2017 11th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP)
Accelerated Multi-Objective Design Optimization
of Antennas By Surrogate Modeling
and Domain Segmentation
Slawomir Koziel1,2, Adrian Bekasiewicz1,2, Qingsha S. Cheng3 and Song. Li3,4
1
Engineering Optimization & Modeling Center, Reykjavik University, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland
2
Faculty of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics, Gdansk University of Technology, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland
3
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China
4
Department of Electronic System Engineering, University of Regina, Regina, Canada
Abstract—Multi-objective optimization yields indispensable
information about the best possible design trade-offs of an antenna
structure, yet it is challenging if full-wave electromagnetic (EM)
analysis is utilized for performance evaluation. The latter is a
necessity for majority of contemporary antennas as it is the only
way of achieving acceptable modeling accuracy. In this paper, a
procedure for accelerated multi-objective design of antennas is
proposed that exploits fast data-driven surrogates constructed at
the level of coarse-discretization EM simulations, multi-objective
evolutionary algorithm to yield an initial approximation of the
Pareto set, and response correction methods for design refinement
(i.e., elevating the selected Pareto-optimal designs to the high-
fidelity EM simulation model level). To reduce the computational
cost of setting up the surrogate, the relevant part of the design
space (i.e., the part containing the Pareto front) is first identified
through a series of single-objective optimization runs and
subsequently represented by a set of adjacent compartments with
separate surrogate models established within them. This
segmentation process dramatically reduces the number of training
samples necessary to build an accurate model thus limiting the
overall optimization cost. Our approach is demonstrated using a
UWB monopole antenna and compared to a state-of-the-art
surrogate-assisted technique that does not use domain
segmentation.
Index Terms—Antenna design, multi-objective optimization,
simulation-driven design, surrogate modeling, design space
reduction, domain segmentation.
I. INTRODUCTION
Design of modern antennas is a complex process in which
several (and often conflicting) objectives have to be taken into
account at the same time [1]. Due to stringent requirements
concerning reflection response, radiation figures, but also
antenna geometry (e.g., minimization of the footprint [2]), any
practical design is a trade-off between the considered goals.
From the designer’s perspective, it is indispensable to identify
the best possible trade-offs between various figures of interest,
often referred to as a Pareto front. This, however, can only be
achieved through multi-objective optimization [3].
A number of techniques have been developed for solving
multi-objective design problems, including those that adopt
conventional numerical optimization techniques (e.g., weighted
sum method [4] or goal attainment method [5]) yet the most
popular ones include population-based metaheuristics such as
genetic algorithms (GAs) [6], [7], particle swarm optimizers
/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
(PSO) [8], [9], as well as multi-objective versions of modern
metaheuristics (e.g., differential evolution [10] or firefly
algorithm [11]). The most appealing feature of population-
based methods is their ability of generating the entire
representation of the Pareto set in a single algorithm run. Their
fundamental drawback is very high computational cost,
typically thousands and tens of thousands of objective function
evaluations. Clearly, such a cost might be prohibitive from the
point of antenna optimization, particularly if full-wave EM
analysis is required for performance evaluation of the structure.
A possible way of alleviating the aforementioned difficulty
is utilization of surrogate modeling techniques. A surrogate-
assisted method for multi-objective antenna optimization has
been proposed in [12] that exploits data-driven model,
implemented using kriging interpolation [13], and constructed
from sampled coarse-discretization EM simulation data of the
antenna at hand. The surrogate has been optimized using multi-
objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) to yield an initial
approximation of the Pareto set. The final Pareto set (at the
