Explorer›Chemical Engineering›Engineering
Research PaperResearchia:202610.21034

Delayed Convergence of S-Parameter Sensitivities to Design Parameters in FDTD Simulations

Byungkwan Kim

Abstract

In the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method, the sensitivities of S-parameters to design parameters come from discrete Fourier transforms of responses ending at a simulation time T. We show that, when a design parameter moves a resonance, the sensitivity converges later than the S-parameter. For a single mode with field decay time $τ$, the truncation error of the sensitivity is $(1+T/τ)e^{-T/τ}$, against $e^{-T/τ}$ for the resonant part of the S-parameter, so a 1% sensitivity error needs ...

Submitted: October 21, 2026Subjects: Engineering; Chemical Engineering

Description / Details

In the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method, the sensitivities of S-parameters to design parameters come from discrete Fourier transforms of responses ending at a simulation time T. We show that, when a design parameter moves a resonance, the sensitivity converges later than the S-parameter. For a single mode with field decay time ττ, the truncation error of the sensitivity is (1+T/τ)e−T/τ(1+T/τ)e^{-T/τ}, against e−T/τe^{-T/τ} for the resonant part of the S-parameter, so a 1% sensitivity error needs T≥6.6τT \geq 6.6τ instead of 4.6τ4.6τ. Automatic differentiation, the discrete adjoint and finite differences on the same run carry this error, so their agreement cannot reveal it. In three solvers, with no fitted parameter, the estimate predicts the simulated error within 4% at cavity resonances with QQ of 1000-7000; at lower QQ the error is larger. On a cavity whose slowest mode is weakly coupled, common end criteria leave ∣S11∣|S_{11}| within 0.5 dB of a 1.3 dB dip but its sensitivity 10-72% in error. A matrix-pencil extrapolation inside the differentiable computation recovers the sensitivity on a cavity with field probes from a run 66 times shorter. In a single-pole filter loop with a symmetric objective, truncation leaves the maximum of the objective in place, and the optimizer reaches the resonance of a full run despite the wrong gradient. With two coupled poles, the truncated objective moves the optimum: on runs of 1τ1τ it over-couples by Δk≈1.24/QΔk \approx 1.24/Q, and an equal-ripple objective still shifts it by about 0.2αˉ0.2\barα at 3τ3τ, but not at 4.6τ4.6τ.


Source: arXiv:2610.28496v1 - http://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28496v1 PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.28496v1 Original Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28496v1

Please sign in to join the discussion.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!

Access Paper
View Source PDF
Submission Info
Date:
Oct 21, 2026
Topic:
Chemical Engineering
Area:
Engineering
Comments:
0
Bookmark