corners. \[fig:Field-intensitiesVaryEps\]](Figure8){width="0.9\columnwidth"}

Time-domain results
-------------------

To further validate the results of the boundary-integral method, we repeated the calculations for some of the modes using MEEP, which in particular allows for a different modeling of the waveguide attachments. Instead of assuming them to be finite stubs, we allowed them to extend to the boundary of the simulation domain which includes a perfectly matched layer that prevents back-reflections of a wavepacket which was launched in one arm of the structure. After settling into a late-time decaying state, the wave field of a typical high-Q mode displays the same pattern found in the previous section, cf. Fig. \[fig:MEEPmode1\] (a). Shown in Fig. \[fig:MEEPmode1\] (b) is the same resonator at a roughly tenfold shorter wavelength. The comparison illustrates why we make a distinction between folded chaotic WGMs as in Fig. \[fig:MEEPmode1\] (a) and scarred states. The concentration of intensity on the six-bounce unstable periodic orbit of Fig. \[fig:Two-self-intersecting-periodicOrbits\] (a) identifies the mode of Fig. \[fig:MEEPmode1\] (b) as a scarred state, whereas there is no single periodic orbit that describes the intensity of a folded chaotic WGM.

![(a) Folded chaotic whispering-gallery mode as obtained in a finite-difference time domain computation for the same deformation $\epsilon=0.444$ 