Causality-Aware Interaction Selection for Retarded Green-Function Assembly

Giampiero Gerini; M. C. van Beurden; Sushil Kumar; Wolf van der Hert

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 15 references

Causality-Aware Interaction Selection for Retarded Green-Function Assembly

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that retarded causality is an exact pre-assembly filter, pruning 40.6% of Green-function interactions with no approximation.

desk verdict Useful engineering result, but the 'exact' pruning claim overstates what the paper actually shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29504 v1 pith:5BQUXEJH submitted 2026-07-31 physics.optics physics.comp-ph

Sushil Kumar , Wolf van der Hert , Giampiero Gerini , M. C. van Beurden This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticsphysics.comp-ph

keywords causalityretardedGreenfunctionmarching-on-in-timetime-domainintegralequationsvolumeequationinteractionpruningparallelassemblytransientscattering

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

In transient electromagnetic scattering simulations, the most expensive step is often assembling the interaction matrix: for every pair of small volume cells and every time-delay index, the solver must evaluate a retarded Green function. This paper proposes to use causality itself as a filter: for a given observation cell and source cell, only those delay indices whose retarded delay falls inside the temporal basis support can possibly contribute; every other candidate interaction is claimed to be identically zero. The paper shows that discarding those candidates before numerical evaluation does not change the simulated transient field (agreement to about 1e-15 relative error), while cutting the number of evaluated interactions by 40.6% and accelerating assembly by 2.6x on one CPU core and up to 109x with 64 cores. If this is right, a universal physical principle becomes a cheap, exact algorithmic optimization for a whole class of time-domain integral-equation solvers.

What carries the argument

The operative mechanism is the causality-admissibility test in Eqs. (5)–(7): for each observation voxel m and source voxel m', the retarded delay τ_mm' = R_mm'/c0 maps the pair into a discrete delay shell; an interaction with MOT delay index k is retained only when kΔt − τ_mm' ∈ [ta,tb], the support of the temporal basis function. This converts causality into a pair-level integer set Q_mm' that depends only on separation distance and basis support, allowing all inactive triples to be pruned before quadrature. The remaining triples are grouped into homogeneous batches and evaluated with branch-free SIMD vectorization, with each worker accumulating into private delay-indexed buffers that are s

What would settle it

For a source-observation pair with center-to-center delay just outside the admissible interval, evaluate the full retarded Green-function interaction integral using the actual spatial basis functions and multiple quadrature points per voxel; if the resulting entry is not exactly zero within machine precision, the 'identically inactive' premise is violated. Alternatively, rerun the small-slab validation with voxel size increased to a substantial fraction of the wavelength and check whether the relative error ε_E remains ~1e-15.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the set of admissible interactions S_act = {(m,m',k): kΔt − τ_mm' ∈ [ta,tb]} is the exact set of non-vanishing retarded interactions in the discretized MOT-JVIE. Each observation-source voxel pair is assigned the single retarded delay τ_mm' = R_mm'/c0, and an interaction at delay index k contributes if and only if the delay offset overlaps the support of the temporal basis function T(t). All other candidate interactions are 'identically inactive' and can be discarded before evaluation without modifying the TDIE formulation or introducing approximations. Numerical validation on two dielectric slabs shows the pruned assembly reproduces the conventional transient field

