Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Curl-based Electric-Field Boundary Condition for the Accurate and Stable Electromagnetic Scattering Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A curl-based integral equation for scattering from metal objects turns a first-kind electric-field equation into a magnetic-field-style, stable one.

desk verdict A genuinely new first-kind EFIE variant that numerically mimics MFIE stability with weakly singular kernels; the theory is formal and the sharp-edge advantage is empirical, but it deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23260 v1 pith:IDPPGVQ2 submitted 2026-07-25 physics.comp-ph

Eduard Ubeda , Alex Heldring , Juan M. Rius , Vladimir Okhmatovski This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-ph MSC 78A4565R20
keywords electromagneticscatteringboundaryintegralequationsmethodofmomentselectricfieldequationmagneticlow-frequencystabilityperfectconductorweaklysingularkernel
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 presents a new integral equation, the Curl-EFIE, for computing electromagnetic scattering from perfectly conducting objects. Instead of forcing the electric field itself to vanish on the surface, it forces the field's rotation (curl) to vanish, evaluated on small swirling disks placed just inside the body. The central claim is that as the disks shrink, the discretized equation approaches the well-conditioned magnetic-field integral equation (MFIE), so it keeps MFIE's stability at low frequencies and on dense meshes. At the same time the equation relies on the same weakly singular kernels as the standard electric-field integral equation, which are far easier to evaluate, and it needs no Gram matrix, so it works with mismatched neighboring meshes. The paper shows numerical evidence of better accuracy than the MFIE on sharp-edged objects and a resonance-free combined version, Curl-CFIE.

What carries the argument

The central object is a tangent solenoidal testing disk, a small disk lying just inside the body at each boundary point whose testing function swirls around the disk center (psi = (1/N_D) c-hat x rho''). Testing the electric field with this pattern and keeping only the linear term of a Taylor expansion singles out the field's curl, D_E = c-hat dot (curl E); the identity connects the electric-field condition to the magnetic-field condition via Faraday's law. As the disk shrinks, all higher-order terms die out and the first-kind Curl-EFIE matrix approaches the second-kind Galerkin-MFIE matrix, which is the load-bearing mechanism of the paper.

What would settle it

For a sharp-edged target, compute the Curl-EFIE impedance matrix and RCS as the disk radius goes to zero (H = h/10^3, h/10^4, ...) and compare against a high-precision Galerkin-MFIE reference. If the matrices fail to converge to the MFIE limit near the edges, or if the RCS error grows as H shrinks, the claimed equivalence is broken. A simpler check: measure the condition number for a mesh refined into a re-entrant corner; the paper predicts it should match the MFIE's ~3.5 value, so any significant departure would falsify the correspondence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a method-of-moments discretization of the Curl-EFIE converges, as the testing-disk radius tends to zero, to a Galerkin discretization of the MFIE. The mechanism is the curl extraction: a solenoidal testing pattern over the disk isolates the component of the electric field's curl tangential to the boundary, and by Faraday's law that component is proportional to the interior magnetic field. Consequently the null electric-field condition becomes the null magnetic-field condition, giving the Curl-EFIE the spectral behavior of a second-kind integral equation even though it is written as a first-kind one. The practical payoff is an impedance matrix that stays well-con

