Quantitative Benchmarking of a Split-Field PML FDTD Solver: Slit Diffraction, and Scattering from PEC and Dielectric Cylinders

Sabrina Saima; Tasin Intisar

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 22 references

Quantitative Benchmarking of a Split-Field PML FDTD Solver: Slit Diffraction, and Scattering from PEC and Dielectric Cylinders

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A standard Yee-FDTD solver with a Berenger split-field PML reproduces double-slit Fraunhofer interference quantitatively, with maxima matching the grating condition to within a fraction of a degree.

desk verdict A credible, standard FDTD/PML diffraction benchmark whose quantitative slit result holds up, but whose PML validation and cylinder sections need more evidence before the broad claims are accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17360 v1 pith:DNFMKQY2 submitted 2026-07-19 physics.optics cs.NAeess.SPmath.NAphysics.comp-ph

Sabrina Saima , Tasin Intisar This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticscs.NAeess.SPmath.NAphysics.comp-ph PACS 41.20.Jb42.25.Fx

keywords FDTDYeeschemeBerengersplit-fieldPMLFraunhoferdiffractionfringevisibilityPECcylinderscatteringdielectricTMzpolarization

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

This paper tries to establish that a basic 2D TMz Yee-FDTD solver, with the open region truncated by a Berenger split-field PML, is quantitatively reliable for diffraction and scattering. It validates free-space propagation, then compares single- and double-slit diffraction against closed-form Fraunhofer theory: the double-slit interference maxima match d sinθ = mλ to within about 0.4°, the far-field NRMSE is 0.06, and the fringe visibility jumps from 0.03 to 0.95 between the two slit configurations. For PEC and dielectric cylinders, the solver produces the expected physics, including field penetration with the contracted wavelength λ0/√εr and scattered amplitude that grows with permittivity contrast. A sympathetic reader cares because this is a standard, minimally equipped FDTD setup that yields quantitative agreement at modest grid resolution (λ0/25 for slits), making it a useful checkpoint for code verification.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Yee staggered-grid leapfrog update for TMz fields, closed by a Berenger split-field PML with polynomial conductivity grading (m=4, |R(0)|=10^-12). Quantitative diffraction analysis uses a running discrete Fourier transform over four steady-state periods to extract the phasor at f0, a near-to-far-field projection with the Kirchhoff obliquity factor, and a comparison against the sinc² and sinc²·cos² Fraunhofer intensity formulas. Scattering is analyzed by reference subtraction, removing an identical free-space run from the total field.

What would settle it

Run the double-slit simulation with PML thicknesses of, say, 15 and 40 cells while keeping everything else fixed; if the extracted far-field patterns differ by an NRMSE comparable to the reported 0.06, the boundary is contaminating the benchmark. Alternatively, compare the circular-PEC-cylinder scattered field against the exact Mie series: any systematic angular deviation beyond known staircasing error would invalidate the scattering claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the split-field PML FDTD solver, after only visual validation of boundary absorption, reproduces the quantitative Fraunhofer diffraction benchmark. The double-slit interference maxima follow the grating condition d sinθm = mλ0 to within a fraction of a degree, and the fringe visibility cleanly separates single-slit (V≈0.03) from double-slit (V≈0.95) behavior. For scattering, the solver distinguishes PEC from dielectric obstacles, with internal wavelength contraction and contrast-dependent scattered-field growth matching physical expectation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the split-field PML reflects so little energy that boundary artifacts are negligible for the reported metrics, yet this is supported only by visual inspection, not by a measured reflection coefficient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A basic FDTD implementation with a split-field PML can serve as a reliable tool for open-region diffraction studies at visible/gigahertz frequencies without specialized absorbing boundaries.
Fringe visibility is a robust scalar metric that separates single- and double-slit configurations by nearly an order of magnitude.
The double-slit benchmark, with its sub-degree angular agreement, functions as a simple pass/fail test for any new FDTD code.
Reference subtraction yields clean scattered-field maps for both PEC and penetrable objects, enabling material-contrast studies.
The solver's ability to reproduce λ0/√εr internal wavelengths confirms correct permittivity handling in the update coefficients.