Load-bearing premise

Every observation-source voxel pair is assigned a single retarded delay based on center-to-center distance; if voxel volumes actually produce a range of delays, an interaction whose center delay falls just outside the temporal-basis window can still have non-negligible contributions, and the claim that excluded interactions are identically inactive would no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because the admissibility test depends only on the retarded delay and temporal-basis support, the same screening applies to other marching-on-in-time TDIE formulations that use compactly supported temporal basis functions.
Interaction reduction grows with delay level: the skip ratio climbs from 0% at level 1 to 41.3% at level 7 in the large-slab test, so longer propagation histories benefit more from the pruning.
Pruning before quadrature removes the light-cone conditional checks from inner loops, which is what enables the branch-free vectorized batches and the additional parallel speedup.
The observed 109x total speedup combines the 2.6x algorithmic reduction with the 42x parallel speedup from the vectorized batching.
Preservation of the transient response to ~1e-15 means the pruned and conventional matrices are numerically indistinguishable in the tested configuration, so the filter can be treated as exact within the discrete model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The exactness of the pruning hinges on the one-delay-per-pair model; if voxel sizes are large relative to the wavelength or spatial basis functions extend over the voxel, quadrature points sample a range of delays, and a pair whose center-to-center delay falls outside [ta,tb] could still contribute through parts of its volume. This is not tested in the paper, which uses 10 nm voxels at 378 nm wave
A natural test of the single-delay assumption is to compute full quadrature interactions for pairs near the admissibility boundary and compare their magnitude to machine precision; if any are non-negligible, the no-approximation claim would need qualification for non-uniform or coarse grids.
The same delay-shell structure could be used to schedule data movement in distributed-memory TDIE solvers, because the admissible sets define which processes need which source voxels at which time steps.
For wider temporal basis functions, the admissible window [ta,tb] grows and the skip fraction will shrink; the method's benefit is largest when Δt is small relative to the basis support, which is typical for stable MOT schemes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a solid engineering contribution: a pre-assembly causality screen plus vectorized batching cuts evaluated interactions by 41% and gives up to 109x assembly speedup, with transient fields matching the conventional solver to ~1e-15. The interaction counts are internally consistent, the MEEP comparison is a nice independent check, and the batching study is honest about the trade-off. The genuinely new piece is the screening-and-batching pipeline; inequality (6) is a straightforward formalization of a point already made in [7], [8], [10], that each source–observation pair occupies only a subset of the MOT history.

The soft spots are real but localized. The strongest claim is that pruning is exact: interactions outside [ta, tb] are "identically inactive" and discardal "introduces no approximation." That rests on treating each voxel pair as having one retarded delay. In a volumetric Galerkin MOT-JVIE, the interaction integral sees a range of delays because the source and observation basis functions extend over finite voxels, and the correct admissibility test is whether the delay interval [R_min/c0, R_max/c0] intersects the temporal-basis support. The paper does not state that its solver uses point collocation or otherwise restricts to one distance per pair. With 10 nm voxels and c0Δt = 6 nm, the delay spread across a voxel pair is several Δt, so center-based pruning can, in principle, discard nonzero interactions. The 1e-15 agreement on the two test cases suggests this did not happen here, but it does not establish exactness in general. This is the weakest point in the strongest claim.

A separate, less serious issue: the per-level explanation in Section IV-B contradicts Table III(b). The text says "more candidate source–observer pairs lie inside the admissible causal support" for larger ℓ, but the skip fraction increases with ℓ. The trend is plausible, but the explanation is backwards. Minor issues: no code or data released, runtimes lack error bars, and the batch size is tuned on the test case itself.

Who this is for: people building MOT-JVIE or other TDIE solvers who care about assembly time. The engineering payoff is probably real even if the exactness claim is softened to "negligible approximation" or clarified to the point-collocation case. Deserves a serious referee, because the method is practical and the validation is well designed, but the exactness claim should be fixed before the paper is trusted as a general-purpose exact strategy. I would not cite it in my own work until that is resolved.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a causality-aware pre-assembly strategy for the retarded Green-function interactions in a marching-on-in-time volume integral-equation (MOT-JVIE) solver. For each observation-source voxel pair, the admissible MOT delay indices are restricted to those for which the center-to-center retarded delay falls within the support of the temporal basis function; inadmissible interactions are discarded before numerical evaluation. The remaining interactions are grouped into homogeneous vectorized batches and assembled in parallel using private buffers. The paper reports a 40.6% reduction in evaluated interactions, a 2.6x single-worker algorithmic speedup, up to 109x total assembly speedup with 64 workers, and a transient-field error of about 1e-15 relative to the conventional assembly on a small dielectric slab, with independent FDTD agreement.

Significance. The proposed causality filter is an attractive and low-risk optimization: it is derived from the temporal-basis support and the retarded delay, so the admissibility criterion has no fitted parameters; the only tunable parameter is the batch size B_b, which is a parallel-scheduling choice and is studied in Table IV. The arithmetic in Table III is internally consistent, the 40.6% figure is correctly computed, and the validation against an independent FDTD solver (Meep) is a genuine strength. If the modeling assumptions behind the exactness claim are made explicit and the speedup attribution is corrected, the work would be a useful engineering contribution to TDIE assembly. At present, however, the central exactness claim and the performance attribution are not fully supported.

major comments (3)

