘optimization is applicable to electromagnetic problems. Finally, Chapters 5-9 discuss the application of GA optimization to electromagnetic problems. The examples in Chapters 5-9 are intended to illustrate the wide applicability of GA optimization, to address some of the peculiarities of the application of GA in electromagnetic problems, and to emphasize some decisions and choices faced by the user when considering whether to use GA optimization.The applications examined in Chapters 5-9 for the most part represent ground breaking, novel applications of GA and range across a broad spectrum of electromagnetically related design situations. Figure 1-1: Real life optimization of a broadband patch antenna design might include finite ‘umbers of available dielectric substrates, material cots and material weights as well as the usual paramters such a size of the patch and location of the probe. GA optmizers are robust enough to handle such diverse parameter sts. Before beginning the presentation of GAs it may be helpful to consider what kind of problems might benefit from GAs optimization. A good prototypical problem for GA optimization is illustrated in Figure 1-1 where the problem is to design a broad band patch antenna. Parameters that are usually included in this type of optimization problem include the location of the feed probe, the width and length of the patch(es) and the height of the patch(es) above the ground plane(s). In addition, it may be desirable to include constraints on the available dielectric materials, both in terms of thickness and dielectric constants, tolerance limits on the patch size and probelocation, constraints on the weight of the final design, and possibly even cost constraints for the final production model. Given the large number of parameters and the unavoidable mixture of discrete and continuous parameters involved in this problem it is virtually impossible to use traditional optimization methods. GA optimizers, on the other hand, can readily handle such a disparate set of optimization Parameters. The rest of this dissertation attempts to show why GAs would work well for optimization based design in electromagnetics. 1.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Prior to beginning the discussion of the concepts of genetic algorithms and their application to solving electromagnetic problems a brief introduction to the history of genetic algorithms is warranted. The genetic algorithm is a stochastic search Procedure modeled on the Darwinian concepts of natural selection and evolution. In the genetic algorithm, a set or population of potential solutions is caused to evolve toward a global optimal solution. The GA utilizes simple recombination and mutation of existing solution characteristics and evolution is the result of selective pressure exerted by fitness based selection. The ideas of GA where developed out of attempts in the 1960's and early 1970's to produce artificial systems that could adapt to changing situations. As a class of algorithms, GA belongs to a larger group known as evolutionary methods that alsoinclude such things as simulated annealing. An excellent overview of GA is presented in (6). While a number of notable examples of earlier attempts to develop GA exist, the concept of the genetic algorithm was first formalized by Holland [7] and his students. GA was later extended to functional optimization by De Jong [8] and others. The use of GA as an optimizer for solving electromagnetic problems first appears in the literature in the early 1990's. In 1993, Michielssen applied GA to the design by optimization of broadband microwave absorbers [3]. Since the appearance of that paper, GA optimization has found, and is continuing to find, numerous applications to real world problems in engineering and computer science. To date, GA optimization has been applied successfully to a wide variety of electromagnetic problems. As noted above, GA optimization has been used successfully in the design of broadband microwave absorbers [3,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. A large number of examples of the synthesis of antenna arrays using GA optimization have been reported. GA optimization has been used successfully to produced thinned or decimated arrays [4,16,17,18,19,] and to produce shaped beams [5,20,21,22,23,24, 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,]. Sidelobe level control [33,34,35] and adaptive nulling in array using GA optimization have been explored as well (36,37,38,39]. GA optimization has been used for the design of wire antennas of various forms including the design of electrically loaded wire antennas [40,41,42,43,44,45] and thedirect design of wire antennas using GA [46,47,48,49]. GA optimization has also been used in the design of frequency selective surfaces [50,51,52,53], radar target recognition, parameter extraction and backscattering problems [2,54,55,56,57,58, 59,60,61,62,63,64], and magnetics design [65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,16,77, 78,79,80]. In addition, GA optimization has found applications in wireless network layout [81,82], optical coating design [83], waveguide design [84], microwave filter design [85], and the design of patch/printed antennas (86,87,88]. Even perfectly matched layers in finite difference time domain (FDTD) have been optimized with GA [89]. Six applications of GAs to electromagnetic problems are described in more detail below and in the chapters that follow. The examples provide a representative picture of the range of genetic algorithm optimization applications possible in electromagnetics. The selection of the particular examples included in chapters 5-9 is intended to demonstrate the breadth of the applicability of GA optimization to electromagnetics. 