prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: How do the runtimes and iteration counts of NFPA and FPSA compare to GMRES and DSA in the numerical experiments?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: \section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
\setcounter{equation}{0} 

Transport problems with highly forward-peaked scattering are prevalent in a variety of areas, including astrophysics, medical physics, and plasma physics \cite{HGK,aristova,multiphysics} 
For these problems, solutions of the transport equation converge slowly when using conventional methods such as source iteration (SI) \cite{adamslarsen} and the generalized minimal residual method (GMRES) \cite{gmres} 
Moreover, diffusion-based acceleration techniques like diffusion synthetic acceleration (DSA) \cite{alcouffe} and nonlinear diffusion acceleration (NDA) \cite{smithetall} are generally inefficient when tackling these problems, as they only accelerate up to the first moment of the angular flux \cite{JapanFPSA} 
In fact, higher-order moments carry important information in problems with highly forward-peaked scattering and can be used to further accelerate convergence \cite{japanDiss} 

This paper focuses on solution methods for the monoenergetic, steady-state transport equation in homogeneous slab geometry 
Under these conditions, the transport equation is given by
\begin{subequations}\label[pluraleq]{eq1}
\begin{equation}
\label{t1}
\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \psi(x,\mu) + \sigma_t \psi(x,\mu) = \int_{-1}^{1} d\mu' \sigma_s(\mu,\mu') \psi(x,\mu') + Q(x, \mu), \,\,\, x\in [0, X],-1\leq\mu\leq 1  ,\\
\end{equation}
with boundary conditions
\begin{align}
\label{t2}
\psi(0,\mu) &= \psi_L(\mu), \quad \mu > 0,\\
\label{t3}
\psi(X,\mu) &= \psi_R(\mu), \quad \mu < 0 
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here, $\psi(x,\mu)$ represents the angular flux at position $x$ and direction $\mu$, $\sigma_t$ is the macroscopic total cross section, $\sigma_s(\mu,\mu')$ is the differential scattering cross section, and $Q$ is an internal source 

New innovations have paved the way to better solve this equation in systems with highly forward-peaked scattering 
For instance, work has been done on modified $P_L$ equations and modified scattering cross section moments to accelerate convergence of anisotropic neutron transport problems \cite{khattab} 
In order to speed up the convergence of radiative transfer in clouds, a quasi-diffusion method has been developed \cite{aristova} 
In addition, the DSA-multigrid method was developed to solve problems in electron transport more efficiently \cite{trucksin} 

One of the most recent convergence methods developed is Fokker-Planck Synthetic Acceleration (FPSA) \cite{JapanFPSA,japanDiss} 
FPSA accelerates up to $N$ moments of the angular flux and has shown significant improvement in the convergence rate for the types of problems described above 
The method returns a speed-up of several orders of magnitude with respect to wall-clock time when compared to DSA  \cite{JapanFPSA} 

In this paper, we introduce a new acceleration technique, called \textit{Nonlinear Fokker-Planck Acceleration} (NFPA) 
This  method  returns  a  modified  Fokker-Planck (FP) equation  that  preserves  the  angular moments of the flux given by the transport  equation 
This preservation of moments is particularly appealing for applications to multiphysics problems \cite{multiphysics}, in which the coupling between the transport physics and the other physics can be done through the (lower-order) FP equation 
To our knowledge, this is the first implementation of a numerical method that returns a Fokker-Planck-like equation that is discretely consistent with the linear Boltzmann equation 

This paper is organized as follows 
\Cref{sec2} starts with a brief description of FPSA 
Then, we derive the NFPA scheme 
In \cref{sec3}, we discuss the discretization schemes used in this work and present numerical results 
These are compared against standard acceleration techniques 
We conclude with a discussion in \cref{sec4} 

\section{Fokker-Planck Acceleration}\label{sec2}
\setcounter{equation}{0} 
In this section we briefly outline the theory behind FPSA, describe NFPA for monoenergetic, steady-state transport problems in slab geometry, and present the numerical methodology behind NFPA 
The theory given here can be easily extended to higher-dimensional problems 
Moreover, extending the method to energy-dependence shall not lead to significant additional theoretical difficulties 

To solve the transport problem given by \cref{eq1} we approximate the in-scattering term in \cref{t1} with a Legendre moment expansion:
\begin{equation}
\label{transport1}
\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \psi(x,\mu) + \sigma_t \psi(x,\mu) = \sum_{l=0}^L \frac{(2l+1)}{2} P_l(\mu) \sigma_{s,l} \phi_l(x) + Q(x, \mu),
\end{equation}
with 
\begin{equation}
\label{transport2}
\phi_l(x) =  \int_{-1}^{1} d\mu P_l(\mu) \psi(x,\mu) 
\end{equation}
Here, $\phi_l$ is the $l^{th}$ Legendre moment of the angular flux, $ \sigma_{s,l}$ is the $l^{th}$ Legendre coefficient of the differential scattering cross section,  and $P_l$ is the $l^{th}$-order Legendre polynomial 
For simplicity, we will drop the notation $(x,\mu)$ in the remainder of this section 

The solution to \cref{transport1} converges asymptotically to the solution of the following Fokker-Planck equation in the forward-peaked limit \cite{pomraning1}:
\begin{equation}
\label{fp1}
\mu\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} + \sigma_a \psi = \frac{\sigma_{tr}}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial \mu} (1-\mu^2) \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \mu} + Q\,,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{tr}= \sigma_{s,0} -\sigma_{s,1}$ is the momentum transfer cross section and $\sigma_a = \sigma_t-\sigma_{s,0}$ is the macroscopic absorption cross section 

Source Iteration \cite{adamslarsen} is generally used to solve \cref{transport1}, which can be rewritten in operator notation:
\begin{equation}
\label{si1}
\mathcal{L} \psi^{m+1} = \mathcal{S} \psi^{m} + Q\,,
\end{equation}
where 
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \mu \frac{\partial}{\partial x} + \sigma_t,
   \quad
\mathcal{S} = \sum_{l=0}^L \frac{(2l+1)}{2} P_l(\mu) \sigma_{s,l} \int_{-1}^{1}d\mu P_l(\mu) ,
\label{trans1}
\end{equation}
and $m$ is the iteration index 
This equation is solved iteratively until a tolerance criterion is met  The FP approximation shown in \cref{fp1} can be used to accelerate the convergence of \cref{transport1} 

\subsection{FPSA: Fokker-Planck Synthetic Acceleration}\label{FPSA}

In the FPSA scheme \cite{JapanFPSA,japanDiss}, the FP approximation is used as a preconditioner to synthetically accelerate convergence when solving \cref{transport1} (cf  \cite{adamslarsen} for a detailed description of synthetic acceleration) 
When solving \cref{si1}, the angular flux at each iteration $m$ has an error associated with it 
FPSA systematically follows a predict, correct, iterate scheme 
A transport sweep, one iteration in \cref{si1}, is made for a prediction 
The FP approximation is used to correct the error in the prediction, and this iteration is performed until a convergence criterion is met 
The equations used are:
\begin{subequations}
\label{fpsaeq}
\begin{align}
\label{predict}
\mathrm{Predict}&: \mathcal{L} \psi^{m+\frac{1}{2}} = \mathcal{S} \psi^{m} + Q\,,\\
\label{correct}
\mathrm{Correct}&: \psi^{m+1} =  \psi^{m+\frac{1}{2}} + \mathcal{P}^{-1} \mathcal{S} \left( \psi^{m+\frac{1}{2}} -  \psi^{m}\right),
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we define $\mathcal{P}$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{FPSAsi1}
\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{A}-\mathcal{F} =\underbrace{\left(\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial x} + \sigma_a\right)}_\mathcal{A} - \underbrace{\left(\frac{\sigma_{tr}}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial \mu} (1-\mu^2) \frac{\partial }{\partial \mu}\right)}_\mathcal{F},
\end{equation}
In this synthetic acceleration method, the FP approximation is used to correct the error in each iteration of the high-order (HO) equation (\ref{predict})  
Therefore, there is no consistency between the angular moments of the flux in the HO and low-order (LO) equations 

\subsection{NFPA: Nonlinear Fokker-Planck Acceleration}\label{NFPA}

Similar to FPSA, NFPA uses the FP approximation to accelerate the convergence of the solution 
We introduce the additive term $\hat{D}_F$ to \cref{fp1}, obtaining the modified FP equation
\begin{equation}
\label{mfp1}
\mu\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} + \sigma_a \psi = \frac{\sigma_{tr}}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial \mu} (1-\mu^2) \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \mu} + \hat{D}_F + Q\, 
\end{equation}
The role of $\hat{D}_F$ is to force the transport and modified FP equations to be consistent 
Subtracting \cref{mfp1} from \cref{transport1} and rearranging, we obtain the consistency term
\begin{equation}
\label{dfp}
\hat{D}_F = \sum_{l=0}^L \frac{(2l+1)}{2} P_l \sigma_l \phi_l - \frac{\sigma_{tr}}{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial \mu} (1-\mu^2) \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \mu} - \sigma_{s,0} \psi\, 
\end{equation}