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the disk testing extracts exactly the curl assumes the electric field is smooth enough across the disk for a first-order Taylor expansion; sharp edges and corners, where the paper claims the method works best, are precisely where the field is singular, so the limit argument doesn't strictly apply and the chosen disk size does the real work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Engineers can build method-of-moments solvers that combine MFIE-level conditioning with EFIE-level kernel simplicity, lowering the barrier to accurate low-frequency and dense-mesh scattering analysis.
  • Non-matching and locally-refined meshes become straightforward for magnetic-field-quality equations, since no Gram matrix is needed across overlapping facets.
  • The Curl-CFIE offers a resonance-free combined equation that requires only electric-field integral operators, avoiding magnetic-field operators entirely.
  • A fixed four-point disk quadrature plus a Taylor expansion of the Green's function keeps the computational cost comparable to the MFIE while retaining simpler singularity treatment.
  • The method's stability is demonstrated numerically for very small spheres and sharp-edged objects, where standard EFIE fails.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The disk radius H is effectively a free regularization parameter; the paper's theory fixes only the limit H to 0, so choosing a good H for arbitrary geometries, especially with corners, may require a priori information or adaptive strategies the paper does not provide.
  • The same curl-extraction idea might apply to other first-kind boundary integral equations (for example, dielectric or impedance surfaces), converting a first-kind operator into a second-kind-like one to improve conditioning.
  • The Taylor expansion of the Green's function around the disk center suggests that disk testing could be replaced by point evaluation plus local derivatives, potentially connecting to asymptotic or quadrature-based approaches in boundary element methods.
  • The method may be seen as a way to regularize the EFIE without changing the unknown current expansion, which could allow the use of arbitrary, non-divergence-conforming basis functions in a wider class of problems.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Curl-EFIE, a new boundary integral equation for PEC electromagnetic scattering. The equation is obtained by enforcing a zero curl of the electric-field integral equation on the boundary via solenoidal, disk-shaped testing functions placed just inside the body. The authors claim that its MoM discretization converges to a Galerkin-discretized MFIE as the testing-disk radius d→0, which would combine the MFIE's favorable low-frequency and dense-mesh conditioning with the EFIE's weakly singular kernels and absence of a Gram-matrix requirement. Numerical experiments on sharp-edged objects, non-matching meshes, low frequencies, and dense meshes are presented, along with a CFIE-like combined formulation. The core mathematical claim is that the Curl-EFIE impedance matrix converges to the Galerkin MFIE matrix in the vanishing-disk limit.

Significance. If the convergence claim is rigorously established, the Curl-EFIE would be a practically valuable formulation: it promises MFIE-like conditioning and stability without strongly singular kernels or explicit Gram-matrix assembly, and it offers a natural extension to non-matching triangulations. The paper contains a clever first-moment testing construction, an internally consistent algebraic derivation for smooth fields, and extensive numerical evidence, including condition-number tables and RCS comparisons. The numerical results are reproducible in structure, and the paper is transparent about the practical choice of testing-disk diameter H≈h/100. However, the central mathematical claim is currently supported only by a formal asymptotic argument, and the edge-singularity issue directly affects the paper's headline advantage for sharp-edged geometries.