Here are the following things we need to work on:
 

1. Paper (Julie and Suren)
2. Get loop working-- specifically XF (Cade)
3. Test GA (Suren)
4. Gain pattern plots -- Make them 3D (Evelyn) & put on GitHub
5. Insert LR plot & Gain plot to loop (?)
   1. Edit bash script
   2. Update Github
6. AraSim plots (Julie and Max) -- see #2 and #3 here: http://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/7 for details. 
7. Update manual with things from Suren's last post (?)

We began a new run using the same parameters as the previous one (see the last ELOG entry). The previous one ran for 8 generations. The difference between this run and the last one is that we have added in the polarity fix for AraSim Brian and Jorge gave us (copying the correct Report.cc and Report.h files into our AraSim version). Here are the run parameters:

Run Paramaters:
50 individuals
80/20 Roulette/Tournament
6% Reproduction, 72% Crossover, 22% Mutation
Run for 10 generations, then implement Jorge and Brian's fix for polarization in AraSim for the next run

This is a multigenerational tracing of our second-best individual's parents and children:

The second-best individual in this evolution was Bicone 22 from generation 40. This individual is, in fact, a fascinating case as we shall see. But to start the story of this individual we will go back to generation 38 in order to demonstrate some of the peculiarities. 

In generation 38 there were two bicones of no renown,  Bicone 11 and Bicone 17. Bicone 11 was a fairly average individual that was ranked 23rd with a fitness score of 4.72016. Its DNA was {*6.16084, ***79.663, 0.0015434, -0.107765} for side one , and {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629} for side two. One day, by chance it met Bicone 17, another average bicone ranked 24th with a score of 4.71877 and DNA {**2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} for side one, and {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629} for side two. These two individuals eventually became the parents of two antennas: Bicone 16 and Bicone 17 of generation 39.

Bicone 16 eventually grew to have been ranked 3rd in fitness score of 4.95323. It’s DNA ended up being a complete balance of its parents sharing side one with Bicone 38.11{2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} and side two with bicone 38.17 {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629}. Bicone 16 was an individual with high aspirations and hoped to be reproduced. But alas, it was not meant to be. But bicone 16 came upon some amazing luck, it was selected with itself for crossover. This meant that bicone 16 was able to provide two identical surrogates to survive into the next generation. This is where this Bicone fulfilled its full potential. 

The twin bicones were named Bicone 22 and Bicone 23 in generation 40. Being clones, they shared all their DNA with Bicone 39.16. However, due to some circumstances, they had slightly different fitness scores. Bicone 23 managed a very respectable 5.0117 fitness score and was ranked 2nd in the generation. But not to be outdone Bicone 22 managed to score a 5.17014 and ended up being the second-best performing individual of all time. Being so successful, the two bicones ended up producing 8 children between the two groups.

Bicone 23 was the first to crossover and had 2 children with its partner. These were Bicones 4 and 5. Bicone 4 was ranked 39th with a fitness score of 4.60251 and still shared the DNA of its second side with its grandparent Bicone 38.17 as well as most of its first side with Bicone 38.11 {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00213879, 0.192602} {0.308809, 39.9608, -0.0084247, 0.40629}. Bicone 5 on the other hand, was ranked 14th with a fitness score of 4.80535 and it still shared a lot of DNA with its grandparents {6.16084,53.0851,-0.00224948,0.0534469} {0.966617,39.6742,-0.0084247,0.40629}.

Bicone 22 had 6 children of its own with various other Bicones. These were; Bicone 8, ranked 11th with a fitness Score of 4.81784 and DNA {2.32499, 75.9855, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.966617, 39.6742, -0.00320023, 0.213833}; Bicone 9, ranked 7th with a fitness score of 4.88966 and DNA {6.10508, 79.663, -0.000594616, 0.0351901} {0.308809, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; Bicone 12, ranked 12th with a fitness score of 4.81705 and DNA {6.42695, 75.9855, 0.0015434, -0.107765} {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.00320023, 0.213833}; Bicone 13, ranked 2nd with a fitness score of 5.0344 and DNA {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.966617, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; Bicone 34 ranked 3rd with a fitness score of 4.99864 and DNA {0.66148, 73.5522, -0.000594616, 0.00582814} {0.966617, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; and finally Bicone 35, ranked 22nd with fitness score 4.74955 and DNA {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.308809, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}

Bellow, I have attached the rainbow plot with the parameters occupied by individual 4 in gen 41 which was again ranked 39th in that generation. From this, we can see that while in its own generation it was a poor performer, overall it was upper middle of the pack. However, because of the density of other better performing antennas in this region, it is hard to distinguish which genes in this antenna are contributing the most to the drop in fitness score compared to its siblings and parents. 


