MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411055111 · doi:10.1109/lawp.2025.3577055

Accelerating GPU-Based Parallel FDTD With Advanced Operator Fusion

2025· article· en· W4411055111 on OpenAlexafffund
Siyi Huang, R. Mittra, Xingqi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodFusionComputer scienceComputational scienceOperator (biology)Parallel computingCUDAPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method is one of the most widely used methods for solving Maxwell's equations, but its efficiency is limited by the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL) stability condition. Recent research has extensively explored graphics processing unit (GPU)-based parallel implementations of the FDTD method to enhance computational performance. However, the inherent time-stepping and time-marching nature of the FDTD algorithm leads to frequent kernel launches and low memory efficiency on GPUs, still significantly impacting execution efficiency. This paper proposes a GPU-based FDTD framework enhanced with operator fusion to address this challenge. Within this framework, the FDTD algorithm is represented as a computation graph composed of operators. We classify these operators into different types based on their input and output relationships. Using this type information, a rule-based strategy is developed to merge the operators into larger computational kernels, effectively enhancing GPU execution efficiency. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed operator fusion framework does not introduce additional errors while achieving a 4× speedup compared to conventional GPU-based implementations.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation LettersSame topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207