Experience with adapting to a software framework for a use-case in computational science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effective use of HPC infrastructure critically depends on the human resources involved in the maintenance and operation of these systems alongside the domain scientists and scientific programmers who develop scientific applications to leverage these systems. The workforce typically consists of undergraduates/postgraduates in different fields with broad areas of training in scientific computing and some programming skills with aptitude in HPC. However, there is a gap in the university-level curriculum and the skill set required to adapt to the requirements for developing scientific applications. Some efforts are there to fill this gap through workforce training programs to prepare the graduates for HPC jobs in industry/national labs. In this work, we share our experience training the workforce to adapt to AMReX ( https://amrex-codes.github.io/amrex/docs_html/ ), a software framework developed under the Exascale computing project for scientific application development. It requires recapitulation of partial differential equations (PDEs), an indispensable mathematical model for describing physical systems across different scientific domains. We discuss our engagement with the intern, the trainees, and the development team in orienting them to scientific computing on the HPC platform, PDE solvers in particular. We highlight some of the features of the AMReX framework that helped the development team to contribute AMReX-based phase field solvers in the MicroSim phase field solver suite as a case study in adapting to the framework. These solvers can target different architectures without modifications due to the abstraction layer that provides immunity to developers for programming on different architectures. This experience can help to evolve a training model to build the HPC workforce.
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 | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".