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (4)-(14); Sec. III, Eqs. (15)-(19)] The derivation of the MFIE correspondence rests on the multivariate Taylor expansion in Eq. (4), which requires the electric field to be at least C^2 over the testing disk. For a PEC with sharp edges or corners, the scattered field behaves as O(ρ^{ν−1}) (0<ν<1) near the edge, so the remainder in Eq. (4) is not uniformly small as d→0. Equation (14) and the limit leading to the MFIE in Sec. III are therefore not justified for the nonsmooth geometries on which the paper claims superior accuracy. The numerical results in Figs. 4–5 show the best accuracy at H=h/100, not at the smallest H, which indicates that the sharp-edge benefit is tied to finite-H off-boundary testing rather than to the d→0 correspondence. The paper itself later states (Sec. V-C) that in practice H is "bounded away from the vanishing limit," which is in tension with the abstract's convergence claim. The authors should eit
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (33)-(35)] The claim that the Curl-EFIE impedance elements in (28) converge to the Galerkin MFIE entries in (31) is only demonstrated for the local "residue" term Z_δ, which reproduces the Gram-matrix contribution. The convergence of the remaining, non-local CPV part of the MFIE matrix is not shown. The derivation of Eq. (33) is also not self-contained; it quotes a residue formula from [7] without deriving it in the context of the shrinking disk. A rigorous proof would need to show that the full double/triple integral in (28) converges to the CPV integral plus the jump term in (31) for all test/source pairs, not just for the singular coincident interaction. As it stands, the central theorem of the paper is a formal correspondence rather than a proven statement.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (36); Sec. V-D] The Curl-CFIE is claimed to be interior-resonance-free because the Curl-EFIE corresponds to the MFIE in the d→0 limit. However, for any finite H—including the recommended H=h/100—the Curl-EFIE is not exactly the MFIE, so the resonance-free property does not follow automatically. The numerical evidence in Fig. 9 covers a limited range of electrical sizes (up to 0.9λ) and does not constitute a proof. The authors should either prove that the combination in (36) is resonance-free for finite H (or for H→0 with explicit error bounds) or temper the claim and provide a more extensive numerical study, particularly at frequencies where standard EFIE is known to have spurious interior resonances.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (33)] The symbol d_∩ is used for the testing-disk radius, but the paper also uses d for the general disk radius and h for the mesh size. The notation is confusing and should be made consistent, especially in the limit statements.
  2. [Between Eqs. (25) and (26)] The claim that the disk integral in (25) vanishes is stated as "it is satisfied [19]". This is an important identity; it should be proven inline using the divergence theorem and the fact that ψ_m is tangential to ∂D_m, rather than deferred to a conference paper.
  3. [Sec. IV, after Eq. (35)] The phrase "As demonstrated in section III" appears before the residue derivation. The actual demonstration of convergence is only given in Sec. IV for the Gram term, so the cross-reference is misleading. Please rephrase to reflect what is actually proven.
  4. [Sec. I and Sec. IV] The paper calls Curl-EFIE a first-kind equation while also emphasizing its MFIE-like conditioning. This is not contradictory, but the distinction should be clarified: the finite-H discretization is first-kind in form, while its spectrum and conditioning mimic the second-kind MFIE only as H→0. A sentence explaining this would prevent reader confusion.
  5. [Throughout] There are typographical/formatting issues in the equations (e.g., inconsistent bold/hat for unit vectors, missing spaces, and the use of both 𝑢 and 𝒖̂ in Eq. (34)). A careful editorial pass is needed, but these do not affect the technical content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the Curl-EFIE-to-MFIE limit is derived from standard Maxwell identities, with self-citations only contextual.

