16 October 2019 at 10 h 25 min #14406
Is there anyone know about this paper? Or could contact with the author?18 October 2019 at 18 h 59 min #1441619 October 2019 at 3 h 02 min #14417
There seems to be some mistakes in the formulars both in the 2005 and 2006 version. 2005 version for example:
1.”[Hi”] should interchange place with”[Hi]T” int the formula (8) .
2.In “Algorithm 2”, to compute the “u_node”,a negative sign should be added to the right.
3.The second equation in formula (7) lost the subscript “ii”;
My question is am i right about the 3 errors?22 October 2019 at 17 h 38 min #14442
You are talking about a 2006 paper! I was even not done with my studies!
I don’t see the appropriate equations that you mention. Can you indicate me using the linked paper above?
A more recent paper is available here: Interactive simulation of embolization coils: Modeling and experimental validation
Again, this corresponds to the “Catheter and coil simulation” item described online.
Hugo23 October 2019 at 3 h 57 min #14444
Here is the link of 2005 :https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11566489_66.
You can download from the page.23 October 2019 at 5 h 58 min #14445
null23 October 2019 at 10 h 39 min #14446
It’s also strange that there is a negative sign in the second fomula of formula(7) . It seems should not be.23 October 2019 at 15 h 01 min #1444823 October 2019 at 15 h 03 min #14449
you mean the implemention is fine which strictly follow the algorithm of the paper?
what kind of fine?23 October 2019 at 15 h 35 min #14450
link below is the cpomputional process, i still can not see in which way could get the formula (8)?2 November 2019 at 3 h 00 min #14511
problem has been solved just recenty, now i will close the topic.2 November 2019 at 3 h 06 min #14512
er…how to change a topic state to “sloved”????3 November 2019 at 16 h 45 min #14518
Yes I can close it.
Could you share your conclusions? what was the prob?
Hugo4 November 2019 at 7 h 11 min #14526
Bellow is respect to the algorithm 1 in 2006 version:
I am pretty sure there are some errors in 2 ways:
1.Through experiments: It’s easy to implement algorithm 1 strictly follow the process. But I will always get “NaN” in the inverse matrix of “Knn”. Try that with little time and one probably get the same result.
2.Theoretically: I feel difficult to understand the paper in the way it provides, so i can not determine where the logic is wrong exactly. But instead, I rewrite the problem all by pure math, and get a diffierent version of the inverse matrix of “knn”. And it turns out works very well.
I think the best way to be sure about this(if you want) is doing the experiment of Algorithm 1. Maybe just some typing errors, but it indeed affects the result a lot.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.