[Section III-A, Eqs. (5)-(7)] The statement that non-admissible interactions are 'identically inactive' and pruning 'introduces no approximation' is valid only under a point-collocation (single-distance-per-voxel-pair) discretization. In the volumetric MOT-JVIE of Eq. (1), the interaction for pair (m,m') is an integral over r in V_m, r' in V_m' of quantities containing T(k*dt - |r-r'|/c0); the delays form an interval [R_min/c0, R_max/c0], not the center value tau_mm'. With voxel edge 10 nm and c0*dt ~ 6 nm (Table II), the intra-pair delay spread is several dt. An interaction whose center delay is outside [k*dt - tb, k*dt - ta] can still receive nonzero contributions from subvolumes whose delays intersect the temporal support. Thus the exactness claim and the 40.6% reduction require either justifying a single-delay model or replacing Eq. (5) by an interval-intersection test. The small-slab epsilon_E ~ 1e-15 verifies o
[Section IV-B, Figs. 3-4] The reported '2.6 times algorithmic speedup from causal-support screening' is not isolated from the vectorization/batching of Section III-B. Removing 40.6% of the interactions would yield at most 1/(1-0.406) ~ 1.68x if assembly time were proportional to interaction count; the observed 1.08e5/4.1e4 ~ 2.6x therefore includes the branch-free vectorized evaluation. Please provide a P=1 ablation with the same vectorized assembly code with and without the causality filter, and report the speedup attributable to pruning alone. Without this, the algorithmic speedup claim is overstated.
[Section IV-A] The 'no approximation' claim is checked only for the small slab; no transient-field accuracy comparison is reported for the large slab, which is the case used for the interaction-reduction and speedup numbers. Since exactness of the pruning is the paper's central assertion, an accuracy metric analogous to Eq. (10) for the large slab, or a clear statement that the point-collocation model makes the check unnecessary, is needed.

minor comments (4)

[Section II, Eq. (3)] The summation notation 'n - l sum n'=n-1' is unclear; use, for example, sum_{n'=n-l}^{n-1}.
[Section III-A] Define R_mm' explicitly as the center-to-center distance if that is the intended model. Also, 'a observation-source interaction' should read 'an observation-source interaction'.
[Table III(b)] The sentence 'the skipped-interaction ratio increasing from 0% at l=1 to 41.3% at l=7' is followed by 33.5% at l=8; the explanation for the decrease is plausible, but the wording 'pruning becomes more effective at larger delay levels' should be qualified.
[Figures 3-4] Clarify whether the conventional assembly is also parallelized, and explicitly label the 'total speedup' as relative to conventional single-worker assembly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the causality admissibility test follows from temporal-basis support and is validated against an external FDTD benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the admissibility test in Eqs. (5)-(7) exactly identifies interactions whose retarded delay lies outside the temporal-basis support, so that pruning them preserves the MOT-JVIE result. This is a direct consequence of the definition of the delay index k = n - n', the retarded delay tau_mm' = R_mm'/c0, and the support [ta,tb] of the temporal basis function; it is not a quantity fitted to the reported speedups. The 40.6% skipped-interaction count is a count of entries that fail Eq. (6), and the speedups are measured timings, not predictions derived from a fitted parameter. Validation uses the authors' conventional solver [6] as a reference, but also includes an independent MEEP/FDTD comparison, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The only caveat identified is a modeling restriction: treating each voxel pair as having a single retarded delay tau_mm' = R_mm'/c0 in Eq. (5) ignores the delay interval that volumetric quadrature would produce over finite voxels. This could affect the wording 'identically inactive' and 'introduces no approximation', but it is a correctness or approximation concern, not a circularity: no step of the derivation reduces to its own output, to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or to an unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central criterion introduces no fit parameters and no new entities. It depends on the compact-support temporal basis, the single-delay voxel model, and shift symmetry on a uniform grid. Batch size is a performance-only tuning parameter.

free parameters (1)

Batch size B_b = 8000 interactions
Chosen from a hardware-specific sweep (Table IV); affects parallel assembly time and memory but not the causality criterion or solution accuracy.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Temporal basis T(t) has compact support [ta, tb]; an MOT interaction is nonzero only when kΔt − τ ∈ [ta, tb].
Standard property of the chosen MOT basis; used to derive Eqs. (5)–(6).
domain assumption Each observation–source voxel pair has a single retarded delay τ_mm' = R_mm'/c0.
Invoked in Section III-A to define the admissible set; not justified for finite-volume voxels or multi-point quadrature.
domain assumption Uniform voxel grid allows shift symmetry, so counting unique displacement–delay entries represents all voxel pairs.
Used in Section IV-B to report interaction counts; exact only for the regular grid used here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Causality-Aware Interaction Selection for Retarded Green-Function Assembly." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5BQUXEJH