Reading between the lines

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

The double-slit test could be promoted to a standard regression check for FDTD implementations, since it requires only a line source, a one-cell PEC mask, and a DFT post-processor.
Because the PML is only visually validated, the reported NRMSE values may include residual boundary reflections; a direct measurement—comparing extracted phasors for two PML thicknesses—would isolate this contribution.
The single-slit NRMSE of 0.20 likely reflects the breakdown of scalar Kirchhoff theory for a subwavelength aperture as much as numerical error, so it should not be read as a pure accuracy figure.
The paper's own suggestion to benchmark circular-cylinder scattering against the Mie series would turn the qualitative scattering claims into quantitative ones and would expose staircasing error at curved boundaries.

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 exactly what the title says: a benchmark of a standard Yee-FDTD solver with Berenger split-field PML against canonical slit diffraction and cylinder scattering. Nothing in the method is new, and the authors don't claim otherwise. The value is in the quantitative slit characterization, and that part is mostly solid. Extracting a steady-state phasor via running DFT and projecting the aperture field to the far zone is a sensible way to test the solver, and the double-slit result—maxima matching d sin theta_m = m*lambda0 to 0.4 deg, NRMSE 0.06—is meaningful evidence that the scheme handles open-region interference correctly. The visibility metric cleanly separating single- and double-slit cases is a nice touch. The soft spots are real but addressable. The PML validation is visual only: "no visible back-propagating rings" is not a quantitative bound. The stress-test concern is legitimate—residual reflections at non-normal angles or from evanescent fields could contaminate the NRMSE, and the reported |R(0)| = 1e-12 target does not bound those. That said, the stress-test overstates the risk: if PML reflections were at the -25 dB level implied by the concern, the angular agreement with Fraunhofer theory would likely be worse than 0.4 deg. Still, the authors should quantify this with a reflection coefficient sweep or an energy-balance check. The larger weakness is the cylinder sections. They are qualitative only: field maps, no Mie-series or other analytical reference, no grid-convergence study. The authors' own conclusion mentions Mie series as future work, which is honest but confirms the evidence stops short of the abstract's claim that the solver "accurately captures geometry- and material-dependent scattering." The single-slit NRMSE of 0.20 is attributed to scalar Fraunhofer breakdown, which is plausible but again asserted without a resolution study. No code or data is released, which limits reproducibility. Net: the central quantitative claim about double-slit diffraction is credible and the benchmark is useful pedagogically. The gaps—quantitative PML check, grid convergence, an analytical reference for cylinders, code release—are exactly what a competent referee should request. This deserves peer review, not desk rejection, but with a request for major revision. I wouldn't cite this in my own work; it confirms what's already in textbooks, but it's a decent sanity check for students or for anyone implementing a PML-FDTD code.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a 2D TMz Yee-FDTD solver with a Berenger split-field PML and applies it to a free-space validation, slit diffraction (single and double), and scattering from PEC and dielectric cylinders. Quantitative claims are made only for the slit problem: the far-field intensity pattern is compared with Fraunhofer theory, giving NRMSE 0.20 (single) and 0.06 (double), and the double-slit maxima match the grating condition to 0.4° mean absolute error. Scattering results are presented as field snapshots and qualitative observations, including internal wavelength contraction for dielectric cylinders.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are supported, the paper provides a useful benchmark for a standard FDTD-PML teaching/engineering code, with no fitted parameters and direct comparison to independent analytical formulas. The double-slit agreement is a concrete positive result. However, the central benchmark currently lacks the supporting evidence needed to attribute the reported errors to solver accuracy rather than boundary artifacts, numerical discretization, or model-form mismatch. The scattering sections are qualitative despite the title's promise of quantitative benchmarking. The paper is a credible starting point but requires targeted additions to justify its central claims.

major comments (4)

