A. Drozd, B. Archambeault, A. Duffy, I. Kasperovich
{"title":"开发新一代FSV工具和标准","authors":"A. Drozd, B. Archambeault, A. Duffy, I. Kasperovich","doi":"10.1109/ISEMC.2012.6351653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper identifies several important aspects of current Feature Selective Validation (FSV) methodologies that are embodied in IEEE Standard 1597.1 for the Validation of CEM Computer Modeling and Simulations. The FSV method facilitates comparisons of sets of electromagnetic (EM) observable data for a given problem to determine “levels of agreement” across amplitude and feature variables. Areas of future revision to this standard are presented that will further enhance the standard's utility for performing Computational Electromagnetic (CEM) technique validation for a wide range of problems. In particular, we consider the utility of the N-dimensional FSV and revisit applications of the Amplitude Difference Measure (ADM), Feature Difference Measure (FDM) and the Global Difference Measure (GDM). This is discussed within the context of large complex system problems that present interesting challenges to the FSV method due to the potentially wide dynamic range of the data. Certain use cases for scattering cross section, system-level coupling, and large system-level EMC problems require a somewhat modified approach in computing the GDM based on how the FDM and ADM are weighted. For the current 1-D FSV, unweighted or incorrectly weighted amplitude and feature measures can potentially lead to inconclusive or even misleading results. These issues are addressed and future revisions to the IEEE Standard 1597.1 are highlighted.","PeriodicalId":197346,"journal":{"name":"2012 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of next generation FSV tools and standards\",\"authors\":\"A. Drozd, B. Archambeault, A. Duffy, I. Kasperovich\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ISEMC.2012.6351653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper identifies several important aspects of current Feature Selective Validation (FSV) methodologies that are embodied in IEEE Standard 1597.1 for the Validation of CEM Computer Modeling and Simulations. The FSV method facilitates comparisons of sets of electromagnetic (EM) observable data for a given problem to determine “levels of agreement” across amplitude and feature variables. Areas of future revision to this standard are presented that will further enhance the standard's utility for performing Computational Electromagnetic (CEM) technique validation for a wide range of problems. In particular, we consider the utility of the N-dimensional FSV and revisit applications of the Amplitude Difference Measure (ADM), Feature Difference Measure (FDM) and the Global Difference Measure (GDM). This is discussed within the context of large complex system problems that present interesting challenges to the FSV method due to the potentially wide dynamic range of the data. Certain use cases for scattering cross section, system-level coupling, and large system-level EMC problems require a somewhat modified approach in computing the GDM based on how the FDM and ADM are weighted. For the current 1-D FSV, unweighted or incorrectly weighted amplitude and feature measures can potentially lead to inconclusive or even misleading results. These issues are addressed and future revisions to the IEEE Standard 1597.1 are highlighted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197346,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2012 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2012 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEMC.2012.6351653\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2012 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEMC.2012.6351653","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Development of next generation FSV tools and standards
This paper identifies several important aspects of current Feature Selective Validation (FSV) methodologies that are embodied in IEEE Standard 1597.1 for the Validation of CEM Computer Modeling and Simulations. The FSV method facilitates comparisons of sets of electromagnetic (EM) observable data for a given problem to determine “levels of agreement” across amplitude and feature variables. Areas of future revision to this standard are presented that will further enhance the standard's utility for performing Computational Electromagnetic (CEM) technique validation for a wide range of problems. In particular, we consider the utility of the N-dimensional FSV and revisit applications of the Amplitude Difference Measure (ADM), Feature Difference Measure (FDM) and the Global Difference Measure (GDM). This is discussed within the context of large complex system problems that present interesting challenges to the FSV method due to the potentially wide dynamic range of the data. Certain use cases for scattering cross section, system-level coupling, and large system-level EMC problems require a somewhat modified approach in computing the GDM based on how the FDM and ADM are weighted. For the current 1-D FSV, unweighted or incorrectly weighted amplitude and feature measures can potentially lead to inconclusive or even misleading results. These issues are addressed and future revisions to the IEEE Standard 1597.1 are highlighted.