1.2 GA OPTIMIZATION EXAMPLES The application of GA optimization to the design of antenna arrays is explored in chapters 5-6. In chapter 5 two principle applications are addressed: array decimation and shaped beam design through optimization. Figure 1-2 depicts the array configuration used for these problems.Figure 1-2: Linear array GA optimization problem. The array decimation problem uses the GA optimizer to selectively remove array elements from a uniformly excited array with the goal of reducing sidelobes. The shaped beam design problem employs the GA optimizer to select the amplitude and phase of the array excitation coefficients with the goal of achieving a flat top beam design. The ability of GA to work with highly discrete sets of parameter values is also demonstrated. A more difficult array synthesis problem is undertaken in chapter 6. Chapter 6 expands on the array design theme with a look at a more difficult, multi-objective ee oe Figure 1-3: Antenna beam specifications for the patterns required in the example of chapter 6.oe}. * e Figure 1-4: GA is used to compensate for distorted, array fed reflector antennas by adjusting the array excitation coefficients in chapter 7. (Figure courtesy of R. Hoferer) array design problem. In the example of Chapter 6 the GA optimizer is used to simultaneously synthesis a pair of antenna patterns the specifications of which are depicted in Figure 1-3. Several different approaches are compared. Chapter 7 explores the user of GA optimization for reflector distortion compensation using 2D feed arrays. In this work, the GA optimizer is used to select the array clement amplitude and phase excitation coefficients such that the effect of the reflector distortion is effectively canceled by the action of the array. This idea is illustrated in Figure 1-4. In this work, the ability of GA to work with two-dimensional arrays is demonstrated, as are methods for efficiently integrating GA optimization and physical optics/physical theory of diffraction (PO/PTD) analysis methods. In chapter 8 the use of GA optimization for the layout of wireless networks is investigated. The problem addressed is how to optimally connect a set of nodes to form a network. Figure 1-5 illustrates the problem. Chapter 8 emphasizes the abilitythe GA to handle NP-complete problem types that arise in this class of problems. Chapter 8 also utilizes modified GA operators designed to enhance performance in the traveling salesman problem indicative of the network layout problem. Finally, chapter 9 describes the linking of GA and method of moments for the purpose of developing patch antenna designs. A novel direct matrix manipulation (DMM) technique is introduced and employed in this work. The kind of problem that is addressed, illustrated in Figure 1-6, involves the design of sub-wavelength patch antennas with either broadband or dual band performance. The design is achieved by the selective removal of metalization under the control of the GA. The method of moments is used as a means for calculating the performance of the various patch ‘@What's the Best Layout? ‘¢What Defines Best? (13524) Ss w2354 Wn 12345) Figure 1-5: The problem explored in chapter 8 involves the automatic GA based layout of ‘wireless, point to point networks,Figure 1-6: The problem explored in chapter 9 involves GA optimization of the shape of a patch antenna. designs under consideration. An example of a broadband patch antenna design and a example dual band design are presented. The dual band design was manufactured and the measured results are compared to those of the design model. 10Chapter 2 GENETIC ALGORITHM OVERVIEW ‘As noted above, genetic algorithm (GA) optimizers are robust, stochastic search methods modeled on the principles and concepts of natural selection and evolution. As an optimizer, the powerful heuristic of GAs is effective at solving complex, combinatorial and related problems. GA optimizers are particularly effective when the goal is to find an approximate global maximum in high dimension, multi-modal function domain in a near optimal manner. The ability of the GA to perform in difficult optimization problems is further enhanced when the problem can be cast in a combinatorial form. GA optimization borrows from the natural world in a number of ways. Some important terminology and concepts of GA optimizers are presented in Figure 2-1. The following summarizes many of the important concepts, many of which are ‘expanded upon and formalized in later chapters. Populations and Chromosomes: in GA based optimizations a set of trial solutions is assembled as a population. The parameter set representing each trial solution or uindividual is coded to form a string or chromosome and each individual is assigned a fitness value by evaluation of the objective function. Chromosomes can be binary strings, strings of real parameters, or combinations. The objective function is to only direct link between the GA