HPC-driven computational reproducibility in numerical relativity codes: A use case study with IllinoisGRMHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproducibility of results is a cornerstone of the scientific method. Scientific computing encounters two challenges when aiming for this goal. Firstly, reproducibility should not depend on details of the runtime environment, such as the compiler version or computing environment, so results are verifiable by third-parties. Secondly, different versions of software code executed in the same runtime environment should produce consistent numerical results for physical quantities. In this manuscript, we test the feasibility of reproducing scientific results obtained using the IllinoisGRMHD code that is part of an open-source community software for simulation in relativistic astrophysics, the Einstein Toolkit. We verify that numerical results of simulating a single isolated neutron star with IllinoisGRMHD can be reproduced, and compare them to results reported by the code authors in 2015. We use two different supercomputers: Expanse at SDSC, and Stampede2 at TACC. By compiling the source code archived along with the paper on both Expanse and Stampede2, we find that IllinoisGRMHD reproduces results published in its announcement paper up to errors comparable to round-off level changes in initial data parameters. We also verify that a current version of IlliinoisGRMHD reproduces these results once we account for bug fixes which has occurred since the original publication
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".