MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398151589 · doi:10.1109/tap.2024.3400397

An Integro-Differential Equation Formulation for the Ideal Veselago Lens

2024· article· en· W4398151589 on OpenAlexafffund
Marzieh Eini Keleshteri, Martina T. Bevacqua, Vladimir Okhmatovski, Tommaso Isernia, Joe LoVetri

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLens (geology)PhysicsIntegral equationOpticsField (mathematics)Mathematical analysisDifferential equationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2-D problem of finding the electric field for a line-source illuminating a lossless Veselago lens (VL) is cast as an integro-differential equation (IDE). The integral corresponds to a surface integral of the total tangential magnetic field on the boundaries of the lens. The IDE is obtained using an incident/scattered-field decomposition such that the VL is considered to be the scatterer. The new formulation is applied in five distinct regions: the illuminating-source region on the left side of the lens, two regions within the lens separated by a power-transfer plane, and two regions to the right of the lens, also separated by a power-transfer plane. The formulation is shown to be consistent with previously derived analytic expressions for the fields. In addition, the new IDE formulation provides a physically intuitive picture of the focusing behavior of the lens, specifically, showing how the induced contrast sources at the boundaries determine the resulting focused field. It is shown how the line integral contributions to the scattered field on the left side of the lens are zero, and how the scattered field produces the expected focus point singularities on the interior and far-side of the lens.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and PropagationSame topicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207