optimizer and the physical problem. Parents: following the initialization process in which a population is created, pairs of individuals are selected (with replacement) from the population in a probabilistic manner weighted by their relative fiess and designated as parents. In a typical selection scheme, modeled as a weighted roulette wheel, each individual in the population is assigned space on the roulette wheel proportional to the individual's Parent Child ‘¢Chromosome Fitness stot tia aoe ett member of the current generation Ph member of the next generation rar via successively created populations (GA iterations) coded form of atrial solution ‘vector (string) consisting of genes made of alleles positive number assigned to an a individoal representing a measure of ‘goodness Figure 2-1: Important concepts and terminology associated with genetic algorithms. 12relative fimess. The wheel is spun each time a parent is required. Individuals with the largest spaces on the whee! have the greatest chance of being selected and, therefore, the greatest probability of passing on their characteristics to the next generation. Children: a pair of offspring, or children, are then generated from the selected pair of parents by the application of simple stochastic operators. The principle operators are crossover and mutation. Crossover occurs with a probability of poms (yp. 06-08) and involves the random selection of a crossover site(s) and the combining of the two parent's genetic information. Specifically in single point crossover, child | receives the chromosomal sub-string that precedes the cross-site in parent 1 and the sub-string following the cross-site in parent 2. Child 2 gets the remaining genetic information not given to child 1. The wo children produced share the characteristics of the parents as a result of this recombination operator. Other recombination operators are sometimes used but crossover is the most important. Recombination (¢.g., crossover) and selection are the principle way that evolution occurs in a GA optimization. Mutation: ‘mutation, is a mechanism for introducing new, unexplored points into the GA optimizer’s search domain. Mutation introduces the genetic material that is not Present in the current population. The term “present” refers to genetic material or sequences that are in the population either by direct representation or in terms of possible recombinations of existing material. Genetically, mutation randomly changes 13the genetic makeup of the population. Mutation is much less important than crossover and occurs with a probability Prato (typ- 0.05) which is much less than Peas. New Generation: reproduction consisting of selection and recombination/mutation, continues until a new generation is created to replace the original generation. Highly fit individuals, or more precisely, highly fit characteristics, produce more copies of themselves in subsequent generation resulting in a general drift of the population as a whole towards an optimal solution point. The process can be terminated in several ways: threshold on the best individual (i.e., the process stops when an individual has an error less than some amount €), number of generations exceeds a pre-selected value, or other some other appropriate criteria. 2.1 GLOBAL vs. LOCAL OPTIMIZATION Before dealing with the specific details of genetic algorithms and its implementation, it is useful to consider the relationship between GA optimizers and the more traditional and possibly more familiar optimization methods. Genetic algorithms are classified as global optimizers while more familiar, traditional techniques such as conjugate gradient and the quasi-newton methods are classified as local techniques. Figure 2-2 illustrates this relationship between the most commonly used optimization methods. 14‘Global Techniques Random Walk (aw) [Simulated Annealing (SA) Davidon-Fietcher-Powell (Nelder and Mead) Figure 2-2: The major optimization methods can be classified as either global or local techniques. The distinction between local and global search or optimization techniques is that the local techniques produce results that are highly dependent on the starting point or initial guess while global methods are largely independent of the initial conditions. In addition, local techniques tend to be tightly coupled to the solution domain. This tight coupling enables the local methods to take advantage of the solution space characteristics resulting in relatively fast convergence to a local maximum. However, the tight solution space coupling also places constraints on the solution domain, such as differentiability and/or continuity, constraints that can be hard or even impossible to deal with in practice. 