MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770790588 · doi:10.1177/1094342017736373

Performance analysis of fully explicit and fully implicit solvers within a spectral element shallow-water atmosphere model

2017· article· en· W2770790588 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSandia National LaboratoriesLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryOak Ridge National LaboratoryBiological and Environmental ResearchU.S. Department of EnergyAdvanced Scientific Computing ResearchDivision of Mathematical SciencesOffice of ScienceSouthern Methodist UniversityUT-BattelleBattelleYork University
KeywordsPreconditionerSolverComputer scienceShallow water equationsParallel computingComputational scienceGraphics processing unitApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmIterative methodMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Explicit Runge–Kutta methods and implicit multistep methods utilizing a Newton–Krylov nonlinear solver are evaluated for a range of configurations of the shallow-water dynamical core of the spectral element community atmosphere model to evaluate their computational performance. These configurations are designed to explore the attributes of each method under different but relevant model usage scenarios including varied spectral order within an element, static regional refinement, and scaling to the largest problem sizes. This analysis is performed within the shallow-water dynamical core option of a full climate model code base to enable a wealth of simulations for study, with the aim of informing solver development within the more complete hydrostatic dynamical core used for climate research. The limitations and benefits to using explicit versus implicit methods, with different parameters and settings, are discussed in light of the trade-offs with Message Passing Interface (MPI) communication and memory and their inherent efficiency bottlenecks. Given the performance behavior across the configurations analyzed here, the recommendation for future work using the implicit solvers is conditional based on scale separation and the stiffness of the problem. For the regionally refined configurations, the implicit method has about the same efficiency as the explicit method, without considering efficiency gains from a preconditioner. The potential for improvement using a preconditioner is greatest for higher spectral order configurations, where more work is shifted to the linear solver. Initial simulations with OpenACC directives to utilize a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) when performing function evaluations show improvements locally, and that overall gains are possible with adjustments to data exchanges.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · 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