A new mutation operator for evolutionary airfoil design

Abstract A new mutation operator, ℳijn, capable of operating on a set of adjacent bits in one single step, is introduced. Its features are examined and compared against those of the classical bit–flip mutation. A simple Evolutionary Algorithm, ℳ–EA, based only on selection and ℳijn, is described. This algorithm is used for the solution of an industrial problem, the Inverse Airfoil Design optimization, characterized by high search time to achieve satisfying solutions, and its performance is compared against that offered by a classical binary Genetic Algorithm. The experiments show for our algorithm a noticeable reduction in the time needed to reach a solution of acceptable quality, thus they prove the effectiveness of the proposed operator and its superiority to GAs for the problem at hand.

[1]  K. Dejong,et al.  An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems , 1975 .

[2]  S. Obayashi,et al.  Genetic optimization of target pressure distributions for inverse design methods , 1996 .

[3]  Richard M. Friedberg,et al.  A Learning Machine: Part I , 1958, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[4]  Ingo Rechenberg,et al.  Evolutionsstrategie : Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution , 1973 .

[5]  Hans-Paul Schwefel,et al.  Numerical Optimization of Computer Models , 1982 .

[6]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  A role for genetic algorithms in a preliminary design environment , 1993 .

[7]  E. Tarantino,et al.  A parallel genetic algorithm for transonic airfoil optimisation , 1995, Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[9]  Lawrence J. Fogel,et al.  Artificial Intelligence through Simulated Evolution , 1966 .

[10]  Carlo Poloni,et al.  Aerodynamic Shape Optimization by means of a Genetic Algorithm , 1993 .

[11]  Joseph C. Culberson.  Crossover versus Mutation: Fueling the Debate: TGA versus GIGA , 1993, ICGA.

[12]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Long Path Problems , 1994, PPSN.

[13]  Michael M. Skolnick,et al.  EnGENEous Domain IndependentMachine Learning for Design Optimization , 1989, International Conference on Genetic Algorithms.

[14]  William M. Spears,et al.  Crossover or Mutation? , 1992, FOGA.

[15]  John H. Holland,et al.  When will a Genetic Algorithm Outperform Hill Climbing , 1993, NIPS.

[16]  Richard Benedict Goldschmidt,et al.  Portraits from memory. Recollections of a zoologist. , 1956 .

[17]  A. Iazzetta.  The Eeectiveness of Co{mutation in Evolutionary Algorithms: the M Ijn Operator , 2022 .

[18]  George S. Dulikravich,et al.  Aerodynamic shape design and optimization , 1991 .

[19]  Kenneth Alan De Jong,et al.  An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. , 1975 .

[20]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[21]  D. Quagliarella,et al.  Genetic algorithms applied to the aerodynamic design of transonic airfoils , 1994 .

[22]  Antony Jameson,et al.  Aerodynamic design via control theory , 1988, J. Sci. Comput..

[23]  S. Tong,et al.  Design of aerodynamic bodies using artificial intelligence/expert system technique , 1985 .

[24]  Garret N. Vanderplaats,et al.  Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design: With Applications , 1984 .

[25]  Terry Jones,et al.  Crossover, Macromutationand, and Population-Based Search , 1995, ICGA.

[26]  David F. Rogers,et al.  Mathematical elements for computer graphics , 1976 .

[27]  Garret N. Vanderplaats,et al.  Numerical optimization techniques for engineering design , 1999 .