level of high-fidelity EM antenna model) has been obtained by
means of output space mapping [12].
The technique of [12] has been enhanced in [14] by
constraining the search space to the interval spanned by the
extreme Pareto-optimal designs found by single-objective
optimization runs (one objective at a time) thus reducing the
volume of the region that need to be sampled in the process of
surrogate model construction. More involved design space
reduction methods were proposed in [15] and [16] that allow
for handling high-dimensional antenna design problems.
In this paper, we introduce a design space segmentation
approach which permits further reduction of the computational
cost of multi-objective antenna optimization as compared to
[12]. The region containing the Pareto set is covered by a few
intervals spanned by the Pareto-optimal designs identified by
appropriate single-objective optimization runs. Separate data-
driven surrogates are constructed in each interval. Identification
of the initial Pareto sets and design refinement are arranged as
in [12] but they are done independently for each interval.
Computational benefits in terms of dramatic reduction of the
number of necessary training data samples are a result of the
fact that the overall volume of the search space that needs to be
sampled is considerably smaller than the volume of the initial
3265
 2017 11th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP)
design space. Our methodology is demonstrated using an ultra-
wideband (UWB) monopole antenna and favorably compared
to the benchmark method of [12].
II. MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION USING SURROGATE
MODELING AND DESIGN SPACE SEGMENTATION
In this section, we formulate the proposed optimization
methodology. We start by recalling the surrogate-assisted
algorithm [12]. Subsequently, we introduce the domain
segmentation approach provide qualitative explanation of
computational benefits that it may provide. Illustration
example, a UWB monopole antenna, is discussed in
Section III.
A. Multi-Objective Optimization Problem
We use Rf(x) to denote a response of an accurate EM-
simulation antenna model. A vector x represents design
variables, normally. We consider Nobj design goals, Fk(Rf(x)),
k = 1, …, Nobj. Examples of goals include minimization of the
reflection coefficient over a frequency band of interest,
reduction of the side lobes or reduction of the antenna
footprint. If Nobj > 1, comparison of designs is realized using a
so-called dominance relation [3]. For two arbitrary designs x
and y, we say that y  x (y dominates over x) if Fk(Rf(y)) ≤
Fk(Rf(x)) for all k = 1, …, Nobj, and Fk(Rf(y)) < Fk(Rf(x)) for at
least one k.
The purpose of multi-objective optimization is to find a
representation of a Pareto set XP that consists of non-
dominated designs so that for any x ∈ XP, there is no y for
which y  x [3]. It should be noted that the elements of the
Pareto set represent the best possible trade-offs between
conflicting objectives. In particular, improving the value of
one of the objectives of the Pareto-optimal design necessarily
degrades at least one of the remaining objectives.
B. Multi-Objective Optimization with Surrogate Models
The basis of the optimization approach proposed here is a
surrogate-assisted technique described in [12]. It allows for
handling an expensive EM-simulation model by exploiting a
fast surrogate Rs, which is a data-driven model (here, a
kriging interpolation one [10]) constructed from sampled
coarse-discretization EM simulations (denoted as a low-
fidelity model Rcd). The initial Pareto set representation is
subsequently generated by optimizing Rs using a multi-
objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) [3]. In [12], a
standard implementation of MOEA is used with fitness
sharing, Pareto-ranking tournament selection, and mating
restrictions [17].
Because the initial approximation of the Pareto set is
obtained at the level of the coarse-discretization EM antenna
model, an additional step is required to find Pareto-optimal
designs at the high-fidelity EM modeling accuracy. This is
achieved by using response correction techniques. More
specifically, if xs(k), k = 1, …, K, is a set of selected elements
3266
of the initial Pareto set, the corresponding high-fidelity-level
design xf(k) is obtained using the refinement procedure [12]
(1)
x (fk ) = arg min ( k ) F1 ( Rs ( x ) + [ R f ( xs( k ) ) − Rs ( xs( k ) )])
x , F2 ( x ) ≤ F2 ( xs )