[§IV-A, Eq. (38)] The PML validation is only visual ('no visible back-propagating rings'). The target |R(0)|=10^-12 in Eq. (38) is a normal-incidence design value and does not bound reflections at non-normal incidence or from evanescent fields near the slit apertures. The DFT phasor and far-field metrics are coherent steady-state quantities, so a boundary reflection at even −25 to −35 dB could contaminate the reported NRMSE. Please add a quantitative reflection measure (e.g., reflected-to-incident field ratio at interior probes) and a PML-thickness/grading sweep to demonstrate that boundary contamination is well below the observed errors.
[Table II, §IV-D] All diffraction metrics come from a single run at Δ=λ0/25 with one DFT window length (4 periods). No grid-convergence study or uncertainty estimate is reported. The single-slit NRMSE of 0.20 is attributed to failure of scalar Fraunhofer theory, but no numerical evidence supports this attribution rather than discretization error. Add a resolution sweep (λ0/20, λ0/30, λ0/40), vary the DFT window, and report thereby error bars so the double-slit NRMSE 0.06 and mean |Δθ|=0.4° can be assessed against numerical convergence.
[§IV-E, §IV-F] The title and abstract promise quantitative benchmarking of scattering from PEC and dielectric cylinders, yet the cylinder sections provide only qualitative field maps and the internal-wavelength observation is a self-consistency check rather than an external benchmark. The conclusion explicitly lists the Mie series as future work. To support the central claim, add at least one quantitative comparison (e.g., bistatic width of the circular PEC/dielectric cylinder against the eigenfunction series) or restrict the 'quantitative benchmarking' claim to the slit geometry.
[Eq. (46), §IV-D] The Fraunhofer formulas (47)-(48) assume plane-wave illumination, while the source is a cylindrical line current. The near-to-far-field transform in Eq. (46) includes an obliquity factor but relies on the aperture-plane field; whether the incident cylindrical wavefront introduces phase errors that invalidate the Fraunhofer comparison is not discussed. Please state the validity conditions (source-to-screen distance, slit width, observation angles) under which the comparison is quantitatively meaningful, or re-derive the reference pattern for a line source.

minor comments (4)

[Table I] The spatial resolution differs between the validation run (λ0/40) and the slit runs (λ0/25); the quantitative benchmark uses the coarser grid. Please explain the choice or justify that λ0/25 is sufficient for the slit geometry.
[Figs. 2–10] All field maps lack colorbars and axis labels, and the 'black square' in Fig. 2 may be invisible in monochrome printing. Add annotations to make the qualitative claims checkable.
[§II-E] The transition from split-field equations (28)–(31) to the update equations (32)–(35) is not fully explicit, particularly the handling of corner PML regions where both σx and σy are nonzero. A brief description of the corner update would improve reproducibility.
[§V] The discussion states that staircasing error 'decreases as the mesh is refined' but no refinement study is shown. Even a single convergence check would make this statement quantitative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all quantitative benchmarks are externally prescribed analytical formulas, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's claimed validation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The slit-diffraction comparison uses the closed-form Fraunhofer intensities (Eqs. 47-48) and the grating condition d sin θ_m = mλ0, with a, d, and λ0 prescribed in Table I. The FDTD aperture phasor is extracted by a running DFT (Eq. 44) and projected with the standard near-to-far-field integral (Eq. 46); none of these formulas is derived from the solver or fitted to its output. The reported NRMSE and mean |Δθ| are honest error metrics, not constructed quantities. The dielectric wavelength contraction is explicitly presented as an expected consistency check ('the expected reduced internal wavelength λ0/√εr'), and the observation that scattering grows with permittivity contrast is qualitative; neither is a fitted prediction. Self-citations [7], [10], [12]-[14] are contextual references to prior work on other numerical methods and applied sensors; they are not used to supply the validated claims or any uniqueness/ansatz premise. The one soft spot is PML validation: Section IV-A reports 'no visible back-propagating rings' and Section VI lists a systematic PML sweep as future work, so the quantitative claim that residual boundary reflections are negligible relative to the reported errors is not strongly established. That is a completeness/correctness risk, not circularity: the PML target |R(0)| = 10^-12 is chosen by an external design rule (Eq. 38, cited to [3]), and no parameter was tuned to make the benchmark agreement. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar of the review rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Maxwell/Yee/PML theory and standard modeling choices. No free parameters are fitted to the benchmark quantities; all simulation parameters in Table I are standard numerical settings chosen a priori, not adjusted to match the Fraunhofer or grating results. No novel entities are introduced.