full rationale

The Curl-EFIE is not circular. It is introduced by testing the standard EFIE residual with a solenoidal disk function (Eqs. 1-3), and the reduction to the curl (Eqs. 4-14) is an explicit first-moment calculation: the normalization N_D is chosen so that the surviving term is exactly the local curl component, while the vanishing of the other Taylor terms follows from parity over the disk. The MFIE correspondence (Eqs. 15-19) uses the standard identity ∇×E = -jωμH and the jump condition for H, so the MFIE limit is a derived consequence, not an assumed input. The Gram-matrix/residue identity in Eqs. 33-35 is computed from the cited potential-integral residue [7], not from the MFIE itself. Self-citations ([13], [14], [19], [26]) are contextual (basis-function background, preliminary results, optimal-H alignment) and do not carry the central equivalence. The choice H≈h/100 is an empirically selected discretization parameter, not a quantity fitted to the accuracy metric and then renamed as a prediction. The sharp-edge smoothness limitation of the Taylor expansion is a real correctness/validity risk, but it does not make the derivation circular: the paper's own equations do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical entities are postulated. The testing disks and solenoidal testing function ψ are mathematical/numerical constructions, not new physical degrees of freedom.

free parameters (2)
  • Testing-disk diameter H (relative to mesh size h) = H ≈ h/100 for claimed accuracy; H ∈ {h/10^4, h/10^2} tested
    The method's accuracy and sharp-edge advantage depend on this disk size. It is selected empirically from RCS-deviation scans in Sec. V.A; the theory only guarantees MFIE-limit behavior as H→0.
  • Disk quadrature rule (4 points) = 4-point fixed quadrature for the disk integral in Eq. (28)
    The paper states that 'Numerical tests show that a minimal four-point quadrature rule... provides very good accuracy' (Sec. IV). This is a numerical parameter used in all presented results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Surface Equivalence Theorem and Love's equivalence: fields inside the PEC are zero and the equivalent surface current J = n×H represents scattering.
    Used in Sec. II to set E=0 in Ω_i and define the disk testing of the null-field condition (Eq. 1).
  • domain assumption PEC boundary condition: the tangential component of the total electric field vanishes on Γ.
    Standard for perfect conductors and the basis of the EFIE formulation the paper starts from.
  • ad hoc to paper Electric field over the testing disk is smooth enough for a first-order Taylor expansion (Eq. 4) and higher-order terms vanish uniformly as d→0.
    Core of the derivation that the disk moment equals c·curl E (Eqs. 5-14). Not valid at sharp edges/corners where the paper claims improved performance.
  • standard math Faraday's law in normalized frequency domain: ∇×E = η0 H.
    Used in Eqs. (15)-(17) to convert the curl-E condition into the magnetic-field condition and identify the MFIE limit.
  • domain assumption Interior limit decomposition of the scattered magnetic field into a jump term plus a CPV integral (Eq. 18) is valid for the boundary.
    This is the standard MFIE jump relation, strictly justified for smooth manifolds [9]; the paper extends it to sharp-edged meshes without additional proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The d→0 limit commutes with MoM discretization and quadrature so that matrix elements converge to the Galerkin MFIE matrix.
    The paper demonstrates the limit at the level of impedance-matrix elements (Sec. IV) but gives no functional-analytic justification for interchanging limits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Curl-based Electric-Field Boundary Condition for the Accurate and Stable Electromagnetic Scattering Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IDPPGVQ2

@misc{pith2026260723260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Curl-based Electric-Field Boundary Condition for the Accurate and Stable Electromagnetic Scattering Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IDPPGVQ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23260}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a curl-based Electric-Field Integral Equation (Curl-EFIE) for the electromagnetic scattering analysis from perfect electric conductors. The formulation is derived by enforcing a vanishing curl on the EFIE over the boundary manifold, achieved by testing the internal electric field with orthogonal tangent solenoidal disks. We demonstrate that a Method-of-Moments (MoM) discretization of the Curl-EFIE converges to a Galerkin-discretized MFIE as the testing disk dimensions vanish, yielding stable, breakdown-free impedance matrices for low frequencies and dense grids. Unlike the strongly singular kernels of the MFIE, the Curl-EFIE utilizes weakly singular kernels, significantly simplifying source integral evaluations. As a first-kind integral equation, it bypasses the MFIE's Gram matrix requirement, facilitating the analysis of non-matching triangulations. Furthermore, a linear combination of the Curl-EFIE and the conventional EFIE provides an interior-resonance-free formulation analogous to the Combined Field Integral Equation (CFIE). Finally, the Curl-EFIE performs particularly well at capturing the scattering behavior of sharp- edged and cornered geometries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23260 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometric location of the unit vectors {𝒏̂, 𝒄̂,𝒖̂}, and the testing disk 𝐷 with center 𝒓p and radius 𝑑 associated with the point 𝒓 at the boundary Γ . 𝒖̂ is the unit vector parallel to the current at 𝒓, 𝑱(𝒓). An interior point 𝒓p (𝒓), positioned in the vicinity of the boundary surface at a distance 𝑑(𝒓), centers a disk 𝐷(𝒓) tangent to the surface at 𝒓 and with radius 𝑑(𝒓) (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Orientation of testing disks for a 3-point {𝒓1 , 𝒓2 , 𝒓3 } quadrature rule associated with the m-th monopolar-RWG basis functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Condition number of the impedance matrix resulting from the RWG￾discretized Curl-EFIE, Curl-CFIE, MFIE and CFIE for a cube with growing electrical dimensions. The mesh size ℎ scales from 0.01λ to 0.09λ for side dimensions up to 0.9λ, stabilizing at approximately 0.1λ for larger dimensions.  0.1 0.1 Composite non-matching mesh Single mesh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references

  1. [7]

    Potential integrals for uniform and linear source distributions on polygonal and polyhedral domains,

    D. R. Wilton, S. M. Rao, A. W. Glisson, D. H. Schaubert, O. M. Al - Bundak, and C. M. Butler, "Potential integrals for uniform and linear source distributions on polygonal and polyhedral domains," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. AP-32, no. 3, pp. 276-281, Mar. 1984

