MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066816199 · doi:10.1049/ip-map:20000801

Investigation of projection iterative method in solving MoM matrix equations in electromagnetic scattering

2000· article· en· W2066816199 on OpenAlexaff
Q. Ye, L. Shafai

Bibliographic record

VenueIEE Proceedings - Microwaves Antennas and Propagation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicElectromagnetic Scattering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvertible matrixIterative methodMatrix (chemical analysis)MathematicsRelaxation (psychology)Rate of convergenceConvergence (economics)Mathematical analysisScatteringApplied mathematicsProjection (relational algebra)ResidualCylinderComputational electromagneticsElectromagnetic fieldMathematical optimizationAlgorithmComputer sciencePhysicsGeometryOpticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The projection iterative method (PIM) is convergence guaranteed when applied to solve the MoM equations with nonsingular matrices. Its decomposition procedure divides the matrix into some small subregions to avoid large matrix inversions. It is found that the convergent rate can be accelerated by introducing the relaxation factor to the PIM formulation. Three 3D examples are investigated to show the performance and validation of the PIM on electromagnetic scattering problems. A 2D infinite circular cylinder with The field illumination is also studied to show the convergence of the method. The relationship of various PIM related parameters, such as the normalised residual norm, the number of iterations, the number of divided subregions, and the relaxation factor, is studied and presented. It is concluded that the operation count of the accelerated PIM is usually comparable to the direct method and the PIM can predict the RCS faster than the direct method with a reasonable accuracy.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEE Proceedings - Microwaves Antennas and PropagationSame topicElectromagnetic Scattering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207