Parallel Computational Approach to Gradient Based EM Optimization of Passive Microwave Circuits
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
Conventional EM optimization aims to use fewest possible fine model evaluations to increase the speed of optimization. In this work, we propose to use a large number of fine model evaluations to achieve an overall speedup. A large number of fine model evaluations allows us to build a surrogate model valid in a large neighborhood. In the proposed technique, these valid surrogate models are used to achieve large and effective optimization updates, thereby resulting in fewer iterations of the optimization process. Valid surrogate models uses many fine model evaluations which are realized in parallel using hybrid distributed shared memory computing platforms. Parallel computation of large number of fine model evaluations reduces the major computational time required for constructing a surrogate model. Furthermore, we exploit trust region algorithms to guarantee convergence and to re-define the fine model evaluation range in each iteration of the proposed optimization algorithm. The proposed technique aims to increase the speed of gradient based EM optimization when no coarse model (e.g., empirical or equivalent circuits) is available. Three typical examples are used to illustrate the proposed technique.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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