The NFPA method is given by the following equations:
\begin{subequations}\label[pluraleq]{holocons}
\begin{align}
\label{HO1}
\text{HO}&: \mu\frac{\partial \psi_{HO}}{\partial x} + \sigma_t \psi_{HO} = \sum_{l=0}^L \frac{(2l+1)}{2} P_l \sigma_l \phi_{l, LO} + Q\,,\\
\label{LO11}
\text{LO}&: \mu\frac{\partial \psi_{LO}}{\partial x} + \sigma_a \psi_{LO} = \frac{\sigma_{tr}}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial \mu} (1-\mu^2) \frac{\partial \psi_{LO}}{\partial \mu} + \hat{D}_F + Q\,,\\
\label{con1}
\text{Consistency term}&: \hat{D}_F = \sum_{l=0}^L \frac{(2l+1)}{2} P_l \sigma_l \phi_{l, HO}^m - \frac{\sigma_{tr}}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial \mu} (1-\mu^2) \frac{\partial \psi_{HO}}{\partial \mu} - \sigma_{s,0} \psi_{HO}\,,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\psi_{HO}$ is the angular flux obtained from the HO equation and $\psi_{LO}$ is the angular flux obtained from the LO equation 
The nonlinear HOLO-plus-consistency system given by \cref{holocons} can be solved using any nonlinear solution technique \cite{kelley}  Note that the NFPA scheme returns a FP equation that is consistent with HO transport  
Moreover, this modified FP equation accounts for large-angle scattering which the standard FP equation does not  
The LO equation (\ref{fp1}) can then be integrated into multiphysics models in a similar fashion to standard HOLO schemes \cite{patelFBR}  To solve the HOLO-plus-consistency system above, we use Picard iteration \cite{kelley}:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{H1}
\text{Transport Sweep for HO}&:
\mathcal{L} \psi_{HO}^{k+1} = \mathcal{S} \psi_{LO}^{k} + Q, \\
\label{L1}
\text{Evaluate Consistency Term}&: \hat{D}_F^{k+1} = \left(\mathcal{S} - \mathcal{F} - \sigma_{s,0}\mathcal{I}\right) \psi_{HO}^{k+1}, \\
\label{c1}
\text{Solve LO Equation}&: \psi_{LO}^{k+1} = \mathcal{P}^{-1} \left(\hat{D}_F^{k+1} + Q\right), 
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{S}$ are given in \cref{trans1}, $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ are given in \cref{FPSAsi1}, $\mathcal{I}$ is the identity operator, and $k$ is the iteration index 
Iteration is done until a convergence criterion is met 

The main advantage of setting up the LO equation in this fashion is that the stiffness matrix for LO needs to be setup and inverted \textit{only once}, just as with FPSA \cite{JapanFPSA, japanDiss}  This has a large impact on the method's performance 
A flowchart of this algorithm is shown in \cref{Nalgorithm} 

\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance = 3cm, auto]
   
    \node [block] (init) {Initial guess of flux moments};
    \node [cloud_HO, right of=init, node distance=4cm] (HOm) {HO};
    \node [cloud_LO, below of=HOm, node distance=2cm] (LOm) {LO};
    \node [HO, below of=init] (transport) {One sweep in transport equation};
    \node [decision, below of=transport,node distance=4cm] (decide) {Flux moments converged?};
    \node [LO, left of=decide, node distance=4cm] (dterm) {Solve for consistency term};
    \node [LO, left of=dterm, node distance=3cm] (MFP) {Solve for FP angular flux};
    \node [LO, above of=MFP, node distance=4cm] (moments) {Convert angular flux to moments};
    \node [block, right of=decide, node distance=4cm] (stop) {Stop};
   
    \path [line] (init) -- (transport);
    \path [line] (transport) -- (decide);
    \path [line] (decide) -- node {no} (dterm);
    \path [line] (dterm) -- (MFP);
    \path [line] (MFP) -- (moments);
    \path [line] (moments) -- (transport);
    \path [line] (decide) -- node {yes}(stop);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{NFPA algorithm}
\label{Nalgorithm}
\end{figure}

\section{Numerical Experiments}\label{sec3}

In \cref{sec31} we describe the discretization methods used to implement the algorithms 
In \cref{sec32} we provide numerical results for 2 different choices of source $Q$ and boundary conditions 
For each choice we solve the problem using 3 different scattering kernels, applying 3 different choices of parameters for each kernel 
We provide NFPA numerical results for these 18 cases and compare them against those obtained from FPSA and other standard methods 

All numerical experiments were performed using MATLAB 
Runtime was tracked using the tic-toc functionality \cite{matlab17}, with
only the solver runtime being taken into consideration in the comparisons 
A 2017 MacBook Pro with a 2 8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 and 16 GB of RAM was used for all simulations 


\subsection{Discretization}\label{sec31}

The Transport and FP equations were discretized using linear discontinuous finite element discretization in space \cite{mpd1}, and discrete ordinates (S$_N$) in angle \cite{landm} 
The Fokker-Planck operator $\mathcal{F}$ was discretized using moment preserving discretization (MPD) \cite{mpd1} 
Details of the derivation of the linear discontinuous finite element discretization can be seen in \cite{japanDiss,martin} 
The finite element discretization for the  Fokker-Planck equation follows the same derivation 

A brief review for the angular discretization used for the FP equation is given below 
First, we use Gauss-Legendre quadrature to discretize the FP equation in angle:
\begin{equation}
\mu_n\frac{\partial \psi_n(x)}{\partial x} + \sigma_a \psi_n(x) - \frac{\sigma_{tr}}{2}\nabla^2_n \psi_n(x) =  Q_n(x),
\end{equation}
for $n=1,  ,N$ 
Here, $\nabla^2_n$ term is the discrete form of the angular Laplacian operator evaluated at angle $n$ 

The MPD scheme is then shown as
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2_n \psi_n = M \psi_n = V^{-1} L V \psi_n,
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the MPD discretized operator defined by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
V_{i,j} = P_{i-1}(\mu_j)w_j,
\end{equation}
and 
\begin{equation}
L_{i,j} = -i(i-1),
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
for $i,j=1,   ,N$ 
Here, $P_l(\mu_j)$ are the Legendre polynomials evaluated at each angle $\mu_j$ and $w_j$ are the respective weights 
$M$ is defined as a (N x N) operator for a vector of $N$ angular fluxes $ \psi(x)$, at spatial location $x$  

In summary, if we write the FP equation as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}(x) + \sigma_a \psi(x) - \mathcal{F} \psi(x) =  Q(x),
\end{equation}
then $\mathcal{H}$ is Diag$(\mu_n)$ for $n=1,   ,N$, $Q(x)$ is a vector of source terms $Q_n(x)$, and $\mathcal{F}$ is represented by $\frac{\sigma_{tr}}{2}M$ 


\subsection{Numerical Results}\label{sec32}

It is shown that for slowly converging problems, typical convergence methods like $L_\infty$ suffer from false convergence \cite{adamslarsen} 
To work around this issue, the criterion is modified to use information about the current and previous iteration:
\begin{equation}
\label{falseconverge}
\frac{|| \phi^{m}_0(x) - \phi^{m-1}_0(x) ||_2}{1-\frac{|| \phi^{m+1}_0(x) - \phi^{m}_0(x) ||_2}{|| \phi^{m}_0(x) - \phi^{m-1}_0(x) ||_2}} < 10^{-8} 
\end{equation}

Two problems were tested using 200 spatial cells, $X$ = 400, $\sigma_a = 0$, $L$ = 15, and $N$ = 16 
Problem 1 has vacuum boundaries and a homogeneous isotropic source $Q$ for $0 < x < X$ 
Problem 2 has no internal source and an incoming beam at the left boundary  The source and boundary conditions used are shown in \cref{parameters}  
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0 9}{
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c} \hline 
& Problem 1 & Problem 2 \\ \hline \hline
Q(x) & 0 5 & 0 \\
$\psi_L$ & 0 & $\delta(\mu - \mu_N)$  \\
$\psi_R$ & 0 & 0 \\
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Problem Parameters}
\label{parameters} 
\end{table} 
We consider three scattering kernels in this paper: Screened Rutherford \cite{pomraning1}, Exponential \cite{pomraning2}, and Henyey-Greenstein \cite{HGK} 
Three cases for each kernel were tested 
The results obtained with NFPA are compared with those obtained using GMRES, DSA, and FPSA with the MPD scheme 

