Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “parallel machines”

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.

408 records · Page 23
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Towards a more general understanding of the algorithmic utility of recurrent connections

Lateral and recurrent connections are ubiquitous in biological neural circuits. Yet while the strong computational abilities of feedforward networks have been extensively studied, our understanding of the role and advantages of recurrent computations that might explain their prevalence remains an important open challenge. Foundational studies by Minsky and Roelfsema argued that computations that require propagation of global information for local computation to take place would particularly benefit from the sequential, parallel nature of processing in recurrent networks. Such “tag propagation” algorithms perform repeated, local propagation of information and were originally introduced in the context of detecting connectedness, a task that is challenging for feedforward networks. Here, we advance the understanding of the utility of lateral and recurrent computation by first performing a large-scale empirical study of neural architectures for the computation of connectedness to explore feedforward solutions more fully and establish robustly the importance of recurrent architectures. In addition, we highlight a tradeoff between computation time and performance and construct hybrid feedforward/recurrent models that perform well even in the presence of varying computational time limitations. We then generalize tag propagation architectures to propagating multiple interacting tags and demonstrate that these are efficient computational substrates for more general computations of connectedness by introducing and solving an abstracted biologically inspired decision-making task. Our work thus clarifies and expands the set of computational tasks that can be solved efficiently by recurrent computation, yielding hypotheses for structure in population activity that may be present in such tasks.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Machine learning–driven multiscale modeling reveals lipid-dependent dynamics of RAS signaling proteins

Significance Here we present an unprecedented multiscale simulation platform that enables modeling, hypothesis generation, and discovery across biologically relevant length and time scales to predict mechanisms that can be tested experimentally. We demonstrate that our predictive simulation-experimental validation loop generates accurate insights into RAS-membrane biology. Evaluating over 100,000 correlated simulations, we show that RAS–lipid interactions are dynamic and evolving, resulting in: 1) a reordering and selection of lipid domains in realistic eight-lipid bilayers, 2) clustering of RAS into multimers correlating with specific lipid fingerprints, 3) changes in the orientation of the RAS G-domain impacting its ability to interact with effectors, and 4) demonstration that RAS–RAS G-domain interfaces are nonspecific in these putative signaling domains.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Iterative sampling of expensive simulations for faster deep surrogate training

Deep neural network (DNN) surrogates of expensive physics simulations are enabling a rapid change in the way that common experimental design and analysis tasks are approached. Surrogate models allow simulations to be performed in parallel and separately from downstream tasks, thereby enabling analyses that would be impossible with the simulation in-the-loop; surrogates based on DNNs can effectively emulate diverse non-scalar data of the types collected in fusion and laboratory-astrophysics experiments. The challenge is in training the surrogate model, for which large ensembles of physics simulations must be run, preferably without wasting computational effort on uninteresting simulations. Here, in this paper, we present an iterative sampling scheme that can preferentially propose simulations in interesting regions of parameter space without neglecting unexplored regions, allowing high-quality and wide-ranging surrogate models to be trained using 2–3 times fewer simulations compare to space-filling designs. Our approach uses an explicit importance function defined on the simulation output space, balanced against a measure of simulation density which serves as a proxy for surrogate accuracy. It is easy to implement and can be tuned to find interesting simulations early in the study, allowing surrogates to be trained quickly and refined as new simulations become available; this represents an important step towards the routine generation of deep surrogate models quickly enough to be truly relevant to experimental work.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