    1984

  2. [1]

    A. F. Peterson, S. L. Ray, and R. Mittra, Computational Methods for Electromagnetics, ed. Wiley – IEEE press, New York, 1998

    1998

  3. [2]

    H -field, E-field, and combined-field solutions for conducting bodies of revolution,

    J. R. Mautz and R. F. Harrington, “H -field, E-field, and combined-field solutions for conducting bodies of revolution,” Archiv für Elektronik und Übertragungstechnik (Electronics and Communication), vol. 32, no. 4, 1978, pp. 157–164

    1978

  4. [3]

    E., Field Computation by Moment Method , New York : Macmillan, 1968, pp

    Harrington, R. E., Field Computation by Moment Method , New York : Macmillan, 1968, pp. 82-89

    1968

  5. [4]

    Higher order interpolatory vector bases for computational electromagnetics

    R. D. Graglia, D. R. Wilton and A. F. Peterson, "Higher order interpolatory vector bases for computational electromagnetics", IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 329-342, March 1997

    1997

  6. [5]

    Electromagnetic scattering by surfaces of arbitrary shape

    S. M. Rao, D. R. Wilton and A. W. Glisson, "Electromagnetic scattering by surfaces of arbitrary shape", IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. AP- 30, no. 3, pp. 409-418, May 1982

    1982

  7. [6]

    Quadrature over a pyramid or cube of integrands with a singularity at a vertex,

    M. G. Duffy, “ Quadrature over a pyramid or cube of integrands with a singularity at a vertex,” SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1260-1262, Dec. 1982

    1982

  8. [8]

    Numerical evaluation of singular and near-singular potential integrals,

    M. A. Khayat, and D. R. Wilton, “ Numerical evaluation of singular and near-singular potential integrals,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 3180-3190, Oct. 2005

    2005

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Mathematical foundations for error estimation in numerical solutions of integral equations in electromagnetics,

    G. C. Hsiao , and R. E. Kleinman, “ Mathematical foundations for error estimation in numerical solutions of integral equations in electromagnetics,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 316- 328, Mar. 1997

    1997

  2. [10]

    The evaluation of MFIE integrals with the use of vector triangle basis functions,

    R. E. Hodges and Y. Rahmat -Samii, “The evaluation of MFIE integrals with the use of vector triangle basis functions,” Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett., Vol.. 14, no. 1, pp. 9-14, Jan. 1997

    1997

  3. [11]

    On the numerical integration of the linear shape functions times the 3D's Green's function or its gradient on a plane triangle,

    R. D. Graglia, "On the numerical integration of the linear shape functions times the 3D's Green's function or its gradient on a plane triangle," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 1448-1455, Oct. 1993

    1993

  4. [12]

    Vipiana, D

    F. Vipiana, D. R. Wilton, and W. A. Johnson,” Advanced numerical schemes for the accurate evaluation of 4 -D reaction integrals in the method of moments,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 5559-5566, nov. 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    MFIE MoM-formulation with curl-conforming basis functions and accurate Kernel integration in the analysis of perfectly conducting sharp-edged objects,

    E. Ubeda, and J. M. Rius, “MFIE MoM-formulation with curl-conforming basis functions and accurate Kernel integration in the analysis of perfectly conducting sharp-edged objects,” Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 354-358, Feb. 2005

    2005

  6. [14]

    Novel Monopolar MoM-MFIE discretization for the scattering analysis of small objects

    E. Ubeda and J. M. Rius, " Novel Monopolar MoM-MFIE discretization for the scattering analysis of small objects", IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 50-57, Jan. 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Linear-Linear basis functions for MLFMA solutions of magnetic-field and combined-field integral equations,

    Ö. Ergül, L. Gürel, “Linear-Linear basis functions for MLFMA solutions of magnetic-field and combined-field integral equations,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1103-1110, Apr. 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    The numerical solution of integral equations of the second kind,

    K. E. Atkinson, “The numerical solution of integral equations of the second kind,” ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    High-order method-of-moments solution of the scattering by three-dimensions PEC bodies using quadrature-based point matching,

