MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396681781 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202429505019

The ATLAS experiment software on ARM

2024· article· en· W4396681781 on OpenAlexaff
J. Elmsheuser, Fernando Barreiro Megino, A. De Salvo, Asoka De Silva, R. Hauser, D. Konstantinov, A. Krasznahorkay, M. Lassnig, André Sailer

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsLarge Hadron ColliderSoftwareOperating systemPortingGridComputer scienceAtlas (anatomy)WorkflowExploitARM architectureBenchmark (surveying)Embedded systemDatabasePhysicsParticle physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With an increased dataset obtained during the Run 3 of the LHC at CERN and the even larger expected increase of the dataset by more than one order of magnitude for the HL-LHC, the ATLAS experiment is reaching the limits of the current data processing model in terms of traditional CPU resources based on x86_64 architectures and an extensive program for software upgrades towards the HL-LHC has been set up. The ARM architecture is becoming a competitive and energy efficient alternative. Some surveys indicate its increased presence in HPCs and commercial clouds, and some WLCG sites have expressed their interest. Chip makers are also developing their next generation solutions on ARM architectures, sometimes combining ARM and GPU processors in the same chip. Consequently it is important that the ATLAS software embraces the change and is able to successfully exploit this architecture. We report on the successful porting to ARM of the Athena software framework, which is used by ATLAS for both online and offline computing operations. Furthermore we report on the successful validation of simulation workflows running on ARM resources. For this we have set up an ATLAS Grid site using ARM compatible middleware and containers on Amazon Web Services (AWS) ARM resources. The ARM version of Athena is fully integrated in the regular software build system and distributed in the same way as other software releases. In addition, the workflows have been integrated into the HEPscore benchmark suite which is the planned WLCG wide replacement of the HepSpec06 benchmark used for Grid site pledges. In the overall porting process we have used resources on AWS, Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and CERN. A performance comparison of different architectures and resources will be discussed.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207