15Discontinuous Object Functions Non-differentiable Object Functions Convergence Rate Figure 2-3: Genetic Algorithm (GA) optimization compared qualitatively to conjugate ‘gradient (CG) and random search (Random). In particular, the popular Quasi-Newton techniques such as the Davidon-Fletcher- Powel method have a direct dependence on the existence of at least a first derivative. Conjugate gradient techniques are also either explicitly or implicitly dependent on the existence of a derivative in the form of the gradient. The techniques such as the ‘gradient techniques also react badly to the presence of discontinuities in the surface upon which the gradient is being evaluated. The global techniques, on the other hand, are largely independent of and place few constraints on the solution domain. This absence of constraints means that the global methods are much more robust when faced with ill-behaved solution spaces. In Particular, global techniques are much better at dealing with solution spaces having discontinuities, constrained parameters, and/or a large number of dimensions with ‘many potential local maximums. ‘The downside to the global methods are that they either cannot, or at least usually do not, take advantage of local solution space 16characteristics, such as gradients during the search process, resulting in generally slower convergence than the local techniques. In electromagnetic design problems, convergence rate is often not nearly as important as getting a solution. Having found a solution, the ultimate goal is to find the best solution or global maximum. In these applications, global methods are favored over local methods. Global techniques either yield global or near global maximum instead of local maximum and often find useful solutions where local techniques cannot. Global methods are particularly useful when dealing with new problems in which the nature of the solution space is relatively unknown. Of the global techniques, genetic algorithms are particularly well suited for a broad range of problems encountered in electromagnetics. Genetic algorithms are considerably more efficient and provide much faster convergence than random walk searches. In addition, they are easily programmed and readily implemented. Unlike gradient searches, GA optimizers can readily handle discontinuous and non- differentiable functions. GA optimizers are also well suited for constrained optimization problems. A qualitative comparison between the major features of conjugate gradient (CG), random walk (Random) and GA optimization is presented in Figure 2-3. The emphasis in the GA method of optimization is on trying to strike a balance between the robustness of random walk methods against the convergence rate of a local search. 72.2, CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENETIC ALGORITHM During a GA optimization, a set of trial solutions or individuals is chosen and then evolved toward an optimal solution under the selective pressure of the fitness function. In general a GA optimizer must be able to perform six basic tasks: 1) Encode the solution parameters as genes 2) Create-a string of the genes to form a chromosome, 3) Initialize a starting population, 4) Evaluate and assign fitness values to individuals in the population, 5) Perform reproduction through the fitness weighted selection of individuals from the population, and 6) Perform recombination and mutation to produce members of the next generation. In attempting to quantify the operation of GAs, Holland [7] introduced the concept of similarity templates or schemata and proposed the fundamental theorem of genetic algorithms, also known as the schema theorem. A schema is a similarity template that 1001101110 } 1001001010 | subset of 1111101110 [Chromosomes 1001111110) 1**1**1*10| Schema Figure 2-4: Holland’s schemata concept.0111000 a] ee REO eee gee 0111000 eee eee Total number of Schema =(k+1)¢ Figure 2-5: Some schema of a 7-bit binary chromosome. describes similarities between subsets of chromosomes in terms of similarities at certain positions within the chromosome. Consider the set of 10 bit binary chromosomes (1001101110, 1001001010, 1111101110, 1001111110}. Introducing the character * into the set of possible states as the “don’t care” state (e.g. (0, 1} -> (0, 1, *}), the similarity template can be formed. Namely, a similarity template, or the common terms between these four chromosomes listed above is (1**1**1*10}. This is illustrated in Figure 2-4. Any given chromosome actually represents a number of schema. In fact, it been shown that the total number of schema is equal to (k+1)" where L is the length of the chromosome and k is the cardinality of the alphabet. Figure 2-5 shows a binary chromosome (k=2) of length 7 (L=7) expanded into a number of schema. Only four of the possible 2.18 x 10° possible schema are shown in Figure 2-5. 19All of the chromosomes, or rather the individuals in the population represented by the chromosomes, in the subset share the features represented by the schema. These individuals are said to belong to the schema. In Holland’s approach to explaining GA, the algorithm operates not individuals but rather on the schemata representing the population. ‘The action of the GA over time can then be described by the fundamental theorem of genetic algorithms given in equation (2.1). m(Ht+1) 2 mH) £00. en where m(H,t) is the number of examples of a particular schema H contained in the Population at time ¢, f(H) is the fitness of schema H, and f is the average fitness of the population, O(H) is the schema order or number of fixed positions in the schema Hi, 6(H) is the defining length or length between first and last fixed position in the schema, Perass is the probability of crossover and Pmuzuim is the probability of mutation. Basically the theorem says that short, low order, schemata with above average fitness will receive exponentially increasing trials in subsequent generations. Or, put another way, small, highly fit schemata will increase in quantity with succeeding generations. ‘The concept of schema also help to explain the concept of implicit parallelism which, in part, says that in a population of n structures, each generation results in the processing of approximately n’ schemata. 