Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 134 references

Towards Experiment Execution in Support of Community Benchmark Workflows for HPC

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Two independently built HPC tools converged on the same abstractions for running benchmark experiments, and the authors take the convergence as evidence that those abstractions are fundamental to emerging HPC and AI workflows.

desk verdict The convergence claim is circular — the requirements were distilled from the same two tools offered as independent evidence — but this is a useful experience report with a solid requirements catalog that deserves peer review after reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22294 v1 pith:XEZ2U4VM submitted 2025-07-30 cs.DC

Gregor von Laszewski , Wesley Brewer , Sean R. Wilkinson , Andrew Shao , J.P. Fleischer , Harshad Pitkar , Christine R. Kirkpatrick , Geoffrey C. Fox This is my paper
classification cs.DC
keywords benchmarkinghyperparametersearchexperimentexecutionworkflowtemplatesbenchmarkcarpentryHPCworkflowsCloudmeshSmartSim
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a compact set of experiment-execution requirements—hyperparameter sweeps, batch-queue abstraction, reusable workflow templates, FAIR-compliant result reporting, and SSH-based access across heterogeneous machines—are fundamental to running benchmark workflows on today's HPC and AI systems. The supporting evidence is convergence: Cloudmesh's Experiment Executor and Compute Coordinator and the SmartSim toolkit were, the authors assert, developed independently, yet they landed on nearly identical abstractions, responsibilities, and terminology. The paper turns that overlap into a requirements list spanning compute systems, users, workflow specification, runtime, authentication, data management, and licensing, and it proposes 'benchmark carpentry' plus shared templates as the way to make benchmarking teachable and portable. If the convergence claim is right, the list is a durable checklist for building the next generation of benchmark workflow tools and for training the scientists who will use them.

What carries the argument

The central object is the experiment template: a compact specification—YAML in Cloudmesh, a Python driver script in SmartSim—that names the application, the hyperparameters to iterate over, and the resources to use, from which the tool generates concrete batch scripts for a workload manager. The evidentiary machinery is the cross-comparison of the two implementations: Table 3 catalogs which features each system provides, and Table 4 maps every Section 2 requirement onto the two systems, displaying the functional overlap that grounds the convergence claim. Both systems support gridsearch over parameters, cyclic as well as direct-acyclic-graph (DAG) execution, batch-queue integration, and template reuse, and this shared core is what the argument treats as fundamental.

