MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111353132 · doi:10.1109/mwsym.2001.967290

Numerical cost of gradient computation within the method of moments and its reduction by means of a novel boundary-layer concept

2002· article· en· W2111353132 on OpenAlexaff
S. Amari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFLOPSComputationSensitivity (control systems)Moment (physics)Reduction (mathematics)Boundary (topology)Computer scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)Simple (philosophy)AlgorithmFloating pointMethod of moments (probability theory)Numerical analysisBoundary layerApplied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisParallel computingGeometryElectronic engineeringPhysicsEngineeringMechanicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rigorous investigation of the numerical cost of sensitivity analysis (gradient computation) of complex structures within moment method is presented. It is shown that, when the number of variables N used in the analysis is large, a common situation in complex structures, the ratio r of the number of flops required to evaluate the sensitivity of the response to structural changes to the number of flops required to determine the response at a single point is such that r=0(1/N) as long as the number of flops required to fill the matrix is not dominant. For the latter important case, a new boundary layer concept is introduced to reduce the CPU time for the gradient computation. A simple example of an iris in a rectangular waveguide is used to illustrate the concept and show its validity.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207