MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049693994 · doi:10.1080/02726340601166233

Adjoint Sensitivity Analysis of Dielectric Discontinuities Using FDTD

2007· article· en· W2049693994 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed A. Swillam, Mohamed H. Bakr, Natalia K. Nikolova, Xun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueElectromagnetics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodClassification of discontinuitiesFinite differenceSensitivity (control systems)Finite difference methodMathematicsFunction (biology)GridApplied mathematicsVariable (mathematics)Mathematical analysisGeometryPhysicsOpticsElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an accurate central adjoint variable method (CAVM) for estimating objective function sensitivities related to dielectric discontinuities with structured-grid finite difference time domain (FDTD). Our novel approach features accuracy comparable to that of the central finite difference approximation at the response level. Using only two simulations, of the original and the adjoint EM structures, the sensitivities with respect to all the designable parameters are obtained regardless of their number. Our approach uses the same update equations of the conventional FDTD for the adjoint problem which simplifies the implementation. The proposed technique is extended to evaluate the sensitivities of the S-parameters of multi-port electromagnetic structures. Very good agreement is obtained between our approach and the expensive finite difference approximations.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectromagneticsSame topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207