MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555034836

Comparative study of space-mapping-based optimization techniques for microwave design

2011· article· en· W1555034836 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Microwave Integrated Circuit Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Engineering and Waveguides
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace mappingComputer scienceMicrowaveMicrowave engineeringSurrogate modelDesign of experimentsSpace (punctuation)Computer engineeringAlgorithmElectronic engineeringEngineeringMathematicsMachine learningTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Space mapping (SM) has been used in microwave engineering for over a decade and demonstrated as one of the most efficient simulation-driven design techniques available to date. By exploiting a fast and physically-based surrogate model, SM allows rapid optimization of an EM-simulated structure of interest (fine model). Several variations of SM algorithms have been proposed including recently introduced tuning space mapping (TSM) that can be even more efficient. However, TSM requires modification to the optimized structure (i.e., “cutting” and inserting of the tuning ports). Here, for the first time, a comparative study of various SM and TSM algorithms is carried out. Advantages and disadvantages of these techniques are discussed and illustrated through design examples. Recommendations for users of SM/TSM are given.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.152 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it