Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “exascale computing project”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

227 records · Page 13

Using a surrogate-assisted Bayesian framework to calibrate the runoff-generation scheme in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) v1

Abstract. Runoff is a critical component of the terrestrial water cycle, and Earth system models (ESMs) are essential tools to study its spatiotemporal variability. Runoff schemes in ESMs typically include many parameters so that model calibration is necessary to improve the accuracy of simulated runoff. However, runoff calibration at a global scale is challenging because of the high computational cost and the lack of reliable observational datasets. In this study, we calibrated 11 runoff relevant parameters in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Land Model (ELM) using a surrogate-assisted Bayesian framework. First, the polynomial chaos expansion machinery with Bayesian compressed sensing is used to construct computationally inexpensive surrogate models for ELM-simulated runoff at 0.5∘ × 0.5∘ for 1991–2010. The error metric between the ELM simulations and the benchmark data is selected to construct the surrogates, which facilitates efficient calibration and avoids the more conventional, but challenging, construction of high-dimensional surrogates for the ELM simulated runoff. Second, the Sobol' index sensitivity analysis is performed using the surrogate models to identify the most sensitive parameters, and our results show that, in most regions, ELM-simulated runoff is strongly sensitive to 3 of the 11 uncertain parameters. Third, a Bayesian method is used to infer the optimal values of the most sensitive parameters using an observation-based global runoff dataset as the benchmark. Our results show that model performance is significantly improved with the inferred parameter values. Although the parametric uncertainty of simulated runoff is reduced after the parameter inference, it remains comparable to the multimodel ensemble uncertainty represented by the global hydrological models in ISMIP2a. Additionally, the annual global runoff trend during the simulation period is not well constrained by the inferred parameter values, suggesting the importance of including parametric uncertainty in future runoff projections.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Earth System Model Development - Energy Exascale Earth System Model (2020 Principal Investigator Meeting Report)

As part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER), the Earth System Model Development (ESMD) program area supports significant research in Earth system model development, including major efforts in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) project. Convened virtually on October 26–29, the 2020 ESMD-E3SM Principal Investigator (PI) Meeting provided a forum to survey ESMD sponsored research, recent progress made by the ESMD science team and the broader Earth system modeling community within and outside of DOE, foster interactions across ESMD projects, and discuss research gaps and opportunities for future advancements.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Quantitative Performance Assessment of Proxy Apps and Parents (Report for ECP Proxy App Project Milestone ADCD-504-11)

The ECP Proxy Application Project has an annual milestone to assess the state of ECP proxy applications. Our FY21 milestone (ADCD-504-11) proposed to: "Assess the performance and fidelity of proxy applications, including those in the ECP Proxy App Suite, relative to the ECP Application workload on heterogeneous platforms. Use proxy applications and selected ECP applications to assess the utility of critical elements of the Exascale toolchain, especially tools used to collect performance data. Identify gaps in coverage and/or common situations in which proxies may fail to adequately represent ECP applications." To satisfy this milestone, the following specific tasks were completed: Study ability of MACSio to represent I/O workloads of adaptive mesh codes; Prepare report on assessed performance and debugging tools; Perform cosine similarity study on Intel and P9 and submit paper; Complete LDMS/GPU subcontract, complete and receive report; Complete validation of LDMS data collection for GPUs and submit paper; and Perform cosine similarity study on GPUs.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Exascale models of stellar explosions: Quintessential multi-physics simulation

The ExaStar project aims to deliver an efficient, versatile, and portable software ecosystem for multi-physics astrophysics simulations run on exascale machines. The code suite is a component-based multi-physics toolkit, built on the capabilities of current simulation codes (in particular Flash-X and Castro), and based on the massively parallel adaptive mesh refinement framework AMReX. It includes modules for hydrodynamics, advanced radiation transport, thermonuclear kinetics, and nuclear microphysics. The code will reach exascale efficiency by building upon current multi- and many-core packages integrated into an orchestration system that uses a combination of configuration tools, code translators, and a domain-specific asynchronous runtime to manage performance across a range of platform architectures. The target science includes multi-physics simulations of astrophysical explosions (such as supernovae and neutron star mergers) to understand the cosmic origin of the elements and the fundamental physics of matter and neutrinos under extreme conditions.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

Continuous soil temperature and soil deformation measurements, Teller road Mile 47, Nome, Alaska.