@misc{pith2026260729504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Causality-Aware Interaction Selection for Retarded Green-Function Assembly},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5BQUXEJH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29504}
}

read the original abstract

In time-domain integral-equation (TDIE) solvers, the assembly of the retarded Green-function interactions remains a major computational bottleneck. We present a causality-aware assembly strategy that exploits the finite space--time support of the retarded Green function to identify admissible interactions prior to numerical evaluation. By using causality as an exact interaction-selection criterion, causally inadmissible interactions are excluded a priori, reducing assembly complexity without modifying the underlying TDIE formulation or introducing approximations. Numerical validation confirms that the proposed pruning preserves the TDIE transient response. The remaining admissible interactions are organized into vectorized shared-memory workloads for efficient assembly. The results demonstrate a 41 % reduction in evaluated interactions, a 2.6 times single-worker algorithmic speedup, and a total assembly-time speedup of up to 109 times using 64 CPU workers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29504 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Small-slab accuracy validation: transient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** CPU-parallel assembly time and peak memory versus th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Parallel speedup and efficiency of the proposed causa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references

[7]

A novel scheme for the solution of the time-domain integral equations of electromagnetics,

D. S. Weile, G. Pisharody, N.-W. Chen, B. Shanker, and E. M ichielssen, “A novel scheme for the solution of the time-domain integral equations of electromagnetics,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 283–295, 2004

2004
[8]

A nalysis of transient electromagnetic scattering from closed surfa ces using a combined ﬁeld integral equation,

B. Shanker, A. A. Ergin, K. Ayg¨ un, and E. Michielssen, “A nalysis of transient electromagnetic scattering from closed surfa ces using a combined ﬁeld integral equation,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1064–1074, 2000

2000
[10]

A galerkin method for retarded boundary integral equations with smooth and compactly supported tem poral basis functions,

S. A. Sauter and A. V eit, “A galerkin method for retarded boundary integral equations with smooth and compactly supported tem poral basis functions,” Numerische Mathematik, vol. 123, pp. 145–176, 2013

2013
[1]

Time doma in inte- gral equation analysis of scattering from composite bodies via exact evaluation of radiation ﬁelds,

B. Shanker, M. Lu, J. Y uan, and E. Michielssen, “Time doma in inte- gral equation analysis of scattering from composite bodies via exact evaluation of radiation ﬁelds,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1506–1520, 2009

2009
[2]

Q. Ren, S. Y an, and A. Z. Elsherbeni, Eds., Advances in Time-Domain Computational Electromagnetic Methods . Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2022

2022
[3]

Design of temporal basis functions for time domain integra l equation methods with predeﬁned accuracy and smoothness,

E. van’t Wout, D. R. van der Heul, H. van der V en, and C. Vuik , “Design of temporal basis functions for time domain integra l equation methods with predeﬁned accuracy and smoothness,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 271–280, 2012

2012
[4]

A stable marching o n-in- time scheme for solving the time-domain electric ﬁeld volum e integral equation on high-contrast scatterers,

S. Bin Sayed, H. A. Ulku, and H. Bagci, “A stable marching o n-in- time scheme for solving the time-domain electric ﬁeld volum e integral equation on high-contrast scatterers,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 3098–3110, 2015

2015
[5]

Fft- acceleration and stabilization of the 3d marching-on-in-time contrast c urrent density volume integral equation for scattering from high contrast dielectrics,

P . W. N. van Diepen, M. C. van Beurden, and R. J. Dilz, “Fft- acceleration and stabilization of the 3d marching-on-in-time contrast c urrent density volume integral equation for scattering from high contrast dielectrics,” Progress In Electromagnetics Research B , vol. 106, 2024

2024

Show all 15 references

[6]

The i nﬂuence of contrast and temporal expansion on the marching-on-time contrast current density volume integral equation,

P . W. N. van Diepen, M. C. van Beurden, and R. J. Dilz, “The i nﬂuence of contrast and temporal expansion on the marching-on-time contrast current density volume integral equation,” Progress In Electromagnetics Research B , vol. 104, 2024

2024
[9]

Sayas, Retarded Potentials and Time Domain Boundary Integral Equations: A Road Map , ser

F.-J. Sayas, Retarded Potentials and Time Domain Boundary Integral Equations: A Road Map , ser. Springer Series in Computational Mathe- matics. Springer, 2016, vol. 50

2016
[11]