\subsubsection{SRK: Screened Rutherford Kernel}

The Screened Rutherford Kernel \cite{pomraning1, JapanFPSA} is a widely used scattering kernel for modeling scattering behavior of electrons \cite{SRK} 
The kernel depends on the parameter $\eta$, such that
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{SRK}_{s,l} = \sigma_s  \int_{-1}^{1} d\mu P_l(\mu) \frac{\eta (\eta+1)}{(1+2\eta-\mu)^2} 
\end{equation}
The SRK has a valid FP limit as $\eta$ approaches 0 \cite{patelFBR}  Three different values of $\eta$ were used to generate the scattering kernels shown in \cref{SRK} 
GMRES, DSA, FPSA, and NFPA all converged to the same solution for problems 1 and 2  \Cref{SRK_plots} shows the solutions for SRK with $\eta = 10^{-7}$ 
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
  \includegraphics[scale=0 1,angle=0]{SRK jpg}
  \caption{Screened Rutherford Kernels}
  \label{SRK}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \subfloat[Problem 1]{{\includegraphics[width=7cm]{s7_iso jpg} }}
    \qquad
    \subfloat[Problem 2]{{\includegraphics[width=7cm]{s7_beam jpg} }}
    \caption{Results for SRK Problems with $\eta = 10^{-7}$}
    \label{SRK_plots}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0 8}{
\begin{tabular}{c || c || c || c} \hline 
Parameter & Solver & Runtime (s) & Iterations \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$\eta = 10^{-5}$} & GMRES & 98 8 & 12 \\
& DSA & 2380 & 53585 \\
& FPSA & 1 21 & 26 \\
& NFPA & 1 39 & 26 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$\eta = 10^{-6}$} & GMRES & 208 & 84 \\
& DSA & 3040 & 69156 \\
& FPSA & 0 747 & 16 \\
& NFPA & 0 857 & 16 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$\eta = 10^{-7}$} & GMRES & 174 & 124 \\
& DSA & 3270 & 73940 \\
& FPSA & 0 475 & 10 \\
& NFPA & 0 542 & 10 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Runtime and Iteration Counts for Problem 1 with SRK}
\label{SRKresults1} 
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0 8}{
\begin{tabular}{c || c || c || c} \hline 
Parameter & Solver & Runtime (s) & Iterations \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$\eta = 10^{-5}$} & GMRES & 52 4 & 187 \\
& DSA & 1107 & 25072 \\
& FPSA & 0 953 & 20 \\
& NFPA & 1 14 & 20 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$\eta = 10^{-6}$} & GMRES & 108 & 71 \\
& DSA & 1434 & 32562  \\
& FPSA & 0 730 & 14 \\
& NFPA & 0 857 & 14 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$\eta = 10^{-7}$} & GMRES & 94 1 & 185 \\
& DSA & 1470 & 33246 \\
& FPSA & 0 438 & 8 \\
& NFPA & 0 484 & 8 \\ \hline  
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Runtime and Iteration Counts for Problem 2 with SRK}
\label{SRKresults2} 
\end{table}

The results of all solvers are shown in \cref{SRKresults1,SRKresults2} 
We see that NFPA and FPSA tremendously outperform GMRES and DSA in runtime for all cases 
FPSA is a simpler method than NFPA, requiring less calculations per iteration; therefore, it is expected that it outperforms NFPA in runtime 
We see a reduction in runtime and iterations for FPSA and NFPA as the FP limit is approached, with DSA and GMRES requiring many more iterations by comparison as $\eta$ approaches 0 

An advantage that NFPA offers is that the angular moments of the flux in the LO equation will remain consistent with those of the transport equation even as a problem becomes less forward-peaked 
On the other hand, the moments found using only the FP equation and source iteration lose accuracy 
To illustrate this, Problem 1 was tested using different Screened Rutherford Kernels with increasing $\eta$ parameters 
The percent errors (relative to the transport solution) for the scalar flux obtained with the LO equation and with the standard FP equation at the center of the slab are shown in \cref{momcomp} 
It can be seen that the percent relative errors in the scalar flux of the FP solution is orders of magnitude larger than the error produced using the LO equation 
The same trend can be seen when using the exponential and Henyey-Greenstein kernels  

\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
  \includegraphics[scale=0 15,angle=0]{relerrorlog jpg}
  \caption{Log Scale of $\%$ Relative Error vs $\eta$ for Problem 1 at the Center of the Slab with SRK}
  \label{momcomp}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{EK: Exponential Kernel}

The exponential kernel \cite{pomraning2, JapanFPSA} is a fictitious kernel made for problems that have a valid Fokker-Planck limit \cite{pomraning1} 
The zero$^{\text{th}}$ moment, $\sigma^{EK}_{s,0}$, is chosen arbitrarily; we define $\sigma^{EK}_{s,0}$ as the same zero$^{\text{th}}$ moment from the SRK 
The $\Delta$ parameter determines the kernel: the first and second moments are given by 
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\sigma^{EK}_{s,1} &= \sigma^{EK}_{s,0} (1-\Delta),\\
\sigma^{EK}_{s,2} &= \sigma^{EK}_{s,0} (1-3\Delta+3\Delta^2),
\end{align}
and the relationship for $l\geq 3$ is
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{EK}_{s,l} = \sigma^{EK}_{s,l-2} - \Delta(2l+1) \sigma^{EK}_{s,l-1} 
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
As $\Delta$ is reduced, the scattering kernel becomes more forward-peaked 

The EK has a valid FP limit as $\Delta$ approaches 0 \cite{patelFBR} 
Three different values of $\Delta$ were used to generate the scattering kernels shown in \cref{EXP} 
The generated scattering kernels are shown in \cref{EXP} 
GMRES, DSA, FPSA, and NFPA all converged to the same solution for problems 1 and 2 
\Cref{EK_plots} shows the solutions for EK with $\Delta = 10^{-7}$ 
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
  \includegraphics[scale=0 1,angle=0]{EXP jpg}
  \caption{Exponential Kernels}
  \label{EXP}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \subfloat[Problem 1]{{\includegraphics[width=7cm]{dta7_iso jpg} }}
    \qquad
    \subfloat[Problem 2]{{\includegraphics[width=7cm]{dta7_beam jpg} }}
    \caption{Results for EK Problems with $\Delta = 10^{-7}$}
    \label{EK_plots}
\end{figure}

The runtimes and iterations for GMRES, DSA, FPSA, and NFPA are shown in \cref{Expresults1,Expresults2} 
We see a similar trend with the EK as seen with SRK 
Smaller $\Delta$ values lead to a reduction in runtime and iterations for NFPA and FPSA, which greatly outperform DSA and GMRES in both categories 

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0 8}{
\begin{tabular}{c || c || c || c} \hline 
Parameter & Solver & Runtime (s) & Iterations \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$\Delta = 10^{-5}$} & GMRES & 196 & 142 \\
& DSA & 3110 & 70140 \\
& FPSA & 0 514 & 11 \\ 
& NFPA & 0 630 & 11 \\\hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$\Delta = 10^{-6}$} & GMRES & 156 & 132 \\
& DSA & 3120 & 70758 \\
& FPSA & 0 388 & 7 \\ 
& NFPA & 0 393 & 7 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$\Delta = 10^{-7}$} & GMRES & 81 & 127 \\
& DSA & 3120 & 70851  \\
& FPSA & 0 292 & 6 \\ 
& NFPA & 0 318 & 6 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Runtime and Iteration Counts for Problem 1 with EK}
\label{Expresults1} 
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0 8}{
\begin{tabular}{c || c || c || c} \hline 
Parameter & Solver & Runtime (s) & Iterations \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$\Delta = 10^{-5}$} & GMRES & 110 & 73 \\
& DSA & 1455 & 33033 \\
& FPSA & 0 492 & 10 \\ 
& NFPA & 0 613 & 10 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$\Delta = 10^{-6}$} & GMRES & 82 7 & 79 \\
& DSA & 1470 & 33309 \\
& FPSA & 0 358 & 7 \\ 
& NFPA & 0 431 & 7 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$\Delta = 10^{-7}$} & GMRES & 56 8 & 90 \\
& DSA & 1470 & 33339 \\
& FPSA & 0 273 & 5 \\ 
& NFPA & 0 319 & 5 \\ \hline  
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Runtime and Iteration Counts for Problem 2 with EK}
\label{Expresults2} 
\end{table}

\subsubsection{HGK: Henyey-Greenstein Kernel}

The Henyey-Greenstein Kernel \cite{HGK,JapanFPSA} is most commonly used in light transport in clouds 
It relies on the anisotropy factor $g$, such that
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{HGK}_{s,l} = \sigma_s g^l 
\end{equation}
As $g$ goes from zero to unity, the scattering shifts from isotropic to highly anisotropic 
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
  \includegraphics[scale=0 1,angle=0]{HGK jpg}
  \caption{Henyey-Greenstein Kernels}
  \label{HGK}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \subfloat[Problem 1]{{\includegraphics[width=7cm]{g099_iso jpg} }}
    \qquad
    \subfloat[Problem 2]{{\includegraphics[width=7cm]{g099_beam jpg} }}
    \caption{Results for HGK Problems with $g = 0 99$}
    \label{HGK_plots}
\end{figure}


