This run was started on 10/23/2020. The purpose was to attempt to demonstrate evolution by beginning from 50 identical individuals in the initial generation (which had previously produced a low score).

This run was the first time we removed the penalty on fitness scores for antennas which exceeded the borehole radius. It was also the first time we increased the number of neutrinos thrown up to 300,000. 50 fully asymmetric individuals were evolved over 25 generations.

There was a 50/50 split for roulette/tournament selection and 75%/10%/15% for crossover/reproduction/immigration. While the evolution was somewhat flat, we do believe we demonstrated evolution because the average score rose as the run evolved. 

(Note that the final generation was interrupted but the plot was still made, hence the drop to 0 for all scores on the plot)

Beam patterns with ARA bicone contained in a cylinder of air surrounded by a shell of ice.

 

Slides contatining my notes on matching circuits.

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

This run was a short run (stopped due to resource limits) that was conducted to test the minimum length constraint that had been applied in the past. Previously, the minimum length was set to be 37.5 cm for each cone; in this run, it was lowered to 10 cm. It ran for 60 generations with 50 individuals per generation, each evaluated with 300,000 neutrinos. To compare to the paper run, this run was performed using the asymmetric algorithm, meaning each individual had 6 genes (length, inner radius, and opening angle for each cone). The initial generation began with identical individuals, with genes matching the genes of the best performing individual mentioned in the GENETIS paper.

The ratio of generative operators is as follows: 72% crossover, 22% immigration, 6% reproduction. Mutation was also used, with 1% of genes produced by crossover mutated by adding a number chosen from a Gaussian centered at 0 with a width of 5% of the gene's value.

The ratio of selection operators was: 20% roulette, 80% tournament, 0% rank, 0% elite.

Attached are the run details, violin plot, and "rainbow" plot.

This is the run that is discussed in the GENETIS paper submitted to Physical Review D in December of 2021. It was conducted beginning on March 19, 2021. The preprint can be found here. It ran for 31 generations with 50 individuals per generation. Each individual was run through AraSim for 300,000 neutrinos.

The ratio of generative operators was: 72% crossover, 22% immigration, 6% reproduction. 

The ratio of selection operators was: 80% roulette, 20% tournament, 0% rank.

The highest scoring individual had a fitness score of 5.24. However, when it was rerun with many more neutrinos (3*10^7), it had a score of 4.90, an 11% improvement over the ARA bicone.

This run was conducted before the introduction of the automatic run_details.txt generator. Instead, there is a file called Run_Notes.txt (attached) which details some of the errors that were encountered. These errors were remedied during runs by removing the offending AraOut file (which had too high of a fitness score due to a weight being calculated to be greater than 1, which shouldn't be possible) and have since been prevented by modifying the data file AraSim uses to calculate the weights.

This run was started on February 2, 2022. It is a full run of 50 generations with 50 individuals per generation using the quadratic version of the loop. This means that each individual is defined by 8 genes (length, inner radius, linear coefficient, and quadratic coefficient for each cone). Attached is the txt file run_details.txt that is automatically generated when the loop is run. Each individual was run for 300,000 neutrinos.

This run used the usual ratio of generative operators: 72% crossover, 22% immigration, and 6% reproduction. It also used the proper mutation function: 1% of genes created through crossover were mutated by adding a number chosen from a Gaussian distribution centered at 0 with a width of 5% of the gene's value (MUTATION WAS NOT USED BUT WAS AVAILABLE).

This run was the first full run in which the rank selection operator was used. The ratio of selection operators was: 0% roulette, 10% tournament, 90% rank, 0% elite. 

This run used the script fitness_check.py to average the scores of identical individuals that appeared across multiple generations. This gives us a more accurate measure of those individuals' scores. It may also explain why this run appears so flat (on the violin plot): fluctuations in the scores should die down as repeated individuals have more accurate scores, and newly generated individuals that perform highly regress to their mean (actual) score when they are reproduced/recreated through crossover. This has led us to question our GA parameters, as Audrey and Autumn demonstrated that roughly 1/4 individuals in the run are repeat individuals.

This is a duplicate post of a previous post from the end of 2020 where I listed the important runs with some of their details in a table (as below). I am extending this table to include the important runs that have been conducted since this post. This includes the run used for the paper as well as the curved run done earlier this year.

