MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140402447 · doi:10.1109/tmtt.2006.873639

Efficient implementations of the Crank-Nicolson scheme for the finite-difference time-domain method

2006· article· en· W2140402447 on OpenAlexaff
Guilin Sun, C.W. Trueman

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodMathematicsDiscretizationMaxwell's equationsLimit (mathematics)Crank–Nicolson methodApplied mathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Sparse matrixFinite difference methodMathematical analysisFactorizationNumerical analysisAlgorithmPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method is constructed by applying the Crank-Nicolson (CN) scheme to discretize Maxwell's equations, a huge sparse irreducible matrix results, which cannot be solved efficiently. This paper proposes a factorization-splitting scheme using two substeps to decompose the generalized CN matrix into two simple matrices with the terms not factored confined to one sub-step. Two unconditionally stable methods are developed: one has the same numerical dispersion relation as the alternating-direction implicit FDTD method, and the other has a much more isotropic numerical velocity. The limit on the time-step size to avoid numerical attenuation is investigated, and is shown to be below the Nyquist sampling rate. The intrinsic temporal numerical dispersion is discussed, which is the fundamental accuracy limit of the methods.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations150
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and TechniquesSame topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207