The HGK does not have a valid FP limit \cite{patelFBR} 
The three kernels tested are shown in \cref{HGK} 
GMRES, DSA, FPSA, and NFPA all converged to the same solution for problems 1 and 2 
\Cref{HGK_plots} shows the solutions for HGK with $g = 0 99$ 
The results of each solver are shown in \cref{HGKresults1,HGKresults2}  
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0 8}{
\begin{tabular}{c || c || c || c} \hline 
Parameter & Solver & Runtime (s) & Iterations \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$g=0 9$} & GMRES & 9 88 & 76 \\
& DSA & 24 5 & 554 \\
& FPSA & 1 50 & 32 \\ 
& NFPA & 1 39 & 27 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$g=0 95$} & GMRES & 12 2 & 131 \\
& DSA & 47 7 & 1083 \\
& FPSA & 1 75 & 38 \\ 
& NFPA & 1 83 & 35 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$g=0 99$} & GMRES & 40 0 & 27 \\
& DSA & 243 & 5530  \\
& FPSA & 3 38 & 74 \\ 
& NFPA & 3 93 & 73 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Runtime and Iteration Counts for Problem 1 with HGK}
\label{HGKresults1} 
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0 8}{
\begin{tabular}{c || c || c || c} \hline 
Parameter & Solver & Runtime (s) & Iterations \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$g=0 9$} & GMRES & 24 3 & 135 \\
& DSA & 14 8 & 336  \\
& FPSA & 1 15 & 23 \\ 
& NFPA & 1 35 & 24 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$g=0 95$} & GMRES & 31 3 & 107 \\
& DSA & 29 7 & 675 \\
& FPSA & 1 56 & 32 \\ 
& NFPA & 1 90 & 33 \\ \hline 
\multirow{4}{*}{$g=0 99$} & GMRES & 41 4 & 126 \\
& DSA & 146 & 3345 \\
& FPSA & 3 31 & 67 \\ 
& NFPA & 3 99 & 67 \\ \hline  
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Runtime and Iteration Counts for Problem 2 with HGK}
\label{HGKresults2} 
\end{table}

Here we see that NFPA and FPSA do not perform as well compared to their results for the SRK and EK 
Contrary to what happened in those cases, both solvers require more time and iterations as the problem becomes more anisotropic 
This is somewhat expected, due to HGK not having a valid Fokker-Planck limit 
However, both NFPA and FPSA continue to greatly outperform GMRES and DSA 
Moreover, NFPA outperforms FPSA in iteration count for problem 1 


\section{Discussion}\label{sec4}

This paper introduced the Nonlinear Fokker-Planck Acceleration technique for steady-state, monoenergetic transport in homogeneous slab geometry 
To our knowledge, this is the first nonlinear HOLO method that accelerates \textit{all $L$ moments} of the angular flux 
Upon convergence, the LO and HO models are consistent; in other words, the (lower-order) modified Fokker-Planck equation \textit{preserves the same angular moments} of the flux obtained with the (higher-order) transport equation 

NFPA was tested on a homogeneous medium with an isotropic internal source with vacuum boundaries, and in a homogeneous medium with no internal source and an incoming beam boundary 
For both problems, three different scattering kernels were used 
The runtime and iterations of NFPA and FPSA were shown to be similar 
They both vastly outperformed DSA and GMRES for all cases by orders of magnitude 
However, NFPA has the feature of preserving the angular moments of the flux in both the HO and LO equations, which offers the advantage of integrating the LO model into multiphysics models  

In the future, we intend to test NFPA capabilities for a variety of multiphysics problems and analyze its performance 
To apply NFPA to more realistic problems, it needs to be extended to include time and energy dependence  
Additionally, the method needs to be adapted to address geometries with higher-order spatial dimensions 
Finally, for the NFPA method to become mathematically ``complete", a full convergence examination using Fourier analysis must be performed 
However, this is beyond the scope of this paper and must be left for future work 

\section*{Acknowledgements}

The authors acknowledge support under award number NRC-HQ-84-15-G-0024 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U S  Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

J ~K  Patel would like to thank Dr ~James Warsa for his wonderful transport class at UNM, as well as his synthetic acceleration codes 
The authors would also like to thank Dr ~Anil Prinja for discussions involving Fokker-Planck acceleration 




Context 2: Hugh Hilton Goodwin (December 21, 1900 – February 25, 1980) was a decorated officer in the United States Navy with the rank of Vice Admiral  A veteran of both World Wars, he commanded escort carrier  during the Mariana Islands campaign  Goodwin then served consecutively as Chief of Staff, Carrier Strike Group 6 and as Air Officer, Philippine Sea Frontier and participated in the Philippines campaign in the later part of the War 

Following the War, he remained in the Navy and rose to the flag rank and held several important commands including Vice Commander, Military Air Transport Service, Commander, Carrier Division Two and Commander, Naval Air Forces, Continental Air Defense Command 

Early life and career

Hugh H  Goodwin was born on December 21, 1900, in Monroe, Louisiana and attended Monroe High School there (now Neville High School)  Following the United States' entry into World War I in April 1917, Goodwin left the school without receiving the diploma in order to see some combat and enlisted the United States Navy on May 7, 1917  He completed basic training and was assigned to the battleship   Goodwin participated in the training of armed guard crews and engine room personnel as the Atlantic Fleet prepared to go to war and in November 1917, he sailed with the rest of Battleship Division 9, bound for Britain to reinforce the Grand Fleet in the North Sea 

Although he did not complete the last year of high school, Goodwin was able to earn an appointment to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland in June 1918  While at the academy, he earned a nickname "Huge" and among his classmates were several future admirals and generals including: Hyman G  Rickover, Milton E  Miles, Robert E  Blick Jr , Herbert S  Duckworth, Clayton C  Jerome, James P  Riseley, James A  Stuart, Frank Peak Akers, Sherman Clark, Raymond P  Coffman, Delbert S  Cornwell, Frederick J  Eckhoff, Ralph B  DeWitt, John Higgins, Vernon Huber, Albert K  Morehouse, Harold F  Pullen, Michael J  Malanaphy, William S  Parsons, Harold R  Stevens, John P  Whitney, Lyman G  Miller and George J  O'Shea 

Goodwin graduated with Bachelor of Science degree on June 3, 1922, and was commissioned Ensign in the United States Navy  He was subsequently assigned to the battleship  and took part in the voyage to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, before he was ordered to the Naval Torpedo Station at Newport, Rhode Island for submarine instruction in June 1923  Goodwin completed the training several weeks later and was attached to the submarine   He then continued his further training aboard submarine  and following his promotion to Lieutenant (junior grade) on June 3, 1925, he qualified as submariner 

He then served aboard submarine  off the coast of California, before he was ordered for the recruiting duty to San Francisco in September 1927  While in this capacity, Goodwin applied for naval aviation training which was ultimately approved and he was ordered to the Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida in August 1928  Toward the end of the training, he was promoted to lieutenant on December 11, 1928, and upon the completion of the training in January 1929, he was designated Naval aviator 

Goodwin was subsequently attached to the Observation Squadron aboard the aircraft carrier  and participated in the Fleet exercises in the Caribbean  He was transferred to the Bureau of Aeronautics in Washington, D C  in August 1931 and served consecutively under the architect of naval aviation William A  Moffett and future Chief of Naval Operations Ernest J  King 

In June 1933, Goodwin was ordered to the Naval War College at Newport, Rhode Island, where he completed junior course in May of the following year  He subsequently joined the crew of aircraft carrier  and served under Captain Arthur B  Cook and took part in the Fleet exercises in the Caribbean and off the East Coast of the United States 

He was ordered back to the Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida in June 1936 and was attached to the staff of the Base Commandant, then-Captain Charles A  Blakely  When Blakely was succeeded by William F  Halsey in June 1937, Goodwin remained in Halsey's staff and was promoted to Lieutenant Commander on December 1, 1937  He also completed correspondence course in International law at the Naval War College 

Goodwin was appointed Commanding officer of the Observation Squadron 1 in June 1938 and attached to the battleship  he took part in the patrolling of the Pacific and 
West Coast of the United States until September 1938, when he assumed command of the Observation Squadron 2 attached to the battleship  

When his old superior from Lexington, now Rear Admiral Arthur B  Cook, was appointed Commander Aircraft, Scouting Force in June 1939, he requested Goodwin as his Aide and Flag Secretary  He became Admiral Cook's protégé and after year and half of service in the Pacific, he continued as his Aide and Flag Secretary, when Cook was appointed Commander Aircraft, Atlantic Fleet in November 1940 

World War II

Following the United States' entry into World War II, Goodwin was promoted to the temporary rank of Commander on January 1, 1942, and assumed duty as advisor to the Argentine Navy  His promotion was made permanent two months later and he returned to the United States in early 1943 for duty as assistant director of Planning in the Bureau of Aeronautics under Rear admiral John S  McCain  While still in Argentina, Goodwin was promoted to the temporary rank of Captain on June 21, 1942 

By the end of December 1943, Goodwin was ordered to Astoria, Oregon, where he assumed command of newly commissioned escort carrier USS Gambier Bay  He was responsible for the initial training of the crew and was known as a strict disciplinarian, but the crew appreciated the skills he taught them that prepared them for combat  Goodwin insisted that everyone aboard has to do every job right every time and made us fight our ship at her best 