In order to access the data for these runs, you can find them by going to this directory: /fs/ess/PAS1960/BiconeEvolutionOSC/BiconeEvolution/current_antenna_evo_build/XF_Loop/Evolutionary_Loop/Run_Outputs

Some of these runs can also be accessed in the old project space directory, though they should all be contained in the above directory. Here's the path if interested: 

The runs are contained in directories available in the above path. Use caution when listing files in some of these directories--some contain many files (primarily the .uan files -- more recent runs are better organized), which means it may take a long time to list files/directories.

Bellow lies plots testing different scores and comparing them using a chi^2 score.

The functions used are as follows

Gaussian: e^(-2) (Red)

Inverse: 1/(1+(O-E)^2) (Purple)

Algebraic: 1/(1+(chi^2) )^(3/2)) (Green)

Chi: 1/(1+chi^2) (Blue)

Which are plotted here:

I'm making this entry so that I can record some interesting papers we find on genetic algorithms. Feel free to update this list with links to papers and maybe make a description of what was interesting/of note in the paper.
 

• Run Type
  • AREA
• Run Date
  • 04/19/22
• Run Name
  • 20220419fahimi5run1
• Why are we doing this run?
  • Check to see if stringReplacement2.py changes were successfull
• What is different about this run from the last?
  • added below code in order to create a fitness file inside of each generation to display the fitness scores for just that generation, as opposed to just having one big file full of all the generations.
    f2 = open(source + "/" + "gen_{}".format(gen) + "/fitnessFile_gen_{}".format(gen) + ".txt", 'a')
    f2.write(','.join(mean_Veff_array) + "\n")
    f2.close()
• Symmetric, asymmetric, linear, nonlinear?
  • N/A (AREA run)
• Number of individuals (NPOP)
  • 12 individuals
• Operators / Selection methods used (% of each)
  • roulette crossover 50%
  • roulette mutation 16%
  • tournament crossover 18%
  • tournament mutation 16%
• Are we using the database?
  • N/A (AREA run)

We are trying to do a short run of the asymmetric bicone so that we can see how it tries to evolve the antenna when the minimum length is lowered from 37.5 cm to 10 cm. Currently, there is a problem with the loop in the asymmetric version. Attached is the run detail file.

• Run Type
  • AREA
• Run Date
  • 04/05/2022
• Run Name
  • 20220405fahimi5run2
• Why are we doing this run?
  • to see if the linear dependence on frequency was properly implemented
• What is different about this run from the last?
  • Under closer examination, the previous run of AREA appeared to not linearly depend on frequency, so we recompiled the GA in order to fix this
• Symmetric, asymmetric, linear, nonlinear?
  • N/A (AREA run)
• Number of individuals (NPOP)
  • 50 individuals
• Number of neutrinos
  • 10,000 per seed
    • 4 seeds per individual
• Operators / Selection methods used (% of each)
  • roulette crossover 50%
  • roulette mutation 16%
  • tournament crossover 18%
  • tournament mutation 16%
• Are we using the database?
  • N/A (AREA run)
• Result
  • There is a problem with how the GA has assigned the Veff values, resulting in many individuals being assigned zero Veff, however the linear dependence seems to have been implemented successfully

Note: We also ran a run called 20220405fahimi5run1, which was a short test run with a very low amount of individuals and neutrinos which seemed to work fine; as in the linear dependence seemed to work.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vvcmjByKfcns0-tbAjtePB8ZVGsXAKxXCfbMc99weMI/edit?usp=sharing Here is the spreadsheet link for the population test. 

The reviewer for the paper we recently submitted mentioned that our step sizes at which we are measuring the gain in XFdtd may be too large. They pointed out that there appear to be "lobes" at 400 MHz. I ran the antenna we presented in the paper through XFdtd using a step size of 5 degrees (what we've been doing) and a step size of 1 degree (the reveiwer's recommendation). Attached are antenna responses for these two different step sizes at 200 MHz and 400 MHz. Qualitatively, there are noticeable differences in the "jaggedness" of the 400 MHz plot and how extreme the minima and maxima appear, but the basic shape is preserved. We can try to do a more quantitative analysis (ex: run these through AraSim), but doing so may be more time intensive than necessary considering that AraSim may require 5 degree steps and that adding these images to an appendix may be sufficient anyway.

