MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416004471 · doi:10.1145/3731599.3767347

ROSE: RADICAL Orchestrator for Surrogate Exploration

2025· article· W4416004471 on OpenAlexaff
Aymen Al-Saadi, Andrew Park, Pradeep Bajracharya, Linwei Wang, Fanbo Sun, Sudip K. Seal, Vikram Jadhao, Geoffrey Fox, Shantenu Jha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrchestrationScalabilityAsynchronous communicationSurrogate modelThroughputSoftwareInference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientific computing increasingly relies on surrogate models to accelerate high-fidelity simulations, enable real-time predictions, and facilitate exploration of the design space. However, building effective surrogates at scale presents several challenges: simulations are computationally expensive, data generation must be carefully managed, and surrogate learning requires handling large, heterogeneous, and dynamically evolving workflows. These challenges are amplified in active learning contexts, where surrogate models guide further data acquisition, resulting in a tight coupling between simulation, inference, and model training. This paper introduces the ROSE (RADICAL Orchestrator for Surrogate Exploration) framework, a flexible, portable, and scalable software system designed to support the end-to-end lifecycle of surrogate modeling in high-performance computing environments. ROSE integrates active learning algorithms with scalable orchestration, managing asynchronous execution across diverse computing resources while minimizing user burden. It supports both in-situ and ex-situ workflows, online and offline training, and accommodates the dynamic structure of adaptive sampling and surrogate refinement. ROSE is used for three scientific use cases: electrolyte structure extraction, neutron diffraction structure recovery, and colloid phase classification. Across Polaris, Perlmutter, and Delta, ROSE sustains high throughput with low orchestration overhead, and delivers 4–8 × end-to-end speedups in our three use cases by exploiting parallel, pilot-based execution, where asynchronous orchestration typically yields 1.5–3 × versus synchronous baselines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.008

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207