20With these preliminaries out of the way, the details of how a GA optimizer is put together and used to solve practical problems can be described in more detail. aChapter 3 A SIMPLE GENETIC ALGORITHM This chapter presents the basic elements of a genetic algorithm optimizer. It is suggested that the reader reads this and the following chapter presenting a case study of the use of this GA optimizer and then re-reads this section to fully appreciate the GA optimizer presented here. A block diagram of a simple genetic algorithm optimizer is presented in Figure 3-1. This GA optimizer and the description that follows is modeled after that presented by Goldberg [90]. Some extensions to the simple GA optimizer are presented at the end of this chapter. The performance requirements of GA outlined in the last chapter lead to the existence of three phases in a typical genetic algorithm optimization. ‘These phases are (1) initiation, (2) reproduction, and (3) generation replacement. Initiation in the typical genetic algorithm optimizer of Figure 3-1 consists of filling an initial population with a predetermined number of encoded, usually randomly created parameter strings or chromosomes. Each of these chromosomes represents an individual prototype solution or simply an individual. The set of individuals is calledFigure 3-1: Block diagram of a simple genetic algorithm optimizer. the current generation. Each individual in the set is assigned a fitness value by evaluating the fitness function for each individual. The reproduction phase produces a new generation from the current generation. In reproduction, a pair of individuals is selected from the population to act as parents. ‘The parents undergo crossover and mutation thereby producing a pair of children. Then these children are placed in the new generation. The selection, crossover, and ‘mutation operations are repeated until enough children have been generated to fill thenew generation. In some GA implementations this scheme is altered slightly. Selection is used to fill the new generation and then crossover and mutation are applied to the individuals in the new generation through random pairings. In either case, the new generation replaces the old generation. In the simple genetic algorithm presented here, the new generation is the same size as and completely replaces the current generation. This is known as a generational genetic algorithm. Altematively, in slightly more complicated GA implementations, the new generation can be of a different size than its predecessor and/or there can be overlap between the new generation and the old generation. GA methods having overlapping populations called steady state genetic algorithms will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. In the generation replacement phase, the new generation replaces the current generation and fitness values are evaluated for and assigned to each of the new individuals. The termination criterion is then evaluated and if it has not been met, the reproduction process is repeated. 3.1 CHROMOSOMES AND PARAMETER CODING Genetic algorithms operate on a coding of the parameters instead of the parameters themselves. The coding is a mapping from the parameter space to the chromosome space that transforms the set of parameters, usually consisting of real numbers, to a finite length string. The coded parameters represented by genes in the chromosome 24enable the genetic algorithm to proceed in a manner that is independent of the Parameters themselves and, therefore, independent of the solution space. Typically, a binary coding is utilized, but any encoding from binary to continuous floating-point number representations of the parameters can be used. Some of these concepts are illustrated in Figure 3-2. Generally, it has been shown that using a coding that has some underlying relevance to the problem at hand produces best results. In addition, it is generally best to use the shortest possible alphabet. At times the two rules can be at odds with each other. Other times, binary coding which has the shortest useful alphabet is the natural coding. Even when binary coding has little relevance to a given problem, it does yield very simple GA operators and can be used profitably. ‘Binary Coxing {1001,0110,110001,0010,10,0101) or ‘Floating Point Vector GEEEEEERETE I > — | pss Seaon e042 200.000, or Mixed ay (10012041 eo.00) Material Parameters (T,,€, Tas Eq} as Physical Parameters (W,, Ly, Wp.) nlc Cte, 6-1 Figure 3-2: Chromosomes can be entirely encoded (usually binary), floating point ot mixed binary and floating point. Generally a parameter is equivalent toa gene,In a binary coding, the parameters are each represented by a finite length binary string. ‘The combination of all of the encoded parameters is a string of ones and zeros. The coded parameters, represented by a set of I’s and 0's for binary coding, are analogous to, and often referred to, as genes. The genetic algorithm acts on the chromosome to cause an evolution towards an optimal solution. Fitness values provide a measure of the goodness of a given chromosome and, by direct association, the goodness of an individual within the Population. Fitness evaluation involves decoding of the chromosome to produce the Parameters that are associated with the individual followed by the evaluation of the fitness function for the decoded parameters. 