MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136452848 · doi:10.1109/issse.2007.4294439

Electromagnetic Sensitivity Analysis of Scattering Parameters Based on the FDFD Method

2007· article· en· W2136452848 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaying Zhu, Arshad Hasib, Natalia K. Nikolova

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Jacobian matrix and determinantFinite differenceComputationFinite difference methodFrequency domainComputer scienceApplied mathematicsField (mathematics)Finite fieldAlgorithmInverseMathematical optimizationMathematicsMathematical analysisElectronic engineeringEngineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a novel technique to compute response gradients (Jacobians) from frequency-domain field solutions provided by high-frequency electromagnetic (EM) simulations. It is based on our recently developed self-adjoint sensitivity-analysis (SASA) approach where only one EM simulation suffices to obtain both the responses and their gradients in the optimizable-parameter space. Our novel technique exploits the computational efficiency of the SASA while adapting it to the system equations of the frequency-domain finite-difference (FDFD) method. There are three major advantages to this development: (a) the Jacobian computation is completely independent of the simulation engine, its grid and its system equations; (b) the implementation is straightforward and in the form of a post-processing algorithm operating on the exported field solution; (c) it is computationally very efficient-memory and computer-time requirements are negligible compared to those of the simulation itself. The proposed technique drastically reduces the overall time required by field-based optimization processes arising in design and inverse problems as compared to response Jacobians computed via response-level finite differences or parameter sweeps. Its accuracy is verified by comparisons with response-level central finite-difference derivative estimates.

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)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.285
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
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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207