The dataset comprises Soil Temperature and Deformation monitoring data gathered from a watershed situated along the Nome-Teller road at Mile 47 in Alaska. Its primary objective is to enhance comprehension of deformation mechanisms in permafrost environments by using 51 probes designed following Wielandt et al. (2022). The dataset comprises a description of Probe_ID, Location, start time, end time and probe length in the "ProbesLocations_StartEndDates.csv" file, the 51 data files encapsulated within "Data_files.zip" and the computed deformation for 2023 and 2022 in "Deformation_T47.zip".Each file in Data_files.zip is named as followed "ProbeId_StartMonth_EndMonth.csv". Within each file, the initial column denotes the timestamp in UTC, followed by the sensor’s battery voltage and temperature and acceleration values (X, Y, Z) in subsequent columns. The data collection frequency is set at 30-minute intervals. Each file in Deformation_T47.zip is named as followed "ProbeId_Temp_def_year.csv". Within each file, the initial column denotes the timestamp in UTC, followed by the temperature at each sensor and cumulative deformation from last to first sensor in subsequent columns. The data collection is daily averaged.This dataset forms an integral component of the Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic). The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Supporting ARPA-E Power Grid Optimization (Final Report)

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Arizona State University (ASU), Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Texas A&M University (TAMU), The University of Texas at Austin (UT), and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-M) supported the ARPA-E Grid Optimization (GO) Competition by providing a common problem formulation, data format, datasets, evaluation mechanism, scoring, rules, and results that resulted in the awarding of $\$9.24$ million dollars to teams from academia, industry, and national labs for solving three sets of increasingly difficult non-linear, security- constrained AC Optimal Powerflow (AC-OPF) optimization problems in order to increase the efficiency of the US Electric Grid. It is estimated that a 1% increase in efficiency can save $\$1$ billion. Current industry practices typically use a linear DC model (DC-OPF) in order solve the OPF problem within the time constraints of the operation schedule. The GO Competition challenges the best power engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists to make possible operational decisions based on accurate physical models. To accomplish this, the GO Competition created a series of Challenges and funded teams to produce the best solver. Challenge 1 was to solve the security constrained Alternating Current Optimal Power Flow (ACOPF) problem. Challenge 2 extended that to by adding adjustable transformer tap ratios, phase shifting transformers, switchable shunts, price-responsive demand, ramp rate constrained generators and loads, and fast-start unit commitment (UC). Furthermore, Challenge 2 was a maximization problem while Challenge 1 was a minimization problem. While Challenge 3 was being developed, the entrants were invited to find better solutions to the Challenge 2 synthetic datasets with no restrictions on time, hardware, or algorithms. The Challenge 2 solutions turned out to be very good. Challenge 3 expanded the Challenge 2 problem further by using multiperiod dynamic markets, including advisory models for extreme weather events, day-ahead markets, and the real-time markets with an extended look-ahead. These problems included active bid-in demand and topology optimization. Together the Challenges used nearly 30 million CPU hours. Since each team was working on the same problem, using the same data, and running on the same hardware, fair comparisons could be drawn as to the best solver. The datasets were varied enough, however, that the best solver for one dataset was not necessarily the best at another, so cumulative scores were used. The process was managed by the PNNL maintained website https://GOCompetition.energy.gov, where Entrants could find information about the problem, the data, the rules, submit their solver for evaluation, and see the scores of all the competing teams on a Leaderboard. Interest was world-wide but only American teams were eligible for prizes. The Competition has produced 34 journal articles 115 papers and been cited over 500 times in the literature, including 12 dissertations (4 from foreign countries; Columbia (2), Germany, and Italy) and 3 from the DOE ExaScale project. Software developed by Pearl Street Technologies for Challenges 1 and 2 is now deployed by Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and Midcontinent Independent Service Operator (MISO). Other teams have received inquiries from venture capitalists. Google DeepMind has thanked the Competition for making the datasets developed for the Competition public. They are using it to train machine learning models. The larger datasets have billions of unknowns to be solved for, but only a small percent matter in the final solution. Knowing what unknowns are important can dramatically speedup the solution.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Quantitative Performance Assessment of Proxy Apps and Parents (ECP Proxy App Project Milestone ADCD-504-9)

This report presents highlights of these efforts. Section 2 describes work that has been done to compare the performance of proxy applications on AMD MI60 vs. Nvidia V100 GPUs. So far only a small set of ECP proxies are running on AMD GPUs, but we will continue to expand this analysis as additional proxies become available. We find that although the MI60 and V100 have nearly the same measured memory bandwidth, memory bound proxy app kernels perform 20-30% worse on the MI60. Further work is needed to refine these comparisons to determine whether the root cause is due to differences in the hardware, software stack, platform specific optimization, or some combination of the three. Section 3 describes our continuing effort to find methods to accurately assess the similarity of proxies and parents. We have recently seen very encouraging results using a cosine similarity metric. This technique uses the angle between two vectors of hardware performance counters to characterize the similarity (or difference) between two applications or proxies. We show not only that several widely used proxies are highly similar to their parents, but also that they differ from non-related codes. We also show that cosine similarity can be used to identify gaps and redundancies in suites and even to gain insight into the effects of architectural differences between platforms. Our work on assessing the Exascale toolchain is ongoing. Our successes with performance measurement tools are evident from the data provided in this report. However, our assessments across the broader tool chain are still too incomplete to provide a meaningful report at this time. We will continue to assess tools and work with vendors and third party developers as issues are identified.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Project DarkStar: Vision for LLNL in 2030