 

*Gene originating from Bicone 38.11

**Gene originating from Bicone 38.17

***Gene originating from Bicone 38.11 and 38.17 that is shared between the two.

The second-best individual in this evolution was Bicone 22 from generation 40. This individual is, in fact, a fascinating case as we shall see. But to start the story of this individual we will go back to generation 38 in order to demonstrate some of the peculiarities. 

In generation 38 there were two bicones of no renown,  Bicone 11 and Bicone 17. Bicone 11 was a fairly average individual that was ranked 23rd with a fitness score of 4.72016. Its DNA was {*6.16084, ***79.663, 0.0015434, -0.107765} for side one , and {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629} for side two. One day, by chance it met Bicone 17, another average bicone ranked 24th with a score of 4.71877 and DNA {**2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} for side one, and {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629} for side two. These two individuals eventually became the parents of two antennas: Bicone 16 and Bicone 17 of generation 39.

Bicone 16 eventually grew to have been ranked 3rd in fitness score of 4.95323. It’s DNA ended up being a complete balance of its parents sharing side one with Bicone 38.11{2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} and side two with bicone 38.17 {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629}. Bicone 16 was an individual with high aspirations and hoped to be reproduced. But alas, it was not meant to be. But bicone 16 came upon some amazing luck, it was selected with itself for crossover. This meant that bicone 16 was able to provide two identical surrogates to survive into the next generation. This is where this Bicone fulfilled its full potential. 

The twin bicones were named Bicone 22 and Bicone 23 in generation 40. Being clones, they shared all their DNA with Bicone 39.16. However, due to some circumstances, they had slightly different fitness scores. Bicone 23 managed a very respectable 5.0117 fitness score and was ranked 2nd in the generation. But not to be outdone Bicone 22 managed to score a 5.17014 and ended up being the second-best performing individual of all time. Being so successful, the two bicones ended up producing 8 children between the two groups.

Bicone 23 was the first to crossover and had 2 children with its partner Bicone 25 (4.64409). These were Bicones 4 and 5. Bicone 4 was ranked 39th with a fitness score of 4.60251 and still shared the DNA of its second side with its grandparent Bicone 38.17 as well as most of its first side with Bicone 38.11 {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00213879, 0.192602} {0.308809, 39.9608, -0.0084247, 0.40629}. Bicone 5 on the other hand, was ranked 14th with a fitness score of 4.80535 and it still shared a lot of DNA with its grandparents {6.16084,53.0851,-0.00224948,0.0534469} {0.966617,39.6742,-0.0084247,0.40629}.

Bicone 22 had 6 children of its own with various other Bicones. These were; With Bicone 8.40 (4.82423) Bicone 8, ranked 11th with a fitness Score of 4.81784 and DNA {2.32499, 75.9855, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.966617, 39.6742, -0.00320023, 0.213833}; Bicone 9, ranked 7th with a fitness score of 4.88966 and DNA {6.10508, 79.663, -0.000594616, 0.0351901} {0.308809, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; With Biocone 16.40 (5.01137) Bicone 12, ranked 12th with a fitness score of 4.81705 and DNA {6.42695, 75.9855, 0.0015434, -0.107765} {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.00320023, 0.213833}; Bicone 13, ranked 2nd with a fitness score of 5.0344 and DNA {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.966617, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; With Bicone 4.40 (4.66578) Bicone 34 ranked 3rd with a fitness score of 4.99864 and DNA {0.66148, 73.5522, -0.000594616, 0.00582814} {0.966617, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; and finally Bicone 35, ranked 22nd with fitness score 4.74955 and DNA {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.308809, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}

Upon inspection of the children in generation 41, you will see that none of the children surpassed their parent individual with the highest fitness score. They do however tend to have fitness scores around or above their second parent's score. Therefore, it is likely that the children's lower fitness score is due to a mismatch of genes. If we look at the rainbow plots provided, we can see that the genes of the worst-performing child are not dissimilar to those of individuals that scored higher than 5. This would imply that the fitness score found could be due to variations in Arasim similar to those seen from individuals 16.39 to 22/23.40 despite them being identical. Though it also could be possible that the graphs do not have a fine enough display to be able to clearly tell some of the genes apart. 