matsim-agents v1.0

matsim-agents is a multi-agent AI framework for atomistic materials simulation and discovery. It orchestrates large language models (LLMs), machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs), and DFT codes into a single agentic loop running on laptops and DOE leadership-class supercomputers. MULTI-AGENT ORCHESTRATION A LangGraph state machine with three nodes: a Planner that converts a natural-language research objective into structured tasks; an Executor that dispatches atomistic tools and loops until the queue is empty; and an Analyst that summarizes results into a human-readable report. State is checkpointed after every step and human-in-the-loop gates can be inserted at any edge. HYPOTHESIS-DRIVEN DISCOVERY CHAT An interactive REPL (matsim-agents chat) that couples LLM dialogue with atomistic simulation. Chemical formulas are automatically detected in conversation turns and trigger a full crystal-phase exploration: structure generation → relaxation → stability scoring → result injection back into the conversation, creating a closed hypothesis-refinement loop. CRYSTAL PHASE ENUMERATION Given a composition, the phase explorer enumerates prototypes by stoichiometry: elemental (fcc/bcc/hcp/sc/diamond), binary 1:1 (rocksalt/CsCl/zincblende/ wurtzite/fluorite/rutile), ternary 1:1:3 (cubic perovskite), ternary 1:2:4 (perovskite + spinel), quaternary 1:1:2:6 (Fm-3m double perovskite). 2-D prototypes (graphene, h-BN, MoS2 2H/1T) and multilayer stacking are also supported via --include-2d and --num-layers. SUPERCELL GENERATION AND SITE DECORATION Auto-tiling to a minimum atom count (--min-atoms), explicit NxNxN tiling (--supercell), symmetry-distinct site decorations (--n-orderings), and isotropic lattice-scale sweeps (--lattice-scales) for volume bracketing. MLFF RELAXATION AND STABILITY SCORING HydraGNN (multi-headed GNN) drives structure relaxation via ASE with FIRE, BFGS, or BFGSLineSearch. Stability output: delta-E/atom ranking across phases and a max-residual-force dynamical-stability proxy. Other MLIPs (MACE, NequIP, Orb) can be plugged in through the same interface. DFT BACKENDS Quantum ESPRESSO pw.x and VASP 6.6 are first-class labellers. Both have validated GPU builds and SLURM/PBS launchers for three DOE platforms: Frontier (AMD MI250X, ROCm), Aurora (Intel PVC, oneAPI), Perlmutter (NVIDIA A100, CUDA). QE produces ~100 binaries (pw.x, ph.x, epw.x, ...). VASP supports scf, relax, vc-relax, and vc-relax-shape run types. ACTIVE-LEARNING LOOP matsim-agents al run CONFIG.yaml drives an iterative HydraGNN-DFT loop: MD generates candidates → ensemble/MC-dropout uncertainty selects the most informative → DFT labels them in parallel inside one allocation → dataset grows → HydraGNN retrains → repeat. DFT backend is a single YAML toggle (dft.backend: vasp | qe). LLM-generated seed structures are supported (no curated POSCAR library needed). Config uses ${VAR}, ${VAR:-default}, ${VAR:?msg} shell-style substitution for cross-user/cross-site portability. LLM BACKENDS Ollama (local, default), vLLM (HPC multi-GPU serving), OpenAI, Anthropic, HuggingFace Transformers+Accelerate. Selected at runtime via flag or env var with no code changes. HPC PORTABILITY Same Python entry points run on Frontier (ROCm 7.2), Aurora (oneAPI), and Perlmutter (CUDA 12). DFT and ML stacks are never co-loaded in the same shell; they couple through the scheduler and filesystem. Advanced multi-node launchers (serve, discovery-chat, single-relaxation, active-learning, QE warm-start) are provided for all three platforms. CODABENCH COMPETITION BUNDLE A self-contained benchmark: 159 atomistic test structures across 11 material classes, 5 tasks (formation energy, forces, ML relaxation, AI-DFT relaxation, phase stability ranking), public/private leaderboard split (30/70), and four ready-to-run baselines: MACE-MP-0, HydraGNN, UMA, AllScAIP.

