MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incident-Field Estimation for Active Cloaking

2021· article· en· W4200214358 on OpenAlexaff
Paris Ang, George V. Eleftheriades

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Applied · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloakCloakingComputer scienceEstimatorObstacleA priori and a posterioriAlgorithmConvergence (economics)Iterative and incremental developmentProcess (computing)Field (mathematics)Computer engineeringOpticsPhysicsMetamaterialMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active-scattering-cancellation techniques provide a means of achieving electromagnetic cloaking without dealing with passivity-based design and performance limitations. However, a major drawback is that the cloak must be adjusted to accommodate a specific set of illumination conditions. Until recently, configuration has been performed with these conditions known a priori. Although adequate for initial validation, this presents a major obstacle to the development of a practical device that must contend with an unknown and dynamic electromagnetic environment. As a solution, this paper presents the development of an estimation algorithm that uses field measurements, sampled within the vicinity of the object to be cloaked, to deduce incident-wave properties. This information can then be used to adaptively reconfigure the cloak without any prior knowledge of its surroundings. In addition, the use of iterative solvers is avoided in estimator development, sidestepping convergence issues that afflict previous designs while reducing run time. After presenting the development process and operation principles, performance evaluation is conducted by using the algorithm to estimate the incident angle, signal magnitude, and phase offset of an incident wave impinging on either a circular or polygonal quasi-two-dimensional conductive target. Input data sets are initially provided via full-field simulation models and later supplanted by real-world field measurements.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review AppliedSame topicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207