FNobj ( x ) ≤ FNobj ( xs( k ) )
The refinement process attempts to improve the first objective
without degrading the remaining ones. The term Rf(xs(k)) –
Rs(xs(k)) in (1) “shifts” the surrogate model response to make it
perfectly aligned with the high-fidelity model at xs(k) (zero-
order consistency [18]). This type of correction is known as
output space mapping [19]. Because the low- and high-fidelity
EM models are normally well correlated, two iterations of (1)
are typically sufficient to find a refined design.
C. Design Space Reduction
If the number of design parameters is small and their
ranges are moderate, the kriging surrogate can be constructed
in the entire design space. However, for most practical cases
including high-dimensional ones (n ≥ 10 or even over 15), the
initial design space has to be reduced in order to permit
surrogate model construction without using excessive number
of training samples.
We denote by x*(k), k = 1, …, Nobj, the extreme points of
the Pareto front, i.e., the designs that are optimum with
respect to the kth objective, i.e.,
x*(k) = argmin{x : Fk(Rcd(x))} (2)
In vast majority of practical antenna design cases, the
Pareto front will be contained in the interval spanned by these
designs [14]. Therefore, it is reasonable to restrict the multi-
objective optimization process (consequently, surrogate model
construction) to the region defined by the following reduced
lower/upper bounds l/u as [14] (cf. Fig. 1(a))
l = min{x*(1), x*(2), …, x*(Nobj)} (3)
and
u = max{x*(1), x*(2), …, x*(Nobj)} (4)
In practice, the space reduced this way is a tiny fraction of
the initial one (volume-wise). This reduces the cost of
surrogate model construction (specifically, the number of
training data and the associated cost of EM simulations). As
demonstrated in the literature, the method [12] in conjunction
with the above reduction scheme permits handling antenna
design problems with up to 20 adjustable parameters. Still, the
number of training samples necessary to construct the
surrogate may be considerable [12].
D. Design Space Segmentation
Further reduction of the number of training samples
necessary to build the surrogate model can be achieved by
design space segmentation proposed in this work. Here, it is
formulated assuming two objectives, however, it can be
generalized for a larger value of Nobj.
Let d(1) = [d1(1) d2(1) … dn(1)]T = |x*(1) – x*(2)| be the size
vector of the design space X0 reduced as described in
Section II.C. Its volume is V0 = ∏k = 1,…,ndk(1). Figure 1(a)
explains the utilized notation. For majority of practical
 2017 11th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP)
antenna design problems, the reduced space X0 contains the
entire Pareto front or majority of it [14]. Thus, the surrogate
model for MOEA optimization can be created only in X0
instead the entire design space.
Design space segmentation is based on introducing
intermediate points that allows us to further reduce the
volume of the design space regions that need to sample while
still capturing the entire Pareto front. Figures 1(b) and 1(c)
illustrate this concept for one and two intermediate points,
respectively. In case of one point, xI(1), two reduced sub-
domains are created, X1.1 and X1.2. Their volumes are
V1.l = ∏k = 1,…,ndk(I.l), where d(I.1) = [d1(I.1) … dn(I.1)]T = |x*(1) –
xI(1)|, and d(I.2) = [d1(I.2) … dn(I.2)]T = |x*(2) – xI(1)|. The
intermediate point is obtained by solving
xI(1) = arg min (1) F1 ( Rcd ( x ) ) (5)
x , F2 ( x ) ≤ F2. I
x*(1) F2 [F1(x*(1)),F2(x*(1))]
X0 [F1(x*(2)),F2(x*(2))]
x*(2)
F1
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 1. Design space segmentation: (a) initially reduced space X1 spanned by
