MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027923939 · doi:10.1177/1094342006064571

Scalability Modeling For Deterministic Particle Transport Solvers

2006· article· en· W2027923939 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed Dahmani, Robert J. Le Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSolverNeutron transportScalabilityParallel computingComputationComputational scienceCode (set theory)AlgorithmNeutronPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a new parallel solver for the large-scale 3D neutron transport problems used in nuclear reactor simulations. Modern large-memory computers have made possible direct application of transport methods to large-scale computational models. However, many numerical acceleration techniques common to lattice transport codes are not applicable to heterogeneous geometry, especially high-dominance ratio when eigenvalue problems are solved. Consequently, large heterogeneous reactor problems have remained computationally intensive and impractical for routine engineering applications. Based on the characteristics method, this new code solves the transport equation by following neutron tracks. Due to the excessive number of these tracks in the demanding context of 3D large-scale calculations, the parallelization of the solver is the only way to obtain a fast solution. The parallelization is based on distributing a group of tracks, generated by a common ray tracing procedure, on several processors. An analytical model for the communication/ computation ratio is presented in order to predict the specific performance on different kind of architectures. A scalability analysis based on the isoefficiency function is performed on our parallel code when we increase the size of the problem and the number of processors. Tests are done to validate the analytical model by comparing the results to those given by the empirical tests. Results show that our parallel code is scalable and portable.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of High Performance Computing ApplicationsSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207