assumptions (7)

standard math Maxwell's equations and constitutive relations for linear, time-invariant media (Eqs. 1-8).
Invoked in Section II-A as the governing equations for all simulations; unproved background assumed correct.
standard math Yee staggered-grid leapfrog discretization is a stable, convergent solver when the CFL condition (Eq. 43) is satisfied.
Used throughout Section II-D; stability is asserted via Δt = 0.95 Δt_max, no independent stability proof is given in this paper.
domain assumption Berenger's split-field PML with polynomial conductivity grading and σmax from target |R(0)| = 10^-12 provides a nearly reflectionless boundary in practice.
Section II-E adopts the established PML design rule from [3] and [16]; the paper validates it only visually in Section IV-A.
domain assumption A one-cell-thick Ez=0 mask is an adequate model of an ideal thin PEC sheet and PEC cylinders.
Section II-F; the effective electrical aperture width and separation may differ from nominal values by O(Δx), which is not quantified.
domain assumption Scalar Fraunhofer diffraction formulas (Eqs. 47-48) and the obliquity-weighted near-to-far-field integral (Eq. 46) are valid reference models for the slit geometry.
Section IV-D; the paper acknowledges the single-slit case is only approximate for subwavelength apertures, but still uses the formulas as the benchmark.
domain assumption Reference subtraction (Eq. 42) isolates the scattered field with clean cancellation and no source/PML differences between the total and incident runs.
Section II-H; standard total-field/scattered-field methodology [22], but residual subtraction error is not quantified.
domain assumption The simulation reaches a steady single-frequency state after the taper τ = Tsim/6, and the final 4-period DFT window captures the phasor without transient contamination.
Section III and Eq. (44); no convergence or transient-decay measurement is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantitative Benchmarking of a Split-Field PML FDTD Solver: Slit Diffraction, and Scattering from PEC and Dielectric Cylinders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNFMKQY2

@misc{pith2026260717360,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantitative Benchmarking of a Split-Field PML FDTD Solver: Slit Diffraction, and Scattering from PEC and Dielectric Cylinders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNFMKQY2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17360}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents a two-dimensional TMz finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) solver based on Yee's scheme for modeling radiation from an infinitely long z-directed line current, with the open region truncated by a Berenger split-field perfectly matched layer (PML). After validating cylindrical-wave propagation and negligible late-time reflections in free space, the solver is applied to three inhomogeneous configurations: (i) diffraction through a one-cell-thick perfectly electrically conducting (PEC) sheet with single and double slits; (ii) scattering from infinitely long PEC cylinders of circular and rectangular cross section; and (iii) scattering from infinitely long dielectric cylinders of varying cross section and permittivity. Beyond qualitative field maps, the diffraction case is characterized quantitatively: a steady-state phasor extracted by a running discrete Fourier transform yields the transmitted intensity, from which the fringe visibility and the far-field pattern are computed and compared against the closed-form Fraunhofer prediction. The single- and double-slit cases are cleanly separated by a visibility that rises from near zero to near unity, and the double-slit interference maxima agree with the grating condition arcsin(m \lambda_0 / d) to within a fraction of a degree. For dielectric cylinders, the field penetrates the obstacle with the expected reduced internal wavelength \lambda_0 / \sqrt{\epsilon_r}, and the scattered field strength grows with permittivity contrast. A reference-subtraction method isolates the scattered field throughout. The results confirm that the FDTD-PML framework accurately captures open-region diffraction and geometry- and material-dependent scattering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17360 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Single slit: total-field Ez snapshot with a PEC sheet containing one slit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Two slits: total-field Ez snapshot with a PEC sheet containing two slits. behind the sheet is clearly different. The area directly behind the two openings has stronger transmission and a noticeable spatial variation that is consistent with interference between the waves coming from each slit. The change from a single main diffracted lobe in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Peak-normalized transmitted intensity I(x) on a detector line behind the screen. The smooth single-slit lobe gives near-zero fringe visibility, while the modulated doubleslit pattern approaches unity. Because the source in (13) settles to a continuous-wave excitation…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Scattering from a circular PEC cylinder at (a) an earl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Scattering from dielectric cylinders (ǫr = 4): total field Etot z (left) and scattered field Escat z = Etot z − Einc z (right) for (a) a circular cross section, and (b) a rectangular cross section. structure. A lossy variant, obtained by assigning a nonzero σd (equival…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems in- volving Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media,