During the first half of 1944, Gambier Bay was tasked with ferrying aircraft for repairs and qualified carrier pilots from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, before departed on May 1, 1944, to join Rear admiral Harold B
Context 3: \section{Introduction}

In spite of being an attractive material with excellent electronic properties \cite{ahcn09},  practical applications of graphene as in conventional semiconductor devices are still questionable due to its gapless nature  In particular, the ON/OFF current ratio is low while the saturation of current is poor in pristine graphene transistors \cite{schw10}  Many efforts of bandgap engineering in graphene \cite{yhan07,khar11,lher13,jbai10,zhan09} have been made to solve these issues  The pioneer technique proposed \cite{yhan07} is to cut 2D graphene sheets into 1D narrow nanoribons  In 2D graphene sheets, some options as Bernal-stacking of graphene on hexagonal boron nitride substrate \cite{khar11}, nitrogen-doped graphene \cite{lher13}, graphene nanomesh lattice \cite{jbai10,berr13} and Bernal-stacking bilayer graphene \cite{zhan09} have been explored  However, the possibility to open a sizable bandgap in graphene as large as those of standard semiconductors is still very unlikely  In particular, it requires a very good control of lattice geometry and edge disorder in narrow graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) \cite{quer08} and in graphene nanomesh lattices \cite{hung13}, while the bandgap opening in bilayer graphene by a perpendicular electric field may not be large enough for realistic applications \cite{fior09}  Other methods should be further verified by experiments 

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2 8in]{Fig01 pdf}
\caption{Schematic of unstrained/strained graphene junctions investigated in this work }
\label{fig_sim1}
\end{figure}

On the other hand, graphene was experimentally demonstrated to be able to sustain a much larger strain than conventional semiconductors, making it a promising candidate for flexible electronics (see in a recent review \cite{shar13})  Indeed, strain engineering has been suggested to be an alternative approach to modulating efficiently the electronic properties of graphene nanomaterials  In particular, the bandgap has periodic oscillations in the armchair GNRs \cite{ylu210} while the spin polarization at the ribbon edges (and also the bandgap) can be modulated by the strain in the zigzag cases  In 2D graphene sheets, a finite gap can open under large strains, otherwise, it may remain close to zero but the Dirac points are displaced \cite{cocc10,per209,pere09,huan10}  Many interesting electrical, optical, and magnetic properties induced by strain in graphene have been also explored, e g  see in \cite{bunc07,pere09,kuma12,per010,pell10,guin10,tlow10,zhai11} 

Besides, local strain is a good option to improve the electrical performance of graphene devices \cite{pere09,ylu010,fuji10,juan11,baha13}  For instance, it has been shown to enhance the ON current in a GNR tunneling FET \cite{ylu010} and to fortify the transport gap in GNR strained junctions \cite{baha13}  In a recent work \cite{hung14}, we have investigated the effects of uniaxial strain on the transport in 2D unstrained/strained graphene junctions and found that due to the strain-induced shift of Dirac points, a significant conduction gap of a few hundreds meV can open with a small strain of a few percent  This type of strained junction was then demonstrated to be an excellent candidate to improve the electronic operation of graphene transistors  It hence motivates us to further investigate the properties of this conduction gap so as to optimize the performance of graphene devices  On the one hand, the effects of strain should be, in principle, dependent on its applied direction  On the other hand, because the appearance of conduction gap is a consequence of the shift of Dirac points along the $k_y$-axis, it is predicted that this gap should also depend on the transport direction  Note that here, Oy (Ox) - axis is assumed to be perpendicular (parallel) to the transport direction  The effects of both strain and transport directions will be clarified systematically in the current work 

\section{Model and calculations}

In this work, the $\pi$-orbital tight binding model constructed in \cite{per209} is used to investigate the electronic transport through the graphene strained junctions schematized in Fig  1  The Hamiltonian is ${H_{tb}} = \sum\nolimits_{nm} {{t_{nm}}c_n^\dag {c_m}}$ where $t_{nm}$ is the hopping energy between nearest neighbor \emph{n}th and \emph{m}th atoms  The application of a uniaxial strain of angle $\theta$ causes the following changes in the $C-C$ bond vectors:
\begin{eqnarray}
 {{\vec r}_{nm}}\left( \sigma \right) &=& \left\{ {1 + {M_s}\left( \sigma, \theta \right)} \right\}{{\vec r}_{nm}}\left( 0 \right) \\
 {M_s}\left( \sigma, \theta \right) &=& \sigma \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
 {{{\cos }^2}\theta  - \gamma {{\sin }^2}\theta }&{\left( {1 + \gamma } \right)\sin \theta \cos \theta }\\
 {\left( {1 + \gamma } \right)\sin \theta \cos \theta }&{{{\sin }^2}\theta  - \gamma {{\cos }^2}\theta }
 \end{array}} \right] \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma$ represents the strain and $\gamma \simeq 0 165$ is the Poisson ratio \cite{blak70}  The hopping parameters are defined as $t_{nm} \left( \sigma \right) = t_0 \exp\left[-3 37\left(r_{nm} \left( \sigma \right) /r_0 - 1\right)\right]$, where the hopping energy $t_0 = -2 7$ $eV$ and the bond length $r_{nm} \left( 0 \right) \equiv r_0 = 0 142$ $nm$ in the unstrained case  Therefore, there are three different hoping parameters $t_{1,2,3}$ corresponding to three bond vectors ${\vec r}_{1,2,3}$, respectively, in the strained graphene part of the structure (see Fig  1)  Here, we assume a 1D profile of applied strain, i e , the strain tensor is a function of position along the transport direction Ox while it is constant along the Oy-axis  The transport direction, $\phi$, and strain direction, $\theta$, are determined as schematized in Fig  1  Based on this tight binding model, two methods described below can be used to investigate the conduction gap of the considered strained junctions 

\textbf{Green's function calculations } First, we split the graphene sheet into the smallest possible unit cells periodically repeated along the Ox/Oy directions with the indices $p/q$, respectively (similarly, see the details in \cite{hung12})  The tight-binding Hamiltonian can therefore be expressed in the following form:
\begin{eqnarray}
{H_{tb}} = \sum\limits_{p,q} {\left( {{H_{p,q}} + \sum\limits_{{p_1},{q_1}} {{H_{p,q \to p_1,q_1}}} } \right)}
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_{p,q}$ is the Hamiltonian of cell $\{p,q\}$, and $H_{p,q \to p_1,q_1}$ denotes the coupling of cell $\{p,q\}$ to its nearest neighbor cell $\{p_1,q_1\}$  We then Fourier transform the operators in Eq  (2) as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
 {c_{p,q}} = \frac{1}{{\sqrt {{M_{cell}}} }}\sum\limits_{{\kappa_y}} {{e^{i{q\kappa_y}}}} {{\hat c}_{p,{\kappa_y}}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_{cell}$ is the number of unit cells and $\kappa_y \equiv k_y L_y$ with the size $L_y$ of unit cells along the Oy direction  The Hamiltonian (2) is finally rewritten as a sum of $\kappa_y$-dependent 1D-components:
\begin{eqnarray}
{H_{tb}} &=& \sum\limits_{{\kappa_y}} {\hat H\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)} \\
\hat H\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right) &=& \sum\limits_p {{{\hat H}_{p \to p - 1}}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right) + {{\hat H}_p}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right) + {{\hat H}_{p \to p + 1}}}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
With this Hamiltonian form, the Green's function formalism can be easily applied to compute transport quantities in the graphene strained junction with different transport directions  In particular, the conductance at zero temperature is determined as:
\begin{eqnarray}
 \mathcal{G} \left( \epsilon \right) = \frac{{e^2 W}}{{\pi h L_y}}\int\limits_{BZ} {d{\kappa_y} \mathcal{T}\left( {\epsilon, {\kappa_y}} \right)}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{T}\left( {\epsilon,{\kappa_y}} \right)$ is the transmission probability computed from the Green's functions  The integration over $\kappa_y$ is performed in the whole first Brillouin zone  As in ref  \cite{hung13}, the gap of conductance (conduction gap) is then measured from the obtained data of conductance 

\textbf{Bandstructure analyses } To determine the conduction gap of strained junctions, we find that another simple way based on the analysis of graphene bandstructures could be efficiently used  It is described as follows  Since the conductance is computed from Eq  (5), the appearance of conduction gap is essentially governed by the gaps of transmission probability, which is determined from the energy gaps in the unstrained and strained graphene sections  These energy gaps can be defined directly from the graphene bandstructures  Therefore, our calculation has two steps, similar to that in \cite{hung14}  From the graphene bandstructures obtained using the tight-binding Hamiltonian above, we first look for the energy gaps $E_{unstrain}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)$ and $E_{strain}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)$ for a given $\kappa_y$ of two graphene sections  The maximum of these energy gaps determines the gap $E_{junc}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)$ of transmission probability through the junction  Finally, the conduction gap $E_{cond gap}$ is obtained by looking for the minimum value of $E_{junc}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)$ when varying $\kappa_y$ in the whole Brillouin zone 

