MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322706704 · doi:10.1109/tap.2023.3247917

A Generalized Scalar Potential Integral Equation Formulation for the DC Analysis of Conductors

2023· article· en· W4322706704 on OpenAlexafffund
Shashwat Sharma, Piero Triverio

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicElectromagnetic Scattering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCMC MicrosystemsAdvanced Micro Devices
KeywordsScalar (mathematics)Computer scienceScalar potentialElectrical conductorIntegral equationBoundary element methodConductorFinite element methodApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisMathematicsPhysicsClassical mechanicsGeometryElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrostatic modeling of conductors is a fundamental challenge in various applications, including the prediction of parasitic effects in electrical interconnects, the design of biasing networks, and the modeling of biological, microelectromechanical, and sensing systems. The boundary element method (BEM) can be an effective simulation tool for these problems because it allows modeling 3-D objects with only a surface mesh. However, existing BEM formulations can be restrictive because they make assumptions specific to particular applications. For example, capacitance extraction formulations usually assume a constant electric scalar potential on the surface of each conductor and cannot be used to model a flowing current, nor to extract the resistance. When modeling steady currents, many existing techniques do not address mathematical challenges such as the null space associated with the operators representing the internal region of a conductor. We propose a more general BEM framework based on the electric scalar potential for modeling conductive objects in various scenarios in a unified manner. Restrictive application-specific assumptions are not made, and the aforementioned operator null space is handled in an intuitive and rigorous manner. Numerical examples drawn from diverse applications confirm the accuracy and generality of the proposed method.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and PropagationSame topicElectromagnetic Scattering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207