A Space-Mapping Approach to Microwave Device Modeling Exploiting Fuzzy Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a novel surrogate modeling methodology based on a combination of space mapping and fuzzy systems. Fine model data, the so-called base set, is assumed available in the region of interest. Although we do not assume any particular location of the base points, it is preferable that they form a uniform mesh. The standard space-mapping surrogate is established using available fine model data. The fuzzy system is then set up to interpolate the differences between the space-mapping surrogate and the fine model at all base points. Our new methodology offers significant advantages with respect to some of the previous space-mapping approaches to modeling, which are: (1) it handles any base set and (2) the number of space-mapping parameters does not limit the accuracy of the surrogate. Moreover, it exhibits comparable or better accuracy than the recently published modeling technique utilizing space mapping and radial basis functions. We also consider a hierarchical fuzzy space-mapping modeling, which relies on a fuzzy interpolation of space-mapping parameters and subsequent fuzzy interpolation of the residuals between the fine and surrogate model. Examples demonstrate the robustness of our approach and give a comparison with other space-mapping-based modeling techniques.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it