the extreme Pareto-optimal designs x*(1) and x*(2); the surrogate model for
MOEA optimization is established in entire X1; (b) design space segmentation
with one intermediate Pareto-optimal point x*(3); two independent kriging
models are established in two subsets X2.k, k = 1,2; the overall volume of the
sampled region is considerably smaller than for the previous case, yet the
entire Pareto set is covered; (c) design space segmentation with two
intermediate points: the overall volume of the search space subsets to be
sampled is further reduced.
3267
where the threshold F2.I(1) is set to place the intermediate point
around the middle of the Pareto front, i.e., F2.I(1) = [F2(x*(1)) +
F2(x*(2))]/2. The starting point for solving (5) is [x*(1) + x*(2)]/2
and it is already a good approximation of xI(1).
In a general case of K intermediate points xI(l), l = 1, …, K,
one would have K + 1 sub-domains XK.l, l = 1, …, K + 1 of the
volumes VK.l = ∏k = 1,…,ndk(I.l), where d(I.1) = |x*(1) – xI(1)|, d(I.l) =
|xI(l–1) – xI(l)| for l = 2, …, K, and d(I.K+1) = |x*(2) – xI(K)|. The
intermediate points are obtained by solving
xI(l ) = arg min ( l ) F1 ( Rcd ( x ) ) (6)
x , F2 ( x ) ≤ F2. I
with F2.I(l) = (1 – αl)F2(x*(1)) + αlF2(x*(2)), αl = l/K, and the
starting points being (1 – αl)x*(1) + αl x*(2).
In the most optimistic scenario, i.e., when K intermediate
point split the range of parameters between x*(1) and x*(2) into
K + 1 equal intervals, the total volume VK = VK.1 + … + VK.K+1
in relation to the volume V0 of the initial domain (with no
segmentation) is given by
VK 1 (7)
=
V0 ( K + 1)n−1
For example, if K = 1 and n = 12 (twelve design
parameters), the ratio is 1/2048, whereas for K = 2 and n = 12,
we have VK/V0 ≈ 5⋅10–6. For n = 18, we have V1/V0 ≈ 7⋅10–6
and V2/V0 ≈ 7⋅10–9. Thus, the benefits of segmentation grow
quickly both with n and K. Obviously, increasing K increases
the cost of obtaining the intermediate points due to solving (6)
so that using K larger than three of four is not recommended.
One should also remember that (7) describes the extreme
situation that does not occur in practice. The actual ratios are
larger due to the fact that intermediate points never split the
initial domain X0 into equal-size intervals. Still, as
demonstrated in Section III, design space segmentation leads
to considerable computational savings.
III. CASE STUDY: UWB MONOPOLE ANTENNA
A. Antenna Structure
Consider a compact UWB monopole antenna shown in
Fig. 2 [20]. The structure is implemented on a 0.762 mm thick
Taconic RF-35 dielectric substrate (εr = 3.5, tanδ = 0.0018). It
consists of a trapezoid radiator with improved impedance
matching. Further bandwidth enhancement is obtained by
employing two slots within the radiator and one cylindrical
slit below the feed line. The vector of antenna design
parameters is x = [l0 l1 w1r w2 o2r o3r s1r s2r s4r s5r]T. Relative
variables are w1 = (0.5w2 – 0.5w0)w1r, o2 = 0.5w2o2r, o3 = (l1 –
s3)o3r, s1 = (0.5w2 – 0.5w0)s1r, s2 = l1s2r, s4 = (w2 – 2s5)s4r, and
s5 = 0.5(l0 – g)s5r. Parameters w0 = 1.7, o1 = 0.25, g = 0.5. The
unit for all dimensions is mm.
The EM-simulation models of the structure are
implemented in CST Microwave studio and simulated using
its time domain solver. The high-fidelity model Rf of the
structure consists of ~6,000,000 hexahedral mesh cells and its
average simulation time on a dual Xeon E5540 machine with
6 GB of RAM is 30 min. The low-fidelity model Rcd is
discretized using about 1,400,000 cells (simulation time: 5,5
 2017 11th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP)

