MULTIGRID METHODS WITH SPACE-TIME CONCURRENCY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the comparison of multigrid methods for parabolic partial differential equations that allow space–time concurrency. With current trends in computer architectures leading towards systems with more, but not faster, processors, space–time concurrency is crucial for speeding up time-integration simulations. In contrast, traditional time-integration techniques impose serious limitations on parallel performance due to the sequential nature of the time-stepping approach, allowing spatial concurrency only. This paper considers the three basic options of multigrid algorithms on space–time grids that allow parallelism in space and time: coarsening in space and time, semicoarsening in the spatial dimensions, and semicoarsening in the temporal dimension. We develop parallel software and performance models to study the three methods at scales of up to 16K cores and introduce an extension of one of them for handling multistep time integration. We then discuss advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches and their benefit compared to traditional space-parallel algorithms with sequential time stepping on modern architectures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".