*Gene originating from Bicone 38.11

**Gene originating from Bicone 38.17

***Gene originating from Bicone 38.11 and 38.17 that is shared between the two.

Amy: We want to nail things down in places where we still have hypotheses for what could have happened.  For example, "This would imply that the fitness score found could be due to variations in Arasim similar to those seen from individuals 16.39 to 22/23.40 despite them being identical. Though it also could be possible that the graphs do not have a fine enough display to be able to clearly tell some of the genes apart."  These two hypotheses can easily be distinguished by running with higher statistics and looking at the numbers rather than relying on the resolution of the display.

Amy: Also, at each stage, I was looking for the random numbers that were generated that led to the selection of the fractions of the population that were used for each type of selection and operator.  

This is a multigenerational tracing of our second-best individual's parents and children:

The second-best individual in this evolution was Bicone 22 from generation 40. This individual is, in fact, a fascinating case as we shall see. But to start the story of this individual we will go back to generation 38 in order to demonstrate some of the peculiarities. 

In generation 38 there were two bicones of no renown,  Bicone 11 and Bicone 17. Bicone 11 was a fairly average individual that was ranked 23rd with a fitness score of 4.72016. Its DNA was {*6.16084, ***79.663, 0.0015434, -0.107765} for side one , and {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629} for side two. One day, by chance it met Bicone 17, another average bicone ranked 24th with a score of 4.71877 and DNA {**2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} for side one, and {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629} for side two. These two individuals eventually became the parents of two antennas: Bicone 16 and Bicone 17 of generation 39.

Bicone 16 eventually grew to have been ranked 3rd in fitness score of 4.95323. It’s DNA ended up being a complete balance of its parents sharing side one with Bicone 38.11{2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} and side two with bicone 38.17 {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629}. Bicone 16 was an individual with high aspirations and hoped to be reproduced. But alas, it was not meant to be. But bicone 16 came upon some amazing luck, it was selected with itself for crossover. This meant that bicone 16 was able to provide two identical surrogates to survive into the next generation. This is where this Bicone fulfilled its full potential. 

The twin bicones were named Bicone 22 and Bicone 23 in generation 40. Being clones, they shared all their DNA with Bicone 39.16. However, due to some circumstances, they had slightly different fitness scores. Bicone 23 managed a very respectable 5.0117 fitness score and was ranked 2nd in the generation. But not to be outdone Bicone 22 managed to score a 5.17014 and ended up being the second-best performing individual of all time. Being so successful, the two bicones ended up producing 8 children between the two groups.

Bicone 23 was the first to crossover and had 2 children with its partner. These were Bicones 4 and 5. Bicone 4 was ranked 39th with a fitness score of 4.60251 and still shared the DNA of its second side with its grandparent Bicone 38.17 as well as most of its first side with Bicone 38.11 {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00213879, 0.192602} {0.308809, 39.9608, -0.0084247, 0.40629}. Bicone 5 on the other hand, was ranked 14th with a fitness score of 4.80535 and it still shared a lot of DNA with its grandparents {6.16084,53.0851,-0.00224948,0.0534469} {0.966617,39.6742,-0.0084247,0.40629}.

Bicone 22 had 6 children of its own with various other Bicones. These were; Bicone 8, ranked 11th with a fitness Score of 4.81784 and DNA {2.32499, 75.9855, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.966617, 39.6742, -0.00320023, 0.213833}; Bicone 9, ranked 7th with a fitness score of 4.88966 and DNA {6.10508, 79.663, -0.000594616, 0.0351901} {0.308809, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; Bicone 12, ranked 12th with a fitness score of 4.81705 and DNA {6.42695, 75.9855, 0.0015434, -0.107765} {0.308809, 39.6742, -0.00320023, 0.213833}; Bicone 13, ranked 2nd with a fitness score of 5.0344 and DNA {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.966617, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; Bicone 34 ranked 3rd with a fitness score of 4.99864 and DNA {0.66148, 73.5522, -0.000594616, 0.00582814} {0.966617, 39.6742, -0.0084247, 0.40629}; and finally Bicone 35, ranked 22nd with fitness score 4.74955 and DNA {2.32499, 79.663, -0.00224948, 0.192602} {0.308809, 42.4246, -0.0084247, 0.40629}