min). Both EM models include SMA connector to ensure Figure 3 indicates that Pareto sets from initially reduced,
reliable antenna evaluation (see Fig. 2(b)). as well as two-, and three-fold segmented spaces are very
The following design objectives are considered: F1 – similar. Vertical discrepancy between the responses of
minimization of reflection in 3.1 GHz to 10.6 GHz bandwidth selected Rf model designs is below 0.5 dB. Moreover,
and F2 – reduction of the antenna footprint S(x) = w2(l0 + l1). similarity of the results is confirmed in Fig. 4.
The initial ranges of design variables for the considered The computational cost of the multi-objective optimization
structure are: l0 = [4 3 0 4 0 0 0.1 0 0.01 0.01]T and u0 = [24 in the initially reduced space corresponds to 342 Rf model
24 1 24 0.5 1 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.5]T. simulations (171 h of CPU-time). At the same time, the cost
of multi-objective design in two- and three-fold segmented
B. Numerical Results
spaces corresponds to 182 Rf (~91 h) and 112 Rf (~56 h)
The initially reduced design space is defined using the model simulations (including the overhead for determination
extreme Pareto-optimal designs obtained by sequential single- of intermediate designs), respectively (see also Table IV). In
objective optimizations (cf. Section II.C): x*(1) = [9.46 15.99 other words, the design space segmentation indeed allows for
0.38 15.39 0.06 0.08 0.69 0.09 0.15 0.26]T (optimal w.r.t. F1) significant reduction of the overall design cost without
and x*(2) = [9.13 13.11 0.26 12.38 0 0.12 0.74 0.19 0.05 0.43]T compromising the Pareto front quality.
(optimal w.r.t. F2).
For the purpose of this study, the acceptable RMS error of g
the kriging model Rs is set to 2.5%. Data acquisition/model o3
s5 s
construction process is iterative [2]. The search space is w2 o2
o1
4 w0
discretized using Latin Hypercube Sampling algorithm (10 s1
samples per iteration) [21]. Then, Rcd model is evaluated and s2
kriging model is constructed using obtained training samples. l1 l0
The generalization error is estimated using cross-validation (a) (b)
[13]. The process continues until desired accuracy of the Fig. 2. A compact monopole antenna [20]: (a) geometry with highlight on design
parameters, and (b) 3D visualization of the structure with SMA connector.
model is obtained.
For the initially reduced space, the desired accuracy of the TABLE I: PARETO DESIGNS OBTAINED IN INITIALLY REDUCED SPACE
Rs model is obtained for 1500 low-fidelity model training
Design Variables [mm]
samples. In the next step, the initial Pareto front F1 F2
l0 l1 w1r w2 o2r o3r s1r s2r s4r s5r
representation is determined by MOEA optimization of the xf(10) –12.5 379 9.33 15.67 0.31 15.18 0.03 0.11 0.71 0.10 0.06 0.34
surrogate (algorithm setup: 500 individuals; 100 iterations). xf(8) –12.1 364 9.36 15.40 0.28 14.72 0.04 0.11 0.71 0.12 0.06 0.35
Finally, the high-fidelity Pareto-optimal designs are found xf(6) –11.3 332 9.37 14.79 0.30 13.74 0.02 0.11 0.72 0.14 0.06 0.39
using the refinement technique of Section II.B. The final xf(3) –10.9 311 9.28 14.52 0.30 13.07 0.02 0.10 0.71 0.15 0.07 0.40
xf(1) –9.9 288 9.16 13.77 0.28 12.55 0.00 0.11 0.74 0.17 0.07 0.39
representation of Pareto front is shown in Fig. 3. Detailed
dimensions of the selected high-fidelity designs are given in TABLE II: PARETO DESIGNS OBTAINED IN TWO-FOLD SEGMENTED SPACE
Table I, whereas their corresponding frequency characteristics
Design Variables [mm]
are shown in Fig. 4(a). F1 F2
l0 l1 w1r w2 o2r o3r s1r s2r s4r s5r
The intermediate point for two-fold segmented search xf(10) –12.5 387 9.40 15.91 0.35 15.30 0.04 0.09 0.69 0.10 0.08 0.31
space is xI(1) = [9.37 14.79 0.3 13.78 0.04 0.11 0.7 0.15 0.07 xf(8) –11.8 368 9.42 15.49 0.36 14.76 0.06 0.09 0.69 0.13 0.10 0.32
0.36]T. Kriging models for X1.1 and X1.2 are constructed using xf(6) –11.0 315 9.24 14.56 0.30 13.22 0.02 0.12 0.70 0.16 0.05 0.42
550 and 150 samples, respectively. It should be noted that xf(3) –10.5 295 9.36 14.27 0.26 12.47 0.04 0.11 0.74 0.15 0.05 0.40
xf(1) –10.0 284 9.14 13.78 0.27 12.38 0.01 0.12 0.74 0.19 0.05 0.41
domain reduction w.r.t. initially reduced space is
V1/V0 = 1⋅10–3. Each surrogate is optimized using MOEA and TABLE III: PARETO DESIGNS OBTAINED IN THREE-FOLD SEGMENTED SPACE
refinement of the selected low-fidelity designs is performed.
Design Variables [mm]
The Pareto-front representation is shown in Fig. 3. F1 F2
l0 l1 w1r w2 o2r o3r s1r s2r s4r s5r
Dimensions of the selected high-fidelity designs are gathered xf(10) –12.6 390 9.45 15.91 0.38 15.37 0.05 0.08 0.69 0.09 0.12 0.28
in Table II, whereas their corresponding frequency responses xf(8) –12.1 365 9.44 15.47 0.36 14.64 0.03 0.08 0.66 0.10 0.09 0.31
are shown in Fig. 4(b). xf(6) –10.9 317 9.33 14.52 0.29 13.29 0.02 0.10 0.72 0.16 0.08 0.39
For the three-fold segmented space, the intermediate xf(3) –10.6 296 9.25 14.23 0.28 12.60 0.01 0.10 0.68 0.16 0.07 0.40
xf(1) –10.1 281 9.21 13.47 0.27 12.40 0.00 0.12 0.74 0.19 0.05 0.43
designs are xI(1) = [9.38 15.32 0.32 14.29 0.03 0.09 0.71 0.12
0.1 0.33]T and xI(2) = [9.29 14.5 0.29 13.2 0.02 0.11 0.72 0.16 TABLE IV: COST BREAKDOWN
0.08 0.41]T. The kriging interpolation models with desired
accuracy have been obtained using 160, 70, and 60 training Initially Two-fold Three-fold
reduced space segmentation segmentation
samples, respectively. Domain reduction is V2/V0 ≈ 3⋅10–5. Extreme and
Then, MOEA optimization of each model has been performed 200 Rcd 290 Rcd 320 Rcd
intermediate points
and the selected designs have been refined. The high-fidelity Data acquisition 1500 Rcd 700 Rcd 290 Rcd
representation of the Pareto set is shown in Fig 3. Dimensions MOEA optimization N/A N/A N/A
of the high-fidelity designs are given in Table III, whereas Refinement 30 Rf 30 Rf 30 Rf
their frequency characteristics are shown in Fig. 4(c). Total cost 342 Rf (171 h) 182 Rf (90.8 h) 112 Rf (56 h)