In particular, the energy bands of strained graphene are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
 E\left( {\vec k} \right) =  \pm \left| {{t_1}{e^{i\vec k{{\vec a}_1}}} + {t_2}{e^{i\vec k{{\vec a}_2}}} + {t_3}} \right|
\end{eqnarray}
where the plus/minus sign corresponds to the conduction/valence bands, respectively  For a given direction $\phi$ of transport, in principle, the vectors $\vec L_{x,y}$ defining the sizes of unit cell along the Ox and Oy directions, respectively, can be always expressed as ${\vec L_x} = {n_1}{\vec a_1} + {n_2}{\vec a_2}$ and ${\vec L_y} = {m_1}{\vec a_1} + {m_2}{\vec a_2}$ with $\cos \phi = \frac{{{{\vec L}_x}\vec L_x^0}}{{{L_x}L_x^0}}$ and $\sin \phi = \frac{{{{\vec L}_x}\vec L_y^0}}{{{L_x}L_y^0}}$ while $\vec L_{x,y}^0 = {\vec a_1} \pm {\vec a_2}$  Note that $n_{1,2}$ and $m_{1,2}$ are integers while $\frac{{{m_1}}}{{{m_2}}} =  - \frac{{{n_1} + 2{n_2}}}{{{n_2} + 2{n_1}}}$, i e , ${\vec L_{x}} {\vec L_{y}} = 0$  In other words, we have the following expressions
\begin{eqnarray}
{{{\vec a}_1} = \frac{{ - {m_2}{{\vec L}_x} + {n_2}{{\vec L}_y}}}{{{n_2}{m_1} - {n_1}{m_2}}};\,\,\,{{\vec a}_2} = \frac{{{m_1}{{\vec L}_x} - {n_1}{{\vec L}_y}}}{{{n_2}{m_1} - {n_1}{m_2}}}}
\end{eqnarray}
On this basis, the energy bands can be rewritten in terms of $\kappa_{x, y} = \vec k \vec L_{x,y} \left( { \equiv {k_{x,y}}{L_{x,y}}} \right)$ by substituting Eqs  (7) into Eq  (6)  This new form of energy bands is finally used to compute the conduction gap of strained junctions 

As a simple example, in the case of $\phi = 0$ (armchair direction), we calculate the conduction gap as follows  First, Eq  (6) is rewritten in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
 E_{\phi = 0}\left( {\vec \kappa} \right) =  \pm \left| {{t_1}{e^{i\kappa_y/2}} + {t_2}{e^{ - i\kappa_y/2}} + {t_3}{e^{ - i\kappa_x/2}}} \right|
\end{eqnarray}
with the vectors $\vec L_{x,y} \equiv \vec L_{x,y}^0$  Using this new form, the energy gap of strained graphene for a given $\kappa_y$ is determined as
\begin{equation}
{E_{strain}^{gap}}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right) = 2 \left| {\sqrt {{{\left( {{t_1} - {t_2}} \right)}^2} + 4{t_1}{t_2}{{\cos }^2}\frac{{{\kappa_y}}}{2}}  + {t_3}} \right|
\end{equation}
while ${E_{unstrain}^{gap}}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)$ is given by the same formula with $t_1$ = $t_2$ = $t_3$ $\equiv$ $t_0$  The gap of transmission probability through the junction is then determined as ${E_{junc}^{gap}}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right) = \max \left[ {E_{unstrain}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right),E_{strain}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)} \right]$ and, finally, the conduction gap is given by ${E_{cond



ground_truth: NFPA and FPSA greatly outperform GMRES and DSA.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Which air unit did Goodwin command during the initial landings of Marines on Saipan?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2:  Sallada's Carrier Support Group 2, staging in the Marshalls for the invasion of the Marianas 

The air unit, VC-10 Squadron, under Goodwin's command gave close air support to the initial landings of Marines on Saipan on June 15, 1944, destroying enemy gun emplacements, troops, tanks, and trucks  On the 17th, her combat air patrol (CAP) shot down or turned back all but a handful of 47 enemy planes headed for her task group and her gunners shot down two of the three planes that did break through to attack her 

Goodwin's carrier continued in providing of close ground support operations at Tinian during the end of July 1944, then turned her attention to Guam, where she gave identical aid to invading troops until mid-August that year  For his service during the Mariana Islands campaign, Goodwin was decorated with Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" 

He was succeeded by Captain Walter V  R  Vieweg on August 18, 1944, and appointed Chief of Staff, Carrier Division Six under Rear admiral Arthur W  Radford  The Gambier Bay was sunk in the Battle off Samar on October 25, 1944, during the Battle of Leyte Gulf after helping turn back a much larger attacking Japanese surface force 

Goodwin served with Carrier Division Six during the Bonin Islands raids, the naval operations at Palau and took part in the Battle of Leyte Gulf and operations supporting Leyte landings in late 1944  He was later appointed Air Officer of the Philippine Sea Frontier under Rear admiral James L  Kauffman and remained with that command until the end of hostilities  For his service in the later part of World War II, Goodwin was decorated with Legion of Merit with Combat "V"  He was also entitled to wear two Navy Presidential Unit Citations and Navy Unit Commendation 

Postwar service

Following the surrender of Japan, Goodwin assumed command of Light aircraft carrier  on August 24, 1945  The ship was tasked with air missions over Japan became mercy flights over Allied prisoner-of-war camps, dropping food and medicine until the men could be rescued  She was also present at Tokyo Bay for the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945 

Goodwin returned with San Jacinto to the United States in mid-September 1945 and he was detached in January 1946  He subsequently served in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations until May that year, when he entered the instruction at National War College  Goodwin graduated in June 1947 and served on Secretary's committee for Research on Reorganization  Upon promotion to Rear admiral on April 1, 1949, Goodwin was appointed Chief of Staff and Aide to Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet under Admiral William H  P  Blandy 

Revolt of the Admirals

In April 1949, the budget's cuts and proposed reorganization of the United States Armed Forces by the Secretary of Defense Louis A  Johnson launched the wave of discontent between senior commanders in the United States Navy  Johnson proposed the merging of the Marine Corps into the Army, and reduce the Navy to a convoy-escort force 

Goodwin's superior officer, Admiral Blandy was call to testify before the House Committee on Armed Services and his harsh statements for the defense of the Navy, costed him his career  Goodwin shared his views and openly criticized Secretary Johnson for having power concentrated in a single civilian executive, who is an appointee of the Government and not an elected representative of the people  He also criticized aspects of defense unification which permitted the Joint Chiefs of Staff to vote on arms policies of individual services, and thus "rob" the branches of autonomy 

The outbreak of the Korean War in summer 1950 proved the proposal of Secretary Johnson as incorrect and he resigned in September that year  Also Secretary of the Navy, Francis P  Matthews resigned one month earlier 

Later service

Due to the Revolts of the admirals, Blandy was forced to retire in February 1950 and Goodwin was ordered to Newport, Rhode Island for temporary duty as Chief of Staff and Aide to the President of the Naval War College under Vice admiral Donald B  Beary in April 1950  Goodwin was detached from that assignment two months and appointed member of the General Board of the Navy  He was shortly thereafter appointed acting Navy Chief of Public Information, as the substitute for Rear Admiral Russell S  Berkey, who was relieved of illness, but returned to the General Board of the Navy in July that year  Goodwin served in that capacity until February 1951, when he relieved his Academy class, Rear admiral John P  Whitney as Vice Commander, Military Air Transport Service (MATS) 

While in this capacity, Goodwin served under Lieutenant general Laurence S  Kuter and was co-responsible for the logistical support of United Nations troops fighting in Korea  The MATS operated from the United States to Japan and Goodwin served in this capacity until August 1953, when he was appointed Commander Carrier Division Two  While in this assignment, he took part in the Operation Mariner, Joint Anglo-American exercise which encountered very heavy seas over a two-week period in fall 1953 

Goodwin was ordered to the Philippines in May 1954 and assumed duty as Commander, U S  Naval Forces in the Philippines with headquarters at Naval Station Sangley Point near Cavite  He held that command in the period of tensions between Taiwan and China and publicly declared shortly after his arrival, that any attack on Taiwan by the Chinese Communists on the mainland would result in US participation in the conflict  The naval fighter planes under his command also provided escort for passing commercial planes  Goodwin worked together with retired Admiral Raymond A  Spruance, then-Ambassador to the Philippines, and accompanied him during the visits to Singapore, Bangkok and Saigon in January 1955 

On December 18, 1955, Goodwin's classmate Rear admiral Albert K  Morehouse, then serving as Commander, Naval Air Forces, Continental Air Defense Command (CONAD), died of heart attack and Goodwin was ordered to CONAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado to assume Morehouse's position  While in this capacity, he was subordinated to Army General Earle E  Partridge and was responsible for the Naval and Marine Forces allocated to the command designated for the defense of the Continental United States 