DarkStar was a Strategic Initiative (FY2021-FY2024) to investigate applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) to scientific problems of complex hydrodynamics, shockwave physics and energetic materials. The research focused on physics and engineering design as a process that can be tremendously accelerated through merging AI with advanced physics simulation on exascale-class platforms, and to experimentally validate this revolutionary new approach through dynamic materials campaigns. A central thread of scientific inquiry was in the application of AI to enable human understanding of how to control hydrodynamic instability (which has impacts to areas such as inertial confinement fusion) via engineering features and time-dependent sources. Motivated by an unfinished line of research started by Dr. Johnny von Neumann, AI-enabled simulation approaches were developed that allowed DarkStar researchers to uncover several ground-breaking discoveries regarding hydrodynamic instability, including how to completely suppress Richtmyer-Meshkov instability (RMI). These S&T discoveries, along with other advances, have shown the way for an entirely new approach to time-dependent problems known as inverse design – the idea that complex systems can be developed directly from a final state that is to be achieved and resolve the initial design via satisfying several constraints simultaneously via AI/ML. Through experimental campaigns conducted across a wide range of facilities in the NNSA complex (the High Explosive Application Facility at LLNL, the Dynamic Compression Sector/Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Lab, and Special Technologies Laboratory at MSTS) the radical new AI/ML approach to engineering complex material dynamics was verified, establishing a new field of study within the realm of shock physics. As advanced manufacturing capabilities continue to develop, the great importance of inverse design as a means to apply that technology effectively for NNSA missions will feature prominently over this decade. DarkStar has positioned NNSA as a world-leader in this newly emerging cross-disciplinary area of AI methods for advanced physics simulation and pioneered multiple novel approaches that have enabled the broader scientific community. By allowing us to see past the horizon, to 2030 and beyond, DarkStar has illuminated the vast potential of AI/ML to impact a wide range of new national security missions and, consequently, multiple areas of further research have already emerged across the NNSA and DOD complex.

42 ENGINEERING↗

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

Energy Exascale Earth System Model v2.0

First release of version 2 of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model. The atmosphere component remains EAM. Major changes since version 1 include: all column-physics parameterizations are computed on a separate grid that has approximately half the number of points of the dynamics grid, a new nonhydrostatic dynamical core (running in hydrostatic mode) with semi-Lagrangian tracer transport, CLUBB updated from v1 to v2, a new convective trigger (dCAPE/ULL) based on the dynamic Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) (dCAPE) and the Unrestricted Launch Level (ULL) concepts is used in ZM. minimum cloud droplet number changed, gravity wave drag energy conservation fixed and new tunings used, dust emission size distribution changed to emit more coarse dust particles The land component is still ELM. Major changes since version 1 include: using SNICAR-AD for radiation in snow to match the sea-ice model and fixing bugs in snow compaction and water state calculation. The ocean component remains MPAS-ocean. Major change since version 1 include: Redi isopycnal mixing has been updated, tested, and tuned in combination with the Gent-McWilliams parameterization, a sign error was fixed in the 3rd-order flux routines, the mesh used in low-resolution coupled cases was modified and the time steps adjusted, new regionally refined meshes were created, one focused on North America and another on the Southern Ocean, including ice shelf cavities. The sea-ice component remains MPAS-seaice. Major changes since version 1 include: A new heat- and freshwater-conserving coupling of frazil ice, turning off of SSH filtering, addition of SNICAR-AD and snow grain aging. The land-ice component remains MPAS-Albany-landIce (MALI) and is a static ice sheet. There is more out-of-the-box support for cryosphere configurations including the new regionally refined configuration around Antarctica with ice shelf cavities. The river model is MOSART. The half-degree river mesh was redone so it no longer treats Black and Caspian seas as ocean. The coupler remains cpl7/MCT. Major changes since version 1 include handling of ice shelf melt fluxes (heat / freshwater exchange with the ocean), and data icebergs. All components allow regional refinement of their meshes and two separate example of refinement, one in and around North America and one around Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, are provided.

E3SM Project, DOE↗