OpenMP Architecture Review Board, Nov

OpenMP Architecture Review Board, OpenMP Application Program- ming Interface Speciﬁcation V ersion 5.2. OpenMP Architecture Review Board, Nov. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.openm p.org/wp- content/uploads/OpenMP-API-Speciﬁcation-5-2.pdf

2021
[12]

Finite element assembly strategies on mu lti-core and many-core architectures,

G. R. Markall, A. Slemmer, D. A. Ham, P . H. J. Kelly, C. D. C antwell, and S. J. Sherwin, “Finite element assembly strategies on mu lti-core and many-core architectures,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids , vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 80–97, 2013

2013
[13]

Kokkos 3: Program ming model extensions for the exascale era,

C. R. Trott, D. Lebrun-Grandi´ e, D. Arndt, J. Ciesko, V . Dang, N. Elling- wood, R. Gayatri, E. Harvey, D. S. Hollman, D. Ibanez, N. Libe r, J. Mad- sen, J. Miles, D. Poliakoff, A. Powell, S. Rajamanickam, M. S imberg, D. Sunderland, B. Turcksin, and J. Wilke, “Kokkos 3: Prog...

2021
[14]

Cross-loop optimizat ion of arithmetic intensity for ﬁnite element local assembly,

F. Luporini, A. L. V arbanescu, F. Rathgeber, G.-T. Berc ea, J. Ra- manujam, D. A. Ham, and P . H. J. Kelly, “Cross-loop optimizat ion of arithmetic intensity for ﬁnite element local assembly,” ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1–25, 2015

2015
[15]

MEEP: A ﬂexible free-software package fo r electromagnetic simulations by the FDTD method,

A. F. Oskooi, D. Roundy, M. Ibanescu, P . Bermel, J. D. Joa nnopoulos, and S. G. Johnson, “MEEP: A ﬂexible free-software package fo r electromagnetic simulations by the FDTD method,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 181, no. 3, pp. 687–702, 2010

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

A novel scheme for the solution of the time-domain integral equations of electromagnetics,

D. S. Weile, G. Pisharody, N.-W. Chen, B. Shanker, and E. M ichielssen, “A novel scheme for the solution of the time-domain integral equations of electromagnetics,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 283–295, 2004

2004

[2] [8]

A nalysis of transient electromagnetic scattering from closed surfa ces using a combined ﬁeld integral equation,

B. Shanker, A. A. Ergin, K. Ayg¨ un, and E. Michielssen, “A nalysis of transient electromagnetic scattering from closed surfa ces using a combined ﬁeld integral equation,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1064–1074, 2000

2000

[3] [10]

A galerkin method for retarded boundary integral equations with smooth and compactly supported tem poral basis functions,

S. A. Sauter and A. V eit, “A galerkin method for retarded boundary integral equations with smooth and compactly supported tem poral basis functions,” Numerische Mathematik, vol. 123, pp. 145–176, 2013

2013

[4] [1]

Time doma in inte- gral equation analysis of scattering from composite bodies via exact evaluation of radiation ﬁelds,

B. Shanker, M. Lu, J. Y uan, and E. Michielssen, “Time doma in inte- gral equation analysis of scattering from composite bodies via exact evaluation of radiation ﬁelds,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1506–1520, 2009

2009

[5] [2]

Q. Ren, S. Y an, and A. Z. Elsherbeni, Eds., Advances in Time-Domain Computational Electromagnetic Methods . Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2022

2022

[6] [3]

Design of temporal basis functions for time domain integra l equation methods with predeﬁned accuracy and smoothness,

E. van’t Wout, D. R. van der Heul, H. van der V en, and C. Vuik , “Design of temporal basis functions for time domain integra l equation methods with predeﬁned accuracy and smoothness,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 271–280, 2012

2012

[7] [4]

A stable marching o n-in- time scheme for solving the time-domain electric ﬁeld volum e integral equation on high-contrast scatterers,

S. Bin Sayed, H. A. Ulku, and H. Bagci, “A stable marching o n-in- time scheme for solving the time-domain electric ﬁeld volum e integral equation on high-contrast scatterers,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 3098–3110, 2015

2015

[8] [5]

Fft- acceleration and stabilization of the 3d marching-on-in-time contrast c urrent density volume integral equation for scattering from high contrast dielectrics,

P . W. N. van Diepen, M. C. van Beurden, and R. J. Dilz, “Fft- acceleration and stabilization of the 3d marching-on-in-time contrast c urrent density volume integral equation for scattering from high contrast dielectrics,” Progress In Electromagnetics Research B , vol. 106, 2024

2024