Retirement

Goodwin retired on June 1, 1957, after 40 years of active service and was advanced to the rank of Vice admiral on the retired list for having been specially commended in combat  A week later, he was invited back to his Monroe High School (now Neville High School) and handed a diploma showing that he had been graduated with the class of 1918  He then settled in Monterey, California where he taught American history at Stevenson school and was a member of the Naval Order of the United States 

Vice admiral Hugh H  Goodwin died at his home on February 25, 1980, aged 79  He was survived by his wife, Eleanor with whom he had two children, a daughter Sidney and a son Hugh Jr , who graduated from the Naval Academy in June 1948, but died one year later, when the Hellcat fighter he was piloting collided with another over the Gulf of Mexico during training 

Decorations

Here is the ribbon bar of Vice admiral Hugh H  Goodwin:

References

1900 births
1980 deaths
People from Monroe, Louisiana
Military personnel from Louisiana
United States Naval Academy alumni
Naval War College alumni
United States Naval Aviators
United States Navy personnel of World War I
United States Navy World War II admirals
United States Navy vice admirals
United States submarine commanders
Recipients of the Legion of Merit
Context 3: gap}} = \min \left[ {E_{junc}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)} \right]$ for $\kappa_y$ in the whole Brillouin zone 

We would like to notice that the Green's function calculations and the banstructure analyses give the same results of conduction gap in the junctions where the transition region between unstrained and strained graphene sections is long enough, i e , larger than about 5 to 6 nm  In the case of short length, as discussed in \cite{baha13,hung14}, this transition zone can have significant effects on the transmission between propagating states beyond the energy gaps and hence can slightly enlarge the gap of conductance, compared to the results obtained from the bandstructure calculations 

\section{Results and discussion}

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3 0in]{Fig02 pdf}
\caption{Dependence of graphene bandgap (in the unit of eV) on the applied strain and its direction: tensile (a) and compressive (b)  The radius from the central point indicates the strain strength ranging from 0 (center) to 30 $\%$ (edge of maps) while the graphene lattice is superimposed to show visibly the strain direction  The orange circle corresponds to the strains of $\sigma = 23 \%$ }
\label{fig_sim2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3 4in]{Fig03 pdf}
\caption{Conductance ($G_0 = e^2W/hL_y$) as a function of energy in graphene strained junctions for $\sigma = 4 \%$ with different strain directions  The transport along the armchair direction ($\phi = 0$) is considered  The data obtained in a uniformly strained graphene is displayed for the comparison }
\label{fig_sim6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5 8in]{Fig04 pdf}
\caption{Local density of states (left panels) and corresponding transmission coefficient (right panels) for three different wave-vectors $k_y$ obtained in an unstrained/strained graphene junction of $\sigma = 4 \%$, and $\theta \equiv \phi = 0$  On the top is a schematic of graphene bandedges illustrating the strain-induced shift of Dirac points along the $k_y$-direction }
\label{fig_sim4}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5 6in]{Fig05 pdf}
\caption{Maps of conduction gap in unstrained/strained graphene junctions: tensile (a,c) and compressive cases (b,d)  The transport is along the armchair $\phi = 0$ (a,b) and zigzag $\phi = 30^\circ$ directions (c,d)  The strain strength ranges from 0 (center) to 6 $\%$ (edge of maps) in all cases }
\label{fig_sim4}
\end{figure*}
First, we re-examine the formation of the bandgap of graphene under a uniaxial strain  From Eq  (9), it is shown that a strain-induced finite-bandgap appears only if ${E_{strain}^{gap}}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right) > 0$ for all $k_y$ in the first Brillouin zone, i e , ${k _y} \in \left[ { - \frac{\pi}{L_y}, \frac{\pi}{L_y}} \right]$, otherwise, the bandgap remains zero  Hence, the condition for the bandgap to be finite is either
\begin{equation*}
 \left| {{t_1} - {t_2}} \right| > \left| {{t_3}} \right|\,\,\,\,\,{\rm{OR}}\,\,\,\,\,\left| {{t_3}} \right| > \left| {{t_1} + {t_2}} \right|
\end{equation*}
and the corresponding values of bandgap are
\begin{equation*}
 {E_{gap}} = 2\left( {\left| {{t_1} - {t_2}} \right| - \left| {{t_3}} \right|} \right)\,\,\,\,\,{\rm{OR}}\,\,\,\,\,2\left( {\left| {{t_3}} \right| - \left| {{t_1} + {t_2}} \right|} \right)
\end{equation*}
This result was actually reported in \cite{per209,hase06}  We remind as displayed in Fig  2(a) that a finite bandgap opens only for strain larger than $\sim 23 \%$ and the zigzag (not armchair) is the preferred direction for bandgap opening under a tensile strain \cite{per209}  We extend our investigation to the case of compressive strain and find  (see in Fig  2(b)) that (i) the same gap threshold of $\sigma \simeq 23 \%$ is observed but (ii) the preferred direction to open the gap under a compressive strain is the armchair, not the zigzag as the case of tensile strain  This implies that the properties of graphene bandstructure at low energy should be qualitatively the same when applying strains of $\left\{ {\sigma ,\theta } \right\}$ and of $\left\{ {-\sigma ,\theta + 90^\circ} \right\}$  This feature can be understood by considering, for example, strains of $\left\{ {\sigma , \theta = 0} \right\}$ and of $\left\{ {-\sigma , \theta = 90^\circ} \right\}$  Indeed, these strains result in the same qualitative changes on the bond-lengths, i e , an increased bond-length $r_3$ and reduced bond-lengths $r_{1,2}$  However, for the same strain strength, because of the exponential dependence of hoping energies on the bond-lengths, the compressive strain generally induces a larger bandgap than the tensile one, as can be seen when comparing the data displayed in Figs  2(a) and 2(b)  To conclude, we would like to emphasize that a large strain is necessary to open a bandgap in graphene  This could be an issue for practical applications, compared to the use of graphene strained junctions explored in \cite{hung14} 

We now go to explore the properties of conduction gap in the graphene strained junctions  In Fig  3, we display the conductance as a function of energy computed from Eq  (5) using the Green's function technique  As discussed above, a small strain of a few percent (e g , 4 $\%$ here) can not change the gapless character of graphene, i e , there is no gap of conductance in the case of uniformly strained graphene  However, similar to that reported in \cite{hung14}, a significant conduction-gap of a few hundreds meV can open in the unstrained/strained graphene junctions  The appearance of this conduction gap, as mentioned previously, is due to the strain-induced shift of Dirac points and is explained as follows  Actually, the strain causes the lattice deformation and can result in the deformation of graphene bandstructure  Therefore, the bandedges as a function of wave-vector $k_y$ in unstrained and strained graphene can be illustrated schematically as in the top panel of Fig  4  As one can see, the shift of Dirac points leads to the situation where there is no value of $\kappa_y$, for which the energy gaps $E_{unstrain}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)$ and $E_{strain}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)$ are simultaneously equal to zero  This means that the transmission probability always shows a finite gap for any $\kappa_y$  For instance, the energy gap is zero (or small) in the unstrained (resp  strained) graphene section but finite in the strained (resp  unstrained) one in the vicinity of Dirac point $k_y = K_{unstrain}$ (resp  $K_{strain}$)  Accordingly, as illustrated in the pictures of LDOS in the left panels of Fig  4 and confirmed in the corresponding transmissions in the right panels, clear gaps of transmission are still obtained  Far from these values of $k_y$, $E_{unstrain}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)$ and $E_{strain}^{gap}\left( {{\kappa_y}} \right)$ are both finite (e g , see the LDOS plotted for $k_y = K_{gap}$) and hence a finite gap of transmission also occurs  On this basis, a finite gap of conductance is achieved  More important, Fig  3 shows that besides the strength of strain, the strain effect is also strongly dependent on the applied direction  For instance, the conduction gap takes the values of $\sim$ 295, 172 and 323 meV for $\theta = 0$, $30^\circ$ and $90^\circ$, respectively 

Below, we will discuss the properties of the conduction gap with respect to the strain, its applied direction, and the direction of transport  Note that due to the lattice symmetry, the transport directions $\phi$ and $\phi + 60^\circ$ are equivalent while the applied strain of angle $\theta$ is identical to that of $\theta + 180^\circ$  Hence, the data obtained for $\phi$ ranging from $-30^\circ$ to $30^\circ$ and $\theta  \in \left[ {0^\circ ,180^\circ } \right]$ covers the properties of conduction gap in all possible cases 

