 edoardo
|
15a1f59be6
|
fixed plots between epochs
|
2026-05-31 10:51:01 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
5523439021
|
I have seen that the first naive version does not converge well in the dft fields. So in the mean time I am running this version which outputs data more frequenctly
|
2026-05-30 22:36:03 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
4579f8544f
|
updated parameters
|
2026-05-30 15:53:52 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
5ca07a7062
|
added metapeg_v2_unc.py, which is a naive implementation of topology optimization without filtering and projecting, which is useful to test the objective function alone and understand if the algorithm can produce the intended result under the most relaxed conditions (no binarization)
|
2026-05-30 15:52:30 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
c9df747f4f
|
solved conflict on folder creation among multiple processes
|
2026-05-29 14:42:29 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
5b18e7bce7
|
after the first tests, I increase the number of iterations per epoch
|
2026-05-29 14:29:30 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
d01f28dab3
|
parameter change for testing
|
2026-05-27 14:58:10 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
1af0b18baf
|
parameter change for testing
|
2026-05-27 14:55:58 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
a283be231c
|
1) minor changes to metapeg_v2, but we no longer modify the chunk property and leave it to the default value (=True). Setting it to False causes segmentation errors in the adjoint loop, but works for direct simulations (for example in the normalization run) 2) added sim_opt_design, which is used to simulate an optimized design given the values of an optimized MaterialGrid after and outside the main optimization algorithm
|
2026-05-27 14:55:09 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
1fafc62824
|
trying split_chunks_evenly=True, previously it was set to false
|
2026-05-27 10:04:15 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
caf555d248
|
testing for NaN
|
2026-05-27 09:27:44 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
7f8d9492d5
|
testing again for segm. errors.
|
2026-05-27 09:14:13 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
72517172c2
|
increased solution time for testing
|
2026-05-26 22:48:00 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
df865759c3
|
increased resolution for testing
|
2026-05-26 13:43:00 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
b21083f491
|
modified reshaping to automatically account for correct dimensions
|
2026-05-26 13:41:32 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
56d84e4c2f
|
testing increasing resolution
|
2026-05-26 10:18:07 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
70a5391762
|
more debugging
|
2026-05-26 10:09:25 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
f1a6fd25ab
|
changed parameters for easier debugging
|
2026-05-26 08:50:50 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
249d39aa73
|
added faulthandler for testing
|
2026-05-26 08:43:49 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
2cfce678a3
|
testing for segmentation faults
|
2026-05-26 08:41:58 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
7f362f3e47
|
trying to lower resolution of design region to the same as the physics
|
2026-05-25 17:21:44 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
c27f5a3896
|
another parameter test
|
2026-05-25 16:44:50 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
7039997fbd
|
testing fields again
|
2026-05-25 15:38:48 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
1311203563
|
param. update
|
2026-05-25 14:41:00 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
d113f54164
|
add field plot utilities for normalization run
|
2026-05-25 14:30:01 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
3be89321ee
|
the stop condition on the normalization run needs to be better analyzed. Specifically, we should understand where to position the monitor point. Before, it was in a far field point, outside the simulation cell. I've seen the simulation does not converge, at first glance. Now I'll try position it in a real physical point inside the cell. Let's see if it converges in a different way.
|
2026-05-24 22:45:15 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
10db14256e
|
minor changes
|
2026-05-24 21:00:07 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
b6f36ecaa7
|
parameter update
|
2026-05-24 18:20:37 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
762938960a
|
modified version of metapeg, using epigraph and linewidth/spacing constraints
|
2026-05-24 17:47:07 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
af4c538b36
|
first debug on metapeg. At the moment there is only one frequency being optimized. Although we are not using the epigraph yet, it would still be convenient to still consider a small range around the central frequency and optimize the average objective between them. This would still be better than considering only one frequency, but for the moment I need to understand if this model can work or not. Before running a full batch, more debugging is required to better understand how everything works. In this release, the code has not been tested in the results part, but the main optimization function run a couple of rounds without throwing errors. We still need to assure the normalization we make on the far fields is reasonable or not. The next step is to run a dummy simulation until the end and observe the results generation works, then the true test would be to let it run a true optimization with the right resolution.
|
2026-05-13 22:43:54 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
1101a53d3a
|
added metapeg.py, used to inversely design a metasurface that generates a desired far-field intensity pattern
|
2026-05-13 16:55:46 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
32503e330c
|
fixed observed far-field component
|
2026-05-13 10:43:51 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
3cdb9e5f68
|
increase sim time to 1500
|
2026-05-13 00:13:45 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
dceb2631f2
|
fixing plots
|
2026-05-13 00:04:27 +02:00 |
|
|
edoardo
|
c3138ae776
|
fixed generation of results folder
|
2026-05-12 23:40:32 +02:00 |
|