3.2. SELECTION STRATEGIES Selection introduces the influence of the fitness function to the genetic algorithm optimization process. Selection must utilize the fitness of a given individual since fitness is the measure of the “goodness” of an individual. However, selection cannot be based solely on choosing the best individual because the best individual may not be very close to the optimal solution. Instead, some chance that relatively unfit individuals are selected must be preserved to ensure that genes carried by these unfit individuals are not “lost” prematurely from the population. In general, selection involves a mechanism relating an individual's fitness to the average fitness of the population.A number of selection strategies have been developed and utilized for genetic algorithm optimization. These strategies are generally classified as either stochastic or deterministic. Usually, selection results in the choice of parents for participation in the reproduction process. Several of the more important and most widely used of these selection strategies are discussed below. 3.2.1 Population Decimation The simplest of the deterministic strategies is simply survival of the fittest of fitness ranking with remove of the least fit. Since the population is decimated under this scheme prior to being built back up through reproduction this scheme can be called population decimation. In population decimation, individuals are ranked according to their fitness values from largest to smallest. An arbitrary minimum fitness is chosen as a cutoff point and any individual with a lower fitness than the minimum is removed from the population. The remaining individuals are then used to produce the new generation through random pairing and reproduction. The pairing and application of GA reproduction operators are repeated until the new generation is filled. Population decimation is classified as a deterministic strategy since the individuals excluded from the population are chosen on the basis of a deterministic comparison between their individual fitness values and an arbitrarily chosen threshold. A variation on this theme is to produce a set of individuals through random pairing prior to decimation, add these new individuals to the population and then decimate the apopulation to return it to its original size. In either case, the influence of the fitness function enters in to the process only during the deterministic decimation process. The advantage of Population Decimation selection lies in its simplicity. All that is required is to determine which individuals are fit enough to remain in the population and then to provide a means for randomly pairing the individuals that survive the decimation process. ‘The disadvantage of Population Decimation is that once an individual has been removed from the population, any unique characteristic of the population possessed by that individual is lost. This loss of diversity is a natural consequence of all successful evolutionary strategies but in Population Decimation, the loss can, and often does, ‘occur long before the beneficial effects of a unique characteristic is recognized by the evolutionary process. The normal action of the genetic algorithm is to combine good individuals with characteristics to produce better. Unfortunately, good traits may not be directly associated with the best fitness in the early stages of evolution toward an optimal solution. ‘When a characteristic is removed from a population by decimation selection, the only way that the characteristic may be reintroduced is through mutation. Mutation is used in GAs as a means for exploring portions of the solution domain. In genetic terms, mutation is a way of adding new genetic material, or characteristics, but it is a verypoor mechanism for adding specific genetic material. It is best to keep good genes or ‘g00d portions of genes whenever possible. It is due to the serious detrimental effects of this premature loss of beneficial characteristics that more sophisticated, stochastic selection techniques were developed. It is a testament to GA’s robustness as an optimization technique that Population Decimation works at all. 3.2.2. Proportionate Selection ‘The most popular, in terms of appearance in the literature, of the stochastic selection strategies is Proportionate Selection, sometimes called roulette wheel selection [90]. In Proportionate Selection, individuals are selected based on a probability of selection given in equation (3.1) where fparent,) is the fitness of the ith parent. = L(parent,) Pactecsion = Llparent,) GB.) ‘The probability of selecting an individual from the population is purely a function of the relative fies of the individual. Individuals with high fitness will participate in the production of the next generation more often than less fit individuals. This has the same general effect as the removal of the least fit in Population Decimation, in that characteristics associated with higher fitness are represented more in subsequent generations. The distinction between Population Decimation and Proportionate 29