K. S. Y ee, “Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems in- volving Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 302–307, 1966

1966
[2]

Taﬂove and S

A. Taﬂove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method , 3rd ed. Artech House, 2005

2005
[3]

Jin, Theory and Computation of Electromagnetic Fields

J.-M. Jin, Theory and Computation of Electromagnetic Fields . Wiley, 2011

2011
[4]

Numerical solution of stead y-state electromagnetic scattering problems using the time-depen dent Maxwell’s equations,

A. Taﬂove and M. E. Brodwin, “Numerical solution of stead y-state electromagnetic scattering problems using the time-depen dent Maxwell’s equations,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 623– 630, 1975

1975
[5]

D. M. Sullivan, Electromagnetic Simulation Using the FDTD Method . IEEE Press/Wiley, 2013

2013
[6]

K. S. Kunz and R. J. Luebbers, The Finite Difference Time Domain Method for Electromagnetics . CRC Press, 1993

1993
[7]

FEM-based dispersion and mode analysis of rec tangular, circular, and ridge waveguide geometries,

S. Saima, “FEM-based dispersion and mode analysis of rec tangular, circular, and ridge waveguide geometries,” arXiv:2606.23703, 2026, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.23703

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.23703 2026
[8]

Jin, The Finite Element Method in Electromagnetics , 3rd ed

J.-M. Jin, The Finite Element Method in Electromagnetics , 3rd ed. Wiley, 2014

2014

Show all 22 references

[9]

R. F. Harrington, Field Computation by Moment Methods . IEEE Press, 1993

1993
[10]

Two-dimensional method-of-moments analys is of TM z and TEz scattering from PEC cylinders,

S. Saima, “Two-dimensional method-of-moments analys is of TM z and TEz scattering from PEC cylinders,” arXiv:2606.29000, 2026, d oi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.29000

2026 doi arXiv
[11]

A fast algorithm for parti cle simulations,

L. Greengard and V . Rokhlin, “A fast algorithm for parti cle simulations,” J. Comput. Phys. , vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 325–348, 1987

1987
[12]

Nume rical analysis of a highly sensitive SOI MRR refractive index sensor with pe rformance enhancement using graphene and gold,

T. Intisar, A. S. Alam, I. Hoque, and M. O. Faruque, “Nume rical analysis of a highly sensitive SOI MRR refractive index sensor with pe rformance enhancement using graphene and gold,” Heliyon, vol. 10, 2024, Art. no. e26186, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26186

2024 doi
[13]

Highly sensitive MIM-based semi-circular refractive index sensor for detection of glucose concentration,

S. Saima et al. , “Highly sensitive MIM-based semi-circular refractive index sensor for detection of glucose concentration,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Mechatronics and Electrical Engineering (MEEE) , 2023, doi: 10.1109/MEEE57080.2023.10126507

2023
[14]

Opti cal force density in waveguides with broken symmetry,

F. I. Zahin, T. Intisar, L.-F. Y ang, and K. J. Webb, “Opti cal force density in waveguides with broken symmetry,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 113, p. 043521, 2026, doi: 10.1103/p47v-wpf9

