MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119152710 · doi:10.1109/tap.2005.858846

Numerical dispersion and numerical loss in explicit finite-difference time-domain methods in lossy media

2005· article· en· W2119152710 on OpenAlexaff
Guilin Sun, C.W. Trueman

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLossy compressionFinite-difference time-domain methodAnisotropyNumerical analysisComputer simulationDispersion (optics)Computational physicsFinite difference methodPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisOpticsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The numerical dispersion relations of finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) methods have been analyzed extensively in lossless media. This paper investigates numerical dispersion and loss for Yee's FDTD in lossy media. It is shown that: the numerical velocity can be smaller or larger than the physical velocity; there is no "magic time step size" in lossy media; and the numerical loss is smallest at the Courant limit. It is shown that the numerical loss is always larger than its physical value, and so Yee's FDTD overestimates the absorption of electromagnetic energy in lossy media. The numerical velocity anisotropy can be positive or negative, but the numerical loss anisotropy is always positive. The anisotropies in the three-dimensional (3-D) case are usually larger than those in the 2-D case. Numerical experiments in 1-D are shown to agree with the theoretical prediction.

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)0.011
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and PropagationSame topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207