3268
 2017 11th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP)

-9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
F1 (|S11| in-band) [dB]

The authors would like to thank Computer Simulation

-10
Technology AG, Darmstadt, Germany, for making CST
-11 Microwave Studio available. This work was supported in part
by the Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS) Grant
-12 152034051, and by National Science Centre of Poland Grant
2013/11/B/ST7/04325, and by the National Natural Science
-13 Foundation of China Grant 61471258.
275 300 325 350 375 400
2
F2 (Footprint) [mm ]
REFERENCES
Fig. 3. High-fidelity Pareto designs obtained in the initially reduced design
space (□), as well as search spaces with two- (○) and three-fold (∇) [1] X.-S. Yang, K.-T. Ng, S.H. Yeung, and K.F. Man, “Jumping genes
segmentation. multiobjective optimization scheme for planar monopole ultrawideband
antenna,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Prop., vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 3659-3666, 2008.
[2] S. Koziel, A. Bekasiewicz, and W. Zieniutycz, “Expedited EM-driven multi-
-5 objective antenna design in highly-dimensional parameter spaces,” IEEE
Antennas and Wireless Prop. Lett., vol. 13, pp. 631-634, 2014.
|S11| [dB]

-10 [3] K. Deb., “Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms,”

New york: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
-15 [4] V. Changkong and Y.Y. Haimes, Multiobjective Decision Making Theory
and Methodology, North-Holland, New York, USA, 1983.
[5] K.C. Tan, E.F. Khor, and T.H. Lee, Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms
-20
2 4 6 8 10 12 and applications, Springer-Verlag, 2005.
Frequency [GHz] [6] C.M. van Coevorden, S.G. Garcia, M.F. Pantoja, et.al., “Microstrip-patch
(a) array design using a multiobjective GA,” IEEE Ant. and Wireless Prop. Lett.,
vol. 4, pp. 100-103, 2005.
-5 [7] D. Ding and G. Wang, “Modified multiobjective evolutionary algorithm
based on decomposition for antenna design,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Prop.,
|S11| [dB]

-10 vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 5301-5307, Oct. 2013.

