Spatially Dispersive Electromagnetic Metasurfaces: Multipolar Modeling vs Extended GSTCs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents and compares two methods for modeling spatially dispersive metasurfaces as zero thickness sheets. In the first method, the standard Generalized Sheet Transition Conditions (GSTCs) are expanded to account for multipolar surface current densities. The extra terms in the current expansion allow for additional surface susceptibilities to be included which relate the multipolar components to the average fields and their spatial derivatives. The second method accounts for spatial dispersion by expressing the dipolar surface susceptibilities as complex rational polynomial functions of the transverse wave vector <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$k_{\Vert}$</tex> . This yields a set of differential equations relating the field differences across the surface to the average fields at the surface, leading to an extended form of the standard GSTCs. The two methods are then compared, and the multipolar modeling method is shown to be a subset of the extended GSTC method for the case of a uniform surface.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".