The reviewer of the paper we are trying to publish (as well as other external colleagues we showed the paper to) asked about our minimum length we implemented in the loop. Currently, we cut off the length at a minimum of 37.5 cm for each cone (minimum of 75 cm for the full cone). There is an ELOG post from Amy that presented the reasoning for this ( http://radiorm.physics.ohio-state.edu/elog/GENETIS/81 ). We initially thought that we needed a minimum because the antennas were evolving to be small (around and lower than the minimum). We thought that XFdtd was being inaccurate at lengths lower than 37.5 cm, so we set that as a minimum. To see if we can replicate any strange behavior from XFdtd, I simulated antennas at and below our minimum length and generated plots of their antennas responses. The genes are listed below, corresponding to the patterns in the plot. The results do not look unusual (that is, not dissimilar to the other bicones we have generated, including the ARA bicone) and seem to show an improved sensitivity in the upward direction for shorter bicones. The equation we used to arrive at this minimum (f = c/(4L)) might be indicative of a maximum length rather than a minimum.

2.4892,37.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,37.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,34.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,34.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,31.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,31.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,27.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,27.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,23.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,23.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,19.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,19.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
2.4892,15.5,-0.00142604,0.032832
4.64522,15.5,0.00153863,-0.14004
 

• Run Type
  • AREA
• Run Date
  • 01/18/22
• Run Name
  • 20220118fahimi5run1
• Why are we doing this run?
  • to see if the linear dependence on frequency was properly implemented
• What is different about this run from the last?
  • attempted to evolve gain pattern as a linear function of frequency
• Symmetric, asymmetric, linear, nonlinear?
  • N/A (AREA run)
• Number of individuals (NPOP)
  • 50 individuals
• Operators / Selection methods used (% of each)
  • roulette crossover 50%
  • roulette mutation 16%
  • tournament crossover 18%
  • tournament mutation 16%
• Are we using the database?
  • N/A (AREA run)

Below is an example of our Parents.csv file written by the GA. This file tracks the parents of the individuals of the current generation. The columns and their contained information are as follows:

Current Gen: 

The numbered individual of the current generation.

Parent 1:

The number of the first parent of this individual as read from the previous generation.

Parent 2:

The number of the first parent of this individual as read from the previous generation.

Operator:

The genetic operator that created the individual in that row. 

I fixed a bug in the loop, so we started another rank test run. Run details in the attached file.

The bug was searching for the generationDNA.csv file in the wrong place, meaning that it wasn't able to copy it to the run directory. That meant we didn't have a record of the generation data in the usual format. I don't think that this explains the flatness, since the the generationDNA.csv file was still created every generation correctly, so the GA knew where it was. But this test now corrects that problem and tests the usage of the rank selection method.

The following plots are ittereations if the test loop that add increasing improvements to the GA.

The first plot shows the GA's behavoir unaltered from our previous runs (80% roulette, 20% tournament elite selection on).

The second plots shows when we use 90% rank selection and 10% tournament, elite selection off.

Plot 3 shows when we add an offset to restrict the values of the fitness function to be more within the range of the main loop.

Plot 4 shows when we add a gaussean mutation function that is applied to crossover individuals (rate and gaussean width chosen by guess).

The following are papers I have looked at while modifing the GA (not nessisaraly recently).

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5733/418cbf21dedc9e5c04351ded4a989f1ff67e.pd

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0165607493902157

https://www.scientific.net/AMM.340.727 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.28.1400&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.04340.pdf

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/30694440/10.1.1.34.9722.pdf?1361979690=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DUsing_genetic_algorithms_with_asexual_tr.pdf&Expires=1612908683&Signature=X93Gsc47AS0xqWf1SPLjG~7sNkoXSOXfnq1GpZ2QaPrYw9x9mWwASStW2IWexo7QBzbkhzcE5tZ~CmQA1MHN-paiNFIx2ed8VNS3IhesMnotKM0mSgUZ37BCleHT9BgGkUUum8mTJBAzCUaECn6RYjm1CZpfwVPC9zwuA~DnXBST4pGlQdna22D--sHwXgX~3U3gDUSxqk8mLI0gtn~Xued3XqsTGuMUKwJ2D9UpD5yp42-3IrH6d5CZREjEfXY2geTopQ-uNkr3eOriDj0UZqSrDw5mczmod3kQrQncgd~G2Kyda4RlIs8VDzQs~BGgszHJhSDAuKDrXr8P--9tVg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.438.7389&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01211.pdf