[8] N. Jin and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Advances in particle swarm optimization for
-15 antenna designs: real-number, binary, single-objective and multiobjective
implementations,” IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 556-567, 2007.
-20 [9] S. Chamaani, S.A. Mirtaheri, and M.S. Abrishamian, “Improvement of time
2 4 6 8 10 12 and frequency domain performance of antipodal Vivaldi antenna using
Frequency [GHz] multi-objective particle swarm optimization,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Prop.,
(b) vol. 59, no. 5 pp. 1738-1742, May 2011.
[10] E. Mezura-Montes, M. Reyes-Sierra, and C.A. Coello Coello, “Multi-
-5 objective optimization using differential evolution: a survey of the state-of-
the-art,” in (Chakraborty, U.K. ed.) Advances in Differential Evolution, 173-
|S11| [dB]

-10 196, 2006.

-15
-20
2 4 6 8 10 12
Frequency [GHz]
(c)
Fig. 4. Frequency responses of the selected Pareto-optimal designs xf(10) (––),
xf(8) (– –), xf(6) (···), xf(3) (–·–), xf(1) (○○) obtained in: (a) initially reduced design
space, as well as segmented space with (b) one intermediate point, and (c)
two intermediate points. Note that responses are visually similar.
IV. CONCLUSION
In this work, a novel approach to computationally-efficient
multi-objective design optimization of antenna structures has
been presented. We exploit data-driven surrogate modeling
and variable-fidelity EM simulations, as well as design space
segmentation. The segmentation process is crucial to
considerably reduce the number of training samples required
for surrogate model construction, which leads to lowering the
overall design optimization cost. Our approach has been
illustrated through the design of a UWB monopole antenna
and compared with the reference surrogate-assisted
optimization technique. As demonstrated, computational
benefits of the proposed approach are considerable: the
obtained savings are 47 percent for two-fold and 67 percent
for three-fold segmentation.
[11] X.S. Yang, Engineering optimization: an introduction with metaheuristic
applications. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[12] S. Koziel and S. Ogurtsov, “Multi-objective design of antennas using
variable-fidelity simulations and surrogate models,” IEEE Trans. Antennas
Prop., vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 5931-5939, Dec. 2013.
[13] T.W. Simpson, J. Peplinski, P.N. Koch, and J.K. Allen, “Metamodels for
computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations,”
Engineering with Computers, vol.17, no. 2, pp. 129-150, July 2001.
[14] A. Bekasiewicz, S. Koziel, and W. Zieniutycz “Design space reduction for
expedited multi-objective design optimization of antennas in highly-
dimensional spaces,” to appear in S. Koziel, L. Leifsson, and X.S. Yang
(Eds.) Solving Computationally Extensive Engineering Problems: Methods
and Applications, Springer, 2014.
[15] S. Koziel and A. Bekasiewicz, “Fast multi-objective surrogate-assisted
design of multi-parameter antenna structures through rotational design space
reduction,” IET Microwaves Antennas Prop., 2016.
[16] S. Koziel and A. Bekasiewicz, “Fast multi-objective optimization of narrow-
band antennas using RSA models and design space reduction,” IEEE
Antennas and Wireless Prop. Lett., vol. 14, pp. 450-453, 2015.
[17] C.M. Fonseca, Multiobjective genetic algorithms with application to control
engineering problems. PhD thesis, Department of Automatic Control and
Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK, 1995.
[18] N.M. Alexandrov and R.M. Lewis, “An overview of first-order model
management for engineering optimization,” Optimization Eng., vol. 2, no. 4,
pp. 413-430, Dec. 2001.
[19] S. Koziel, J.W. Bandler and K. Madsen, “Towards a rigorous formulation of
the space mapping technique for engineering design,” Proc. Int. Symp.
Circuits, Syst., ISCAS, vol. 1, 2005, pp. 5605-5608.
[20] S.K. Palaniswamy, Y. Panneer, M.G. Nabi Alsath, M. Kanagasabai, S.
Kingsly, and S. Subbaraj, “3D eight-port ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna
array for diversity applications,” IEEE Ant. Wireless Prop. Lett., 2016.
[21] B. Beachkofski and R. Grandhi, “Improved distributed hypercube
sampling,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, paper AIAA
2002-1274, 2002.

3269