Search for: All records

Summary Energy‐efficient scientific applications require insight into how high performance computing system features impact the applications' power and performance. This insight can result from the development of performance and power models. In this article, we use the modeling and prediction tool MuMMI (Multiple Metrics Modeling Infrastructure) and 10 machine learning methods to model and predict performance and power consumption and compare their prediction error rates. We use an algorithm‐based fault‐tolerant linear algebra code and a multilevel checkpointing fault‐tolerant heat distribution code to conduct our modeling and prediction study on the Cray XC40 Theta and IBM BG/Q Mira at Argonne National Laboratory and the Intel Haswell cluster Shepard at Sandia National Laboratories. Our experimental results show that the prediction error rates in performance and power using MuMMI are less than 10% for most cases. By utilizing the models for runtime, node power, CPU power, and memory power, we identify the most significant performance counters for potential application optimizations, and we predict theoretical outcomes of the optimizations. Based on two collected datasets, we analyze and compare the prediction accuracy in performance and power consumption using MuMMI and 10 machine learning methods. 

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change—in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices—provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures ( n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.