MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1925069669 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2003.1226169

Quantification of the truncation errors in finite-difference time-domain methods

2004· article· en· W1925069669 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruncation errorFinite-difference time-domain methodTruncation (statistics)Finite difference methodMathematicsTaylor seriesDispersion (optics)AlgorithmFinite differencePropagation of uncertaintyApproximation errorApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisComputer sciencePhysicsOpticsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To characterize a finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) scheme, the truncation error using Taylor's series and the numerical dispersion are often used. Truncation error analysis determines the order of accuracy, but cannot differentiate one scheme from another if they have the same order of accuracy. The theoretical relation for the numerical dispersion sometimes may be difficult to obtain. This paper introduces another way to characterize the error of an FDTD scheme quantitatively. This is the truncation error with plane wave propagation. The analytical expressions for such truncation errors for Yee 's FDTD and Crank-Nicolson FDTD are derived, and the errors are compared.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.290 · 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