2026 doi
[15]

Absorbing boundary conditions for the ﬁnite-d ifference ap- proximation of the time-domain electromagnetic-ﬁeld equa tions,

G. Mur, “Absorbing boundary conditions for the ﬁnite-d ifference ap- proximation of the time-domain electromagnetic-ﬁeld equa tions,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. , vol. EMC-23, no. 4, pp. 377–382, 1981

1981
[16]

A perfectly matched layer for the abso rption of elec- tromagnetic waves,

J.-P . Berenger, “A perfectly matched layer for the abso rption of elec- tromagnetic waves,” J. Comput. Phys. , vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 185–200, 1994

1994
[17]

Three-dimensional perfectly matche d layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves,

J.-P . Berenger, “Three-dimensional perfectly matche d layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves,” J. Comput. Phys. , vol. 127, no. 2, pp. 363–379, 1996

1996
[18]

A per fectly matched anisotropic absorber for use as an absorbing bounda ry con- dition,

Z. S. Sacks, D. M. Kingsland, R. Lee, and J.-F. Lee, “A per fectly matched anisotropic absorber for use as an absorbing bounda ry con- dition,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1460–1463, 1995

1995
[19]

An anisotropic perfectly matched layer- absorbing medium for the truncation of FDTD lattices,

S. D. Gedney, “An anisotropic perfectly matched layer- absorbing medium for the truncation of FDTD lattices,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 1630–1639, 1996

1996
[20]

Convolutional PML (CPML): An efﬁcient FDTD implementation of the CFS-PML for arbitrary m edia,

J. A. Roden and S. D. Gedney, “Convolutional PML (CPML): An efﬁcient FDTD implementation of the CFS-PML for arbitrary m edia,” Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett. , vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 334–339, 2000

2000
[21]

A new look at the perfectly match ed layer (PML) concept for the reﬂectionless absorption of electrom agnetic waves,

R. Mittra and U. Pekel, “A new look at the perfectly match ed layer (PML) concept for the reﬂectionless absorption of electrom agnetic waves,” IEEE Microw. Guided W ave Lett. , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 84–86, 1995

1995
[22]

A novel method to analyze e lectromag- netic scattering of complex objects,

K. Umashankar and A. Taﬂove, “A novel method to analyze e lectromag- netic scattering of complex objects,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. EMC-24, no. 4, pp. 397–405, 1982

1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems in- volving Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media,

K. S. Y ee, “Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems in- volving Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 302–307, 1966

1966

[2] [2]

Taﬂove and S

A. Taﬂove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method , 3rd ed. Artech House, 2005

2005

[3] [3]

Jin, Theory and Computation of Electromagnetic Fields

J.-M. Jin, Theory and Computation of Electromagnetic Fields . Wiley, 2011

2011

[4] [4]

Numerical solution of stead y-state electromagnetic scattering problems using the time-depen dent Maxwell’s equations,

A. Taﬂove and M. E. Brodwin, “Numerical solution of stead y-state electromagnetic scattering problems using the time-depen dent Maxwell’s equations,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 623– 630, 1975

1975

[5] [5]

D. M. Sullivan, Electromagnetic Simulation Using the FDTD Method . IEEE Press/Wiley, 2013

2013

[6] [6]

K. S. Kunz and R. J. Luebbers, The Finite Difference Time Domain Method for Electromagnetics . CRC Press, 1993

1993

[7] [7]

FEM-based dispersion and mode analysis of rec tangular, circular, and ridge waveguide geometries,

S. Saima, “FEM-based dispersion and mode analysis of rec tangular, circular, and ridge waveguide geometries,” arXiv:2606.23703, 2026, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.23703

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.23703 2026

[8] [8]

Jin, The Finite Element Method in Electromagnetics , 3rd ed

J.-M. Jin, The Finite Element Method in Electromagnetics , 3rd ed. Wiley, 2014

2014