Evolutionary Algorithm Optimization of Zeeman Deceleration: Is It Worthwhile for Longer Decelerators?
Jutta Toscano1, Lok Yiu Wu1, Michal Hejduk1
1Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory , University of Oxford , South Parks Road , Oxford OX1 3QZ , United Kingdom.
Abstract:
In Zeeman deceleration, only a small subset of low-field-seeking particles in the incoming beam possess initial velocities and positions that place them within the phase-space acceptance of the device. In order to maximize the number of particles that are successfully decelerated to a selected final velocity, we seek to optimize the phase-space acceptance of the decelerator. Three-dimensional particle trajectory simulations are employed to investigate the potential benefits of using a covariance matrix adaptation evolutionary strategy (CMA-ES) optimization method for decelerators longer than 12 stages and for decelerating species other than H atoms. In all scenarios considered, the evolutionary algorithm-optimized sequences yield vastly more particles within the target velocity range. This is particularly evident in scenarios where standard sequences are known to perform poorly; simulations show that CMA-ES optimization of a standard sequence decelerating H atoms from an initial velocity of 500 ms-1 down to a final velocity of 200 ms-1 in a 24-stage decelerator produces a considerable 5921% (or 60-fold) increase in the number of successfully decelerated particles. Particle losses that occur with standard pulse sequences-for example, arising from the coupling of longitudinal and transverse motion-are overcome in the CMA-ES optimization process as the passage of all particles through the decelerator is explicitly considered and focusing effects are accounted for in the optimization process.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
What is Evolutionary History?
Evolutionary Psychology
Criticisms of the Evolutionary Perspective
Evolutionary psychology provides one explanation for these findings, suggesting...
Evolutionary Relationships through Genome Comparisons
Trial and Error and Algorithm
Optimal Foraging