Lupo Pasini, Massimiliano [Oak Ridge National Labo↗
DOE OSTI2024

The need for carbon-emissions-driven climate projections in CMIP7

Abstract. Previous phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) have primarily focused on simulations driven by atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs), for both idealized model experiments and climate projections of different emissions scenarios. We argue that although this approach was practical to allow parallel development of Earth system model simulations and detailed socioeconomic futures, carbon cycle uncertainty as represented by diverse, process-resolving Earth system models (ESMs) is not manifested in the scenario outcomes, thus omitting a dominant source of uncertainty in meeting the Paris Agreement. Mitigation policy is defined in terms of human activity (including emissions), with strategies varying in their timing of net-zero emissions, the balance of mitigation effort between short-lived and long-lived climate forcers, their reliance on land use strategy, and the extent and timing of carbon removals. To explore the response to these drivers, ESMs need to explicitly represent complete cycles of major GHGs, including natural processes and anthropogenic influences. Carbon removal and sequestration strategies, which rely on proposed human management of natural systems, are currently calculated in integrated assessment models (IAMs) during scenario development with only the net carbon emissions passed to the ESM. However, proper accounting of the coupled system impacts of and feedback on such interventions requires explicit process representation in ESMs to build self-consistent physical representations of their potential effectiveness and risks under climate change. We propose that CMIP7 efforts prioritize simulations driven by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and projected deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies, as well as land use and management, using the process resolution allowed by state-of-the-art ESMs to resolve carbon–climate feedbacks. Post-CMIP7 ambitions should aim to incorporate modeling of non-CO2 GHGs (in particular, sources and sinks of methane and nitrous oxide) and process-based representation of carbon removal options. These developments will allow three primary benefits: (1) resources to be allocated to policy-relevant climate projections and better real-time information related to the detectability and verification of emissions reductions and their relationship to expected near-term climate impacts, (2) scenario modeling of the range of possible future climate states including Earth system processes and feedbacks that are increasingly well-represented in ESMs, and (3) optimal utilization of the strengths of ESMs in the wider context of climate modeling infrastructure (which includes simple climate models, machine learning approaches and kilometer-scale climate models).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

A physics-informed and hierarchically regularized data-driven model for predicting fluid flow through porous media

This paper presents a new deep learning data-driven model for predicting structure dependent pore-fluid velocity fields in rock. The model is based on a Convolutional Auto-Encoder (CAE) artificial neural network capable of learning from image data generated by direct numerical simulations of fluid flow through pore-structures, such as by Lattice Boltzmann or molecular dynamics methods. The main novelty of the model in comparison to previous CAE-based data-driven approaches consists of three parts. The first is a methodology for decomposing the full-domain of the porous media into sub-regions, or “sub-domains”, in order to reduce the overall size of the CAE, batch process the sub-domains in parallel, and enable the CAE to learn local and generalizable nonlinear mappings of pore-fluid velocities. The second consists of embedding the finite difference solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes and continuity equations into convolutional layers prior to the CAE in order to provide the CAE with knowledge of fluid dynamics physics (PhyFlow). The third main novelty is that the training of the CAE is regularized with a hierarchical loss function that encourages the learning of fluid flow patterns (in a way similar to ranked modes in principal component analysis), ranking from most to least important. This is shown to increase the stability in learning, reduce over-fitting, and promote interpretability of the CAE neural network layers (HierCAE). The comprehensive new data-driven model, which we call the PhyFlow-HierCAE model, is shown to exhibit improved accuracy and generalizability of flow field predictions over conventional CAE models, attributable to the embedded physical knowledge and the hierarchical regularization, as well as realize orders of magnitude speed-ups in computation times as a surrogate for the direct numerical simulations. Examples of training and forward predictions on unseen pore-structures are provided and evaluated for data from Lattice Boltzmann and molecular dynamics simulations of pore-fluid flow. The model is shown to be a fast and accurate emulator (or “surrogate”) for predicting effective permeability of unseen pore-structures based on learning from relatively small direct numerical simulation datasets.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2024

