MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115257811 · doi:10.1109/lawp.2003.814771

Analysis and numerical experiments on the numerical dispersion of two-dimensional ADI-FDTD

2003· article· en· W2115257811 on OpenAlexaff
Guilin Sun, C.W. Trueman

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodLimit (mathematics)Nyquist–Shannon sampling theoremMathematicsDispersion relationNyquist frequencyDispersion (optics)Nyquist stability criterionMathematical analysisNumerical analysisComputer simulationFinite difference methodApplied mathematicsOpticsPhysicsComputer scienceStatisticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The numerical dispersion relations in the literature are inconsistent for the alternate-direction-implicit finite-difference time-domain (ADI-FDTD) method. By analysis of the amplification factors, the numerical dispersion relation is rederived and verified with numerical experiments, with good agreement. The inconsistency of the numerical dispersion relation is resolved. It is shown that ADI-FDTD has some fundamental limits. For a given time step size, there is a velocity error even for zero spatial mesh. For a given spatial mesh size, the mesh does not support a numerical wave at certain time step sizes. As the Nyquist sampling limit is approached, the velocity of the wave approaches zero. At about twice the Nyquist limit, the wave does not propagate. Hence, the Nyquist criterion should be respected in choosing the time step size.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations53
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation LettersSame topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207