Updates and Results
Talks and Posters
Advice
Ideas
Important Figures
Write-Ups
Outreach
How-To
Funding Opportunities
GENETIS
GENETIS
Draft saved at 00:00:00
Fields marked with
*
are required
Entry time:
Tue Feb 3 18:01:40 2026
Author
*
:
Subject
*
:
<p> <table width="98%" align="center" cellspacing="1" style="border:1px solid #486090;"> <tbody> <tr> <td cellpadding="3px" style="background-color:#486090; font-weidht:bold; color:white;">Quote:</td></tr> <tr> <td cellpadding="10px" style="background-color:#FFFFB0;"><table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"> <tbody> <tr> <td>Name</td> <td>Today's Update</td> <td>Plans for Tomorrow</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Alex M</td> <td> <p>Worked with Alex P on figuring out why we keep evolving towards small antennas. We think it's because the initial angle is so large, and the standard deviation of makes it more difficult to bring the antenna within the confines of the hole by mutating the angle than by mutating the the length. So we started a run with a much lower angle (pi/24 instead of pi/12) to see if that yields antennas which are longer with better effective volumes.</p> <p>I also edited some more of the paper and added in a few citations, but I'd like to make sure that those citations are written correctly (for example, I couldn't find the eprint for all of them).</p> </td> <td>I'll keep this run going tomorrow and monitor it while I write some more in the paper. Now that we have a better understanding of the xmacros and can have debugged a lot, we can probably start a real run soon and I can write some more details in the PAEA section of the paper. Also, since I'm better acquainted with XF, I think I'll be able to get images of the bicones from there to put in the paper.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Alex P</td> <td>Running and ran into some errors with XF solver. Found a fix to it but came into a possible oversight. So I think one reason why we keep getting this trend towards lower antennas is that the initial thetas from the 0th generation in the GA are too large and that makes it so all the longer lengths end up making too wide antennas which get penalized and hence why it tends toward small because while we do have mutation to make different thetas it only varies by so much and I think the opening angles are just too large to start in the distribution. This doesn't fully solve why the small antenna tend to give higher results than expected but it still is a problem because it's causing all the larger gen 0 antenna to get a zero fitness score because they are almost always too large. Currently if all the mean values in the distribution were used to make gen 0, the outer radius would be way bigger than the hole by a factor of 2.</td> <td>Started run with change to the GA to have a lower theta as the mean in the distribution. Will see if this starts to favor the larger antennas. Possibly look more into why that XF solver error was being caused and effects of changing the spacing between cones on the bicone.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Eliot</td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Leo</td> <td>Today we started work on adding seperation as a 4th gene. We updated the GA and tested it in a mini bash successfully. We then moved onto editing the Xmacros scripts and tested using a GUI. </td> <td>Tomorrow we plan to move onto the fitness funciton and plotting scripts.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Evelyn</td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ryan</td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </p><p> </p>
Encoding
:
HTML
ELCode
plain
Suppress Email notification
Attachment 1:
Drop attachments here...
Draft saved at 00:00:00
ELOG V3.1.5-fc6679b