Overview of ASDEX upgrade results in view of ITER and DEMO

Experiments on ASDEX Upgrade (AUG) in 2021 and 2022 have addressed a number of critical issues for ITER and EU DEMO. A major objective of the AUG programme is to shed light on the underlying physics of confinement, stability, and plasma exhaust in order to allow reliable extrapolation of results obtained on present day machines to these reactor-grade devices. Concerning pedestal physics, the mitigation of edge localised modes (ELMs) using resonant magnetic perturbations (RMPs) was found to be consistent with a reduction of the linear peeling-ballooning stability threshold due to the helical deformation of the plasma. Conversely, ELM suppression by RMPs is ascribed to an increased pedestal transport that keeps the plasma away from this boundary. Candidates for this increased transport are locally enhanced turbulence and a locked magnetic island in the pedestal. The enhanced D-alpha (EDA) and quasi-continuous exhaust (QCE) regimes have been established as promising ELM-free scenarios. Here, the pressure gradient at the foot of the H-mode pedestal is reduced by a quasi-coherent mode, consistent with violation of the high-n ballooning mode stability limit there. This is suggestive that the EDA and QCE regimes have a common underlying physics origin. In the area of transport physics, full radius models for both L- and H-modes have been developed. These models predict energy confinement in AUG better than the commonly used global scaling laws, representing a large step towards the goal of predictive capability. A new momentum transport analysis framework has been developed that provides access to the intrinsic torque in the plasma core. In the field of exhaust, the X-Point Radiator (XPR), a cold and dense plasma region on closed flux surfaces close to the X-point, was described by an analytical model that provides an understanding of its formation as well as its stability, i.e., the conditions under which it transitions into a deleterious MARFE with the potential to result in a disruptive termination. With the XPR close to the divertor target, a new detached divertor concept, the compact radiative divertor, was developed. Here, the exhaust power is radiated before reaching the target, allowing close proximity of the X-point to the target. No limitations by the shallow field line angle due to the large flux expansion were observed, and sufficient compression of neutral density was demonstrated. With respect to the pumping of non-recycling impurities, the divertor enrichment was found to mainly depend on the ionisation energy of the impurity under consideration. In the area of MHD physics, analysis of the hot plasma core motion in sawtooth crashes showed good agreement with nonlinear 2-fluid simulations. This indicates that the fast reconnection observed in these events is adequately described including the pressure gradient and the electron inertia in the parallel Ohm’s law. Concerning disruption physics, a shattered pellet injection system was installed in collaboration with the ITER International Organisation. Thanks to the ability to vary the shard size distribution independently of the injection velocity, as well as its impurity admixture, it was possible to tailor the current quench rate, which is an important requirement for future large devices such as ITER. Progress was also made modelling the force reduction of VDEs induced by massive gas injection on AUG. The H-mode density limit was characterised in terms of safe operational space with a newly developed active feedback control method that allowed the stability boundary to be probed several times within a single discharge without inducing a disruptive termination. Regarding integrated operation scenarios, the role of density peaking in the confinement of the ITER baseline scenario (high plasma current) was clarified. The usual energy confinement scaling ITER98(p,y) does not capture this effect, but the more recent H20 scaling does, highlighting again the importance of developing adequate physics based models. Advanced tokamak scenarios, aiming at large non-inductive current fraction due to non-standard profiles of the safety factor in combination with high normalised plasma pressure were studied with a focus on their access conditions. A method to guide the approach of the targeted safety factor profiles was developed, and the conditions for achieving good confinement were clarified. Based on this, two types of advanced scenarios (‘hybrid’ and ‘elevated’

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Developing And Scaling an OpenFOAM Model to Study Turbulent Flow in a HFIR Coolant Channel