Bellow, I have attached the rainbow plot with the parameters occupied by individual 4 in gen 41 which was again ranked 39th in that generation. From this, we can see that while in its own generation it was a poor performer, overall it was upper middle of the pack. However, because of the density of other better performing antennas in this region, it is hard to distinguish which genes in this antenna are contributing the most to the drop in fitness score compared to its siblings and parents. 


 

*Gene originating from Bicone 38.11

**Gene originating from Bicone 38.17

***Gene originating from Bicone 38.11 and 38.17 that is shared between the two.

The story of individual 8 from generation 18. (draft)

Once, there was a curved bicone named individual 8 who was from generation 18. In many ways, it was similar to many other bicones but in fact, this individual was the best bicone that ever lived with a fitness score of 5.22097. It achieved this by having the following parameters; an inner radius of 6.31483, and 3.97024; lengths of  77.6017 and 40.9244; quadratic coefficients of, 0.00260615 and, -0.0103313; and finally, a linear coefficient of -0.197494 and

0.36119. Unfortunately, individual 8’s lineage ended with it as it never met that special someone (crossover) and didn't survive into the next generation (reproduction) despite having a 77.7% of doing at least one of these. 

This bicone had a sibling with a fitness Score of 4.65861 and had the following parameters: 6.05614,79.663,-0.000353038,0.0331969 (side 1)

1.92878,37.9849,-0.00213265,0.156724  (side 2).

Unfortunately, this bicone also suffered the same fate as its sibling and failed to leave a lasting mark on this hypothetical world. 

These two individuals had parents from generation 17 whose name’s were individuals 39 and individual 8. After having individuals 8 and 9 in generation 18, individuals 39 and 8 from generation had a nasty divorce (possibly leading to 8 and 9’s aversion to marriage) and remarried. In these marriages, they both produced two more children that would be our previous antenna’s step-siblings. 

Antenna 8 from gen 17 married antenna 46 to produce antenna 20 with a fitness score of 4.57122,  and antenna 21 with a fitness score of 4.71056. Individual 20 shared the same genes for the second set of linear and quadratic coefficients as its more successful step-sibling individual 8. 21 had no similarities to individual 8 but had 4 children in generation 19. 

Antenna 39 from gen 17 married antenna 5 to produce antenna 28 with a fitness score of 4.71808 and antenna 29 with a fitness score of 4.90119. Antenna 28 shared had an identical side 1 to individual 8 and also shared the same inner radius and length on the second side, and had 2 children in generation 19. Individual 29 had no similarities to individual 8 but really got around and had 8 children with various partners in generation 19. 

I've started a run of the PUEO loop to get some data for evolving the antenna width and height. We are running with 24 individuals, each with 400k neutrinos at an energy exponent of 19. Here is the output directory: /fs/ess/PAS1960/HornEvolutionOSC/GENETIS_PUEO/BiconeEvolution/current_antenna_evo_build/XF_Loop/Evolutionary_Loop/Run_Outputs/2023_05_01_Test_5

It's very important to note that the cross-pol data being used still comes from the data already stored in pueosim. This is because our extremely low cross polarizations were causing us to have no effective volumes. There's likely some issue in what values from XF we are choosing as our crosspols.