In Fig  5, we present the maps of conduction gap with respect to the strain and its applied direction in two particular cases: the transport is either along the armchair ($\phi = 0$) or the zigzag ($\phi = 30^\circ$) directions  Both tensile and compressive strains are considered  Let us first discuss the results obtained in the armchair case



ground_truth: VC-10 Squadron.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: How does the conduction gap depend on the strain direction?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:  Figs  5(a,b) show that (i) a large conduction gap up to about 500 meV can open with a strain of 6 $\%$ and (ii) again the conduction gap is strongly $\theta$-dependent, in particular, its peaks occur at $\theta = 0$ or $90^\circ$ while the gap is zero at $\theta \approx 47^\circ$ and $133^\circ$ for tensile strain and at $\theta \approx 43^\circ$ and $137^\circ$ for compressive strain  In principle, the conduction gap is larger if the shift of Dirac points in the $\kappa_y$-axis is larger, as discussed above about Figs  3-4  We notice that the strain-induced shifts can be different for the six Dirac points of graphene \cite{kitt12} and the gap is zero when there is any Dirac point observed at the same $\kappa_y$ in the two graphene sections  From Eq  (9), we find that the Dirac points are determined by the following equations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
  {\cos}\frac{\kappa_y}{2} &=& \pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{{t_3^2 - {{\left( {{t_1} - {t_2}} \right)}^2}}}{{{t_1}{t_2}}}}, \\
  \cos \frac{{\kappa_x}}{2} &=& \frac{{{t_1} + {t_2}}}{{\left| {{t_3}} \right|}}\cos \frac{{\kappa_y}}{2},\,\,\,\sin \frac{{\kappa_x}}{2} = \frac{{{t_2} - {t_1}}}{{\left| {{t_3}} \right|}}\sin \frac{{\kappa_y}}{2},
\end{eqnarray*}
which simplify into ${\cos}\frac{\kappa_y}{2} = \pm \frac{1}{2}$ and, respectively, $\cos \left( {\frac{{{\kappa _x}}}{2}} \right) = \mp 1$ in the unstrained case  Hence, the zero conduction gap is obtained if
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{{t_3^2 - {{\left( {{t_1} - {t_2}} \right)}^2}}}{{4{t_1}{t_2}}} = \frac{1}{4}
\end{equation*}
Additionally, it is observed that the effects of a strain $\{\sigma,\theta\}$ are qualitatively similar to those of a strain $\{-\sigma,\theta+90^\circ\}$, i e , the peaks and zero values of conduction gap are obtained at the same $\theta$ in these two situations  To understand this, we analyze the strain matrix $M_s \left(\sigma,\theta\right)$ and find that in the case of small strains studied here, there is an approximate relationship between the bond lengths under these two strains, given by \[{r \left( \sigma, \theta \right)} - {r \left( -\sigma, \theta + 90^\circ\right)} \simeq \sigma \left( {1 - \gamma } \right) r_0,\] which is $\theta$-independent for all \emph{C-C} bond vectors  It implies that there is a fixed ratio between the hopping energies $t_i \left( \sigma, \theta \right)$ and $t_i \left( -\sigma, \theta + 90^\circ\right)$ and hence there is the similar shift of Dirac points in these two cases 
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3 4in]{Fig06 pdf}
\caption{Map showing the dependence of conduction gap on the directions ($\theta,\phi$) for $\sigma = 4 \%$  The top is a diagram illustrating the rotation of Dirac points in the \emph{k}-space with the change in the transport direction $\phi$ }
\label{fig_sim6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5 5in]{Fig07 pdf}
\caption{Maps of conduction gap obtained in tensile/compressive strained junctions  The transport along the armchair/zigzag directions is considered in (a,b)/(c,d), respectively  The strains $\sigma_c = -2 \%$ and $\sigma_t = 2 \%$ are applied in (a,c) while $\sigma_c = -1 \%$ and $\sigma_t = 3 \%$ in (b,d) }
\label{fig_sim4}
\end{figure*}

We now go to analyze the properties of conduction gap shown in Figs  5(c,d) where the transport is along the zigzag direction $\phi = 30^\circ$  In fact, the conduction gap in this case can reach a value as high as that of the case of $\phi = 0$ but has different $\theta$-dependence  In particular, the conduction gap has peaks at $\theta \approx 47^\circ$ and $133^\circ$ for tensile strain and at $\theta \approx 43^\circ$ and $137^\circ$ for compressive strain, where it is zero in the case of $\phi = 0$  It is also equal to zero at $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = 90^\circ$ where the peaks of conduction gap occur in the latter case of $\phi = 0$  The relationship between these two transport directions can be explained as follows  On the one hand, based on the analyses above for $\phi = 0$, we find that for a given strength of strain, a maximum shift of Dirac points along the $k_y$-axis corresponds to a minimum along the $k_x$-one and vice versa when varying the strain direction $\theta$  On the other hand, as schematized in the top of Fig  6 below, the change in the transport direction results in the rotation of the first Brillouin zone, i e , the $k_x$ (resp  $k_y$) axis in the case of $\phi = 30^\circ$ is identical to the $k_y$ (resp  $k_x$) axis in the case of $\phi = 0$  These two features explain essentially the opposite $\theta$-dependence of conduction gap for $\phi = 30^\circ$, compared to the case of $\phi = 0$ as mentioned  Again, we found the same qualitative behavior of conduction gap when applying the strains of $\{\sigma,\theta\}$ and $\{-\sigma,\theta+90^\circ\}$ 

Next, we investigate the conduction gap with respect to different transport directions $\phi$  We display a ($\theta,\phi$)-map of conduction gap for $\sigma = 4 \%$ in Fig  6 and, in the top, an additional diagram illustrating the rotation of Dirac points in the $k-$space with the change in the transport direction  It is clearly shown that (i) a similar scale of conduction gap is obtained for all different transport directions, (ii) there is a smooth and continuous shift of $E_{cond gap}-\theta$ behavior when varying $\phi$, and (iii) the same behavior of $E_{cond gap}$ is also observed when comparing the two transport directions of $\phi$ and $\phi+30^\circ$, similarly to the comparison above between $\phi = 0^\circ$ and $30^\circ$  The data plotted in Fig  6 additionally shows that $E_{cond gap}$ takes the same value in both cases of $\{\phi,\theta\}$ and $\{-\phi,-\theta\}$ with a remark that the strains of $-\theta$ and $180^\circ-\theta$ are identical  Moreover, the values of $\theta$ and $\phi$, for which the conduction gap has a peak or is equal to zero, have an almost linear relationship  In particular, the relationship for conduction gap peaks is approximately given by $\theta = \theta_A - \eta_s \phi$  For tensile strains, $\eta_s$ takes the values of $\sim 1 5667$ and $1 4333$ for $\theta_A = 0$ and $90^\circ$, respectively  On the opposite, it is about $1 4333$ and $1 5667$ for $\theta_A = 0$ and $90^\circ$, respectively, for compressive strain cases  All these features are consequences of the rotation of Dirac points in the $k$-space with respect to the transport direction $\phi$ as illustrated in the diagram on the top and the lattice symmetry of graphene 

Finally, we investigate other junctions based on compressive and tensile strained graphene sections  The idea is that in this type of strained junction, the shifts of Dirac points are different in two graphene sections of different strains, which offers the possibilities to use smaller strains to achieve a similar conduction gap, compared to the case of unstrained/strained junction  In Fig  7, we display the maps of conduction gap with respect to the directions of compressive ($\theta_c$) and tensile ($\theta_t$) strains in two cases of transport direction $\phi = 0$ (armchair) and $30^\circ$ (zigzag) for given strain strengths  Indeed, as seen in Fig  7(a,b), with smaller strains $\left\{ {{\sigma _c},{\sigma _t}} \right\} = \left\{ { - 2\% ,2\% } \right\}$ or $\left\{ { - 1\% ,3\% } \right\}$, similar conduction gap of about 310 meV can be achieved (see Figs  7(a,b)) while it requires a strain of 4 $\%$ in the unstrained/strained junctions discussed above  However, since the shift of Dirac points is strongly dependent on the direction of applied strains and the transport direction, the properties of conduction gap are more complicated than in the latter case  In particular, our calculations show that the preferred transport directions to achieve a large conduction gap are close to the armchair one  Otherwise, the conduction gap is generally smaller, similarly to the data for $\phi = 30^\circ$ compared to $\phi = 0$, as shown in Fig  7  Additionally, it is shown that the preferred directions of applied strains in the case of $\phi = 0$ are close to ${\theta _c} \equiv {\theta _t} = 0$ or $90^\circ$ 

\section{Conclusion}

Based on the tight binding calculations, we have investigated the effects of uniaxial strain on the transport properties of graphene strained junctions and discuss systematically the possibilities of achieving a large conduction gap with respect to the strain, its applied direction and the transport direction  It has been shown that due to the strain-induced deformation of graphene lattice and hence of graphene bandstructure, a finite conduction gap higher than 500 meV can be achieved for a strain of only 6 $\%$  Moreover, as a consequence of the shift of Dirac points along the $k_y$-axis, the conduction gap is strongly dependent not only on the strain strength but also on the direction of applied strain and the transport direction  A full picture of these properties of conduction gap has been presented and explained  The study hence could be a good guide for the use of this type of unstrained/strained graphene junction in electronic applications 

\textbf{\textit{Acknowledgment }} This research in Hanoi is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number 103 02-1012 42  We also acknowledges the French ANR for financial support under the projects NANOSIM-GRAPHENE (Grant no  ANR-09-NANO-016) and MIGRAQUEL (Grant no  ANR-10-BLAN-0304) 





ground_truth: Peaks occur at certain strain directions, while the gap is zero at others.