    S. D. Gedney, “High-order method-of-moments solution of the scattering by three-dimensions PEC bodies using quadrature-based point matching,” Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 303-309, June 2001

    2001

  10. [18]

    Accuracy analysis of div -conforming hierarchical higher -order discretization schemes for the magnetic field integral equation,

    J. Kornprobst , and T. F. Eibert , “Accuracy analysis of div -conforming hierarchical higher -order discretization schemes for the magnetic field integral equation,” IEEE J. Multiscale Multiphys. Comput. Tech., pp. 261- 268, vol. 8, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Low-frequency stable discretization of the electric field integral equation for arbitrary meshes ,

    E. Ubeda, and J. M. Rius, “ Low-frequency stable discretization of the electric field integral equation for arbitrary meshes ,” in Proc. IEEE Antennas Propag. Soc. Int. Symp., Detroit, MI, USA, Jul. 12–17, 2026

    2026

  12. [20]

    Barycentric Lagrange Interpolation,

    J. P. Berrut, and L. N. Trefethen, “Barycentric Lagrange Interpolation,” SIAM Review, 46(3) , pp. 501–517, 2004

    2004

  13. [21]

    High degree efficient symmetrical Gaussian quadrature rules for the triangle,

    D. A. Dunavant, "High degree efficient symmetrical Gaussian quadrature rules for the triangle," Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., vol. 21, pp. 1129-1148, 1985

    1985

  14. [22]

    Numerical Evaluation of Multiple Integrals II,

    P. C. Hammer and A. H. Stroud, "Numerical Evaluation of Multiple Integrals II," Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to Co mputation, vol. 12, no. 64, pp. 272–280, 1958

    1958

  15. [23]

    First order triangular patch basis functions for electromagnetic scattering analysis,

    L. C. Trintinalia and H. Ling, “First order triangular patch basis functions for electromagnetic scattering analysis,” J. Electromagn. Waves Appl. , pp. 1521–1537, vol. 15, 2001

    2001

  16. [24]

    Surface integral equation formulations for solving electromagnetic scattering problems with iterative methods,

    P. Ylä-Oijala, M. Taskinen, and S. Järvenpää, “Surface integral equation formulations for solving electromagnetic scattering problems with iterative methods,” Radio Sci., vol. 40, RS6002, 2005

    2005

  17. [25]

    Fast and accurate computation of hypersingular integrals in Galerkin surface integral equation formulations via the direct evaluation method,

    A. G. Polimeridis, J. M. Tamayo, J. M. Rius, and J. R. Mosig, “ Fast and accurate computation of hypersingular integrals in Galerkin surface integral equation formulations via the direct evaluation method,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 2329-2340, June 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Volumetric testing parallel to the boundary surface for a nonconforming discretization of the electric-field integral equation,

    E. Ubeda, J. M. Rius, A. Heldring, and I. Sekulic, “ Volumetric testing parallel to the boundary surface for a nonconforming discretization of the electric-field integral equation,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 3286-3291, July 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Integral equation based domain decomposition method for solving electromagnetic wave scattering from non-penetrable objects,

    Z. Peng, X. -C. Wang, and J. -F. Lee, “Integral equation based domain decomposition method for solving electromagnetic wave scattering from non-penetrable objects,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 3328-3338, Sept. 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Reentrant polygon clipping,

    I. E. Sutherland and G. W. Hodgman, “Reentrant polygon clipping,” Commun. ACM, vol. 17, pp. 32–42 , Jan. 1974

    1974

  21. [29]

    Global Multi-trace, Single Source Integral Equation for the Scattering by Composite Objects,

    Cedric Münger, and Kristof Cools, “Global Multi-trace, Single Source Integral Equation for the Scattering by Composite Objects,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., Early Access

  22. [30]

    A quantitative study on the low frequency breakdown of the EFIE,

    Z. G. Qian and W. C. Chew, “A quantitative study on the low frequency breakdown of the EFIE,” Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1159-1162, May 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.