Slides contatining my notes on matching circuits.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1x25nhiqaW7LvPZ1pNZ5O4ZzsWZbtgqxBQ5haB9uWgQY/edit?usp=sharing

Slides contatining my notes on matching circuits.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1x25nhiqaW7LvPZ1pNZ5O4ZzsWZbtgqxBQ5haB9uWgQY/edit?usp=sharing

Attached is a spreadsheet with the information on the parts we need for the N=14 matching circuit board.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x8dX3tNE-WSHjH_slj_EH4XsHcAnCVC05XiRBFPtIUc/edit#gid=0

We presented at a workshop put on by the MODE collaboration. MODE is a collaboration dedicated to applying Automatic Differentiation to detector design. Here's the website: https://mode-collaboration.github.io/#:~:text=MODE%20(for%20Machine%2Dlearning%20Optimized,in%20space%2C%20and%20in%20nuclear

• Run Type
  • Main Arasim Loop
• Run Date
  • 02/04/2022
• Run Name
  • 2022_02_04_Rank
• Why are we doing this run?
  • To test rank selection in main loop
• What is different about this run from the last?
  • Rank Slection is being used.
  • Parents.csv introduced.
  • Elite is being turned off.
• Symmetric, asymmetric, linear, nonlinear (what order):
  • Non-linnear asymetric
• Number of individuals (NPOP):
  • 50 individuals
• Number of neutrinos thrown in AraSim (NNT):
  • 300,000
• Operatiors used (% of each):
  • 06% Reproduction
  • 72% Crossver
  • 22% Immigration
  • 1% M_rate (unused)
  • 5% sigma (unused)
• Selection methods used (% of each):
  • 0% Elite
  • 0% Reproduction
  • 10% Tournament
  • 90% Rank
• Are we using the database?
  • No.

Directory: /fs/ess/PAS1960/BiconeEvolutionOSC/BiconeEvolution/current_antenna_evo_build/XF_Loop/Evolutionary_Loop/Run_Outputs/2022_02_04_Rank

Here's the video I made a few months ago demonstrating how to run the loop. There might be some changes that have been made since then, but they'll generally be minor so it should still be representative of what running the loop looks like. It might need to be shared with you through the Microsoft drive service OSU gives us in order to view it, so either message me on Slack or email me at machtay.1@osu.edu and I'll share the link through there.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yL_eH_w2hXNt7J7YOwS5xl3ZHwGyl5JR/view

As mentioned in the manual, using ssh to login to Nutau causes delays; the XFdtd GUI cannot be surpress and must be forwarded via X11 forwarding, and this is extremely slow. We are currently looking into using a newly suggested option, XRDP. Information will be added as this process continues. 

Previously, we have tried to straighten the sides of the best-evolved curved antenna in elog 229. However, there were potential issues with how closely this line resembled the curve of the antenna.

So, I attempted to create another straightened sides antenna using a linear regression model to find the best fitting line for the curve to create an antenna.

I made a Python notebook to separate the equations for each curve into 1000 discrete points. Then I ran a linear regression model to fit a curve of the points 1 - n, and a second curve of the n - 1000 points, looping from n = 2 to n = 999.

These results are from the combined output with the least squared error compared to the original.

Pictured is a plot showing the two sides of the curved bicone in red and blue, with the best fitting lines for each in black as well as a model in XF.

Results:

The antenna has a fitness score of 3.80627 with an error of 0.0759725.

This is much lower than the 5.71 of the curved antenna and 5.11 of the other attempt at straightening.

For the next attempt, we could consider constraining the endpoints to be the same as the original antenna to conserve the radius, and/or adding an extra line to fit the curve.

I've also attached a picture of what my notebook found for fitting 3 lines to the curve (not modeled or tested).

Professor Chen recommended using 3 sides and constraining the outer radii of the cones to match the original curved design.

Path to linear regression notebook: /users/PAS1960/dylanwells1629/developing/notebook.ipynb

Path to XF project: /users/PAS1960/dylanwells1629/straightened.xf

OSC managed to figure out our issue with running XF from an interactive job on Slurm. Previously, we were losing our connection to x11 forwarding. The solution is to use sinteractive instead of srun to obtain an interactive job. Here's the syntax:

sinteractive -A PAS0654 -t <time> -N 1 -n 8 -p serial

The -p serial flag denotes the type of partition to request. It's important to specify this, as otherwise it will default to the debug node, which has a limit of 1 hour.

We're going to begin a new run. The title is Machtay_2021_1_15_NPOP50_Asym . It is using the latest version of the GA Ryan has been working on (Latest_GA_Asym.cpp). We're using 6% reproduciton, 72% crossover, and 22% mutation. We are using 80% roulette selection. This correlates to the three numbers passed into the GA being 3 36 8 (since we're using 50 individuals).