Improving the understanding of how computational fluid dynamics (CFD) direct numerical simulations (DNS) of flows in the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) perform when run in parallel using the high performance computing (HPC) platform Summit at the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) is of particular importance to boost the computational tools used to support HFIR conversion to low enriched fuel (LEU). Evaluation of scaling performance was driven by the increasing importance of graphics processing unit (GPU) usage in HPC, which is becoming the standard for modern supercomputers such as Summit. The desired results are to obtain a strong positive correlation between the computational resources dedicated to a problem and the relative speed-up of the simulation in comparison to a benchmark. This capability will allow substantially improvement in HFIR flow analytical capabilities, specifically when predicting turbulence properties at high Reynolds numbers. The study leverages previous simulation results performed with code PHASTA (finite element) on HPC platforms Cori (NERSC) and Theta (ALCF) [1] with computing options provided in the computing platform OpenFOAM (finite volume) at OLCF. Transitioning from PHASTA to OpenFOAM will (1) eliminate dependence on third-party software for mesh generation and manipulation, (2) reduce resource needs by employing modern architectures, and (3) build expertise for future modeling of HFIR-specific problems like heat transfer in involute geometry, entrance effects, flow structure in channel corners, and so on—all important issues when defining the available thermal margins in the transition to LEU. CPUs and GPUs differ significantly in their architecture and utilization, as discussed in the literature [2]. The most important differences are in the approach to computations and their memory. A single GPU contains a large quantity of cores, enabling it to perform with a much higher throughput than a CPU, but execution requires a different approach. GPU codes execute instructions using the Single-Instruction Multiple-Thread (SIMT) approach in which a single instruction is used for groups of threads called warps. A warp typically consists of 32 threads which must execute the same set of instructions, although on separate threads. Alternately, a CPU has far fewer cores that are much more flexible in their operation, excelling at quickly performing more complex serial computations. This is why GPUs have greater throughput when properly utilized. The second important difference is seen when comparing their memory spaces. Limited memory allocations and CPU–GPU communications cause a significant bottleneck in GPU-accelerated programs. Further study was required to properly take advantage of GPU resources. A comprehensive analysis of code performance and the model-specific features of turbulence constitutes the core of this work. In this study, a DNS simulation of HFIR channel turbulence was performed with the finite volume CFD code OpenFOAM v2112 and CUDA v11.0 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux v8.2. The OpenFOAM installation had AMGx integrated to enable GPU acceleration and utilizes the PETSc4FOAM library. The computational resources and the problem size were scaled on CPU and CPU + GPU architectures to gain a better understanding of the performance of a DNS problem on modern computing hardware. The study aimed to analyze the scaling of the code exclusively on CPUs and then to examine the scaling of the codes with GPU acceleration enabled. Scaling studies included CPU and GPU acceleration on a mesh of varying resolution to analyze the impact of problem size relative to computational resources. In the course of preparing the GPU configuration on Summit, mainly using the AMGX solvers, difficulties were encountered stemming from constant changes resulting from extensive ongoing development activities and the changing environment. This resulted in the inability to complete the GPU portion of the work. The code was compiled and tested, but production runs to assess acceleration were not performed because the used discretional compute time allocation expired as year-end approached. The Summit HPC platform is scheduled for decommissioning in 2024, making it unattractive for future use with Nvidia-based GPUs. Therefore, the work will be moved onto NERSC machines in FY24. An application was prepared and submitted, and sufficient node-hours were awarded to continue the research in the next calendar year. This report summarizes work performed thus far, which mostly focused on CPU OpenFOAM computing.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2026

KRAS4a and KRAS4b show distinct lipid-dependent regulation of RAS-RAF membrane dynamics

KRAS4a and KRAS4b are important regulators of signaling, and their interactions with the plasma membrane are dynamic and influenced by lipid composition. KRAS 4a and 4b have nearly identical globular domains but differ in their membrane-associated hyper variable region (HVR). The functional distinctions between these isoforms remain unclear, particularly with regards to their dependence on specific lipids and the membrane environment. Previous work showed that the membrane orientation of KRAS4b affects its ability to bind to RAF kinase RBDCRD and that the KRAS–RBDCRD complex adopts different poses on the membrane as well as influences the size and composition of the lipid environment. To model differences between KRAS 4a and 4b protein–lipid interactions, we extended the Multiscale Machine-Learned Modeling Infrastructure (MuMMI) to incorporate continuum simulations in the grand canonical ensemble, enabling sampling across macroscopic, coarse-grained, and all-atom resolutions. Using this framework, we systematically altered PIP2 concentrations, KRAS 4a versus 4b, and RAF RBDCRD complexation to assess impacts on membrane–protein interactions and dynamics. Our results reveal that reducing PIP2 shifts and broadens the membrane orientational preference of both KRAS 4b and 4a, with stronger effects on 4b HVR localization versus 4a. We demonstrate that with depletion of the strong negatively charged PIP2 lipid, the less charged phosphatidylserine replaces PIP2. Our findings highlight similarities and distinctions in the dynamics and lipid dependency of KRAS isoforms and suggest that ordering of the local lipid composition by HVRs is a shared property and key modulator of RAS-mediated signaling at the plasma membrane.

Biological and medical sciences↗
DOE OSTI2026

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↗