What would settle it

Audit the two projects' design histories: if they reveal that SmartSim's designers had access to Cloudmesh, to the first author's earlier loop-capable workflow systems, or to the same community venues before SmartSim's abstractions were fixed, the independence premise fails and the convergence argument collapses. The complementary check is to run the Section 2 requirement list against a third-party workflow engine built with no author involvement; an engine that satisfies most rows would confirm the list is fundamental, while one that fails most rows would indicate the list encodes local design choices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that two separately built Python toolkits for experiment execution—a workflow that provisions data, runs an application, and varies hyperparameters across many single runs—supply the same core machinery: a way to define an experiment as a parameterized template, a generator that expands a Cartesian product of hyperparameters and hardware parameters into many individual batch jobs, an abstraction layer over workload managers, and a uniform scheme for collecting and reporting results. Cloudmesh expresses experiments in YAML and adds features for SSH-based federation, split-VPN access, and plugin extensibility, while SmartSim expresses experiments in Python driver scripts and adds an in-memory datastore for exchanging data between simulation and AI components; neither of these differences is needed for the overlap. The authors conclude that because two independent implementations converged, the requirements distilled in their Section 2 are not arbitrary design choices but map onto fundamental needs that emerging HPC and AI workflows will place on any experiment executor.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two projects were genuinely independent—Section 3 opens by asserting they were developed without knowledge of each other until this paper was written—because only that asserted independence turns the overlap into evidence that the requirements are fundamental rather than shared community convention.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New benchmark workflow tools can be checked against the Section 2 requirement list as a functional checklist; the paper presents the list as a necessary, though not complete, subset for emerging HPC and AI workflows.
  • Reusable templates cut the time to stand up a working benchmark: the paper reports students using templated experiments reached a working benchmark in under a day, where untemplated efforts consumed weeks to months and typically needed a graduate student.
  • The OSMI surrogate-inference benchmark can be driven through both Cloudmesh and SmartSim with no changes to either package, which the authors take as evidence that the distilled requirements are sufficient for a real hybrid simulation-AI workload.
  • A next-generation experiment executor should combine the unique strengths of both systems, namely Cloudmesh's plugin, federation, and split-VPN capabilities with SmartSim's in-memory datastore and built-in inference support.
  • Provisioning on-demand HPC clusters in the cloud, priced in the paper at roughly $4.18 per GPU-hour for an A100 example, adds a cost-estimation duty to experiment executors, because on-premise users traditionally never see the price of their allocation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The independence premise is the vulnerable joint of the argument: the two lead authors co-author this paper, both systems' teams move in the same benchmark community, and the related-work section shows the Cloudmesh author's earlier workflow systems already supported loops and iterations, so the overlap could reflect a shared lineage rather than independent discovery. Checking the two projects' de
  • The paper explicitly declines to compare with the hundreds of other workflow engines because the authors are not privy to their design histories; a cheap external check of the 'fundamental' claim would therefore be to run the Table 4 requirement list against an unrelated third-party engine and see how many rows it satisfies.
  • The benchmark-carpentry report carries a testable educational prediction: students given templated experiments reached a working benchmark in under a day while untemplated efforts took weeks to months. A controlled classroom study with matched tasks could measure this gap directly.
  • The convergence claim could be deepened beyond feature tables by diffing the artifacts: running one benchmark, such as cloudmask or OSMI, through both systems on the same machine and comparing the generated batch scripts and result schemas would show whether the overlap sits at the API level or extends down to the emitted jobs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes workflow templates and "benchmark carpentry" as a way to make HPC benchmarks accessible to diverse scientific communities. It compiles a set of workflow requirements organized into compute systems, users, workflow specification, runtime, authentication, data management, and licensing, based on the authors' decades of experience and their participation in MLCommons Science. The paper's central claim is that these requirements are fundamental because two allegedly independent tools, Cloudmesh's Experiment Executor and Compute Coordinator and HPE's SmartSim, converge on the same abstractions. The paper also describes the OSMI benchmark, a cloud-provisioning plugin for AWS PCS with a cost equation, and several application use cases. A long appendix summarizes the co-authors' own prior work.

Significance. If the convergence claim were well founded, the paper would provide a useful requirements checklist for community HPC/AI benchmark workflows and a novel educational concept (benchmark carpentry). The paper has concrete strengths: the five-tier resource model, Eq. (1) for AWS cluster cost with cost tables, the explicitly FAIR-oriented data management discussion, and the public code repositories for Cloudmesh plugins and OSMI are checkable artifacts. However, the validation is circular and the independence premise is unverified, so the manuscript does not currently establish that the requirements are "fundamental" as claimed in the abstract and Section 6. The paper also ships no machine-checked proof or reproducible dataset for the index-equilibrium or education claims; the AWS cost arithmetic is internally consistent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, opening paragraph; Section 6] The requirements in Section 2 are stated to be "distilled from our experience as principal developers of two workflow libraries Cloudmesh and SmartSim," yet the same two tools are then presented in Table 4 and the conclusion as independent confirmation that the requirements are fundamental. This is a circular validation: the evidence and the hypothesis share the same origin. To support the convergence claim, the authors need either to show that the requirements were derived before the tools' design decisions (e.g., from the MLCommons Science working group or from external sources) or to apply the requirement list to several workflow systems not authored by this paper's authors and demonstrate that the list predicts their feature sets.
  2. [Section 3, opening paragraph; Author Contributions] The claim that Cloudmesh and SmartSim "were developed completely independently without knowledge of the other until the writing of this paper" is asserted without supporting evidence. The manuscript itself notes that "the authors are not privy to the software engineering and design history of those" other workflow systems, so no external baseline is provided. Because both tools are authored by co-authors of this manuscript, the convergence between them could plausibly arise from shared community conventions, prior collaborations, or common lineage (e.g., the authors' own earlier workflow systems such as Karajan and Swift). Please provide concrete evidence of independence, such as development timelines, issue histories, or contributor lists, or alternatively add a systematic comparison of the requirements against external systems such as Pegasus, Nextflow, Parsl, and ExaWorks.
  3. [Section 3.3.2, paragraph beginning "While practically working with the system"] The claim that using Cloudmesh EE reduces the on-ramp time from weeks-months to less than a day and lowers the required team from graduate students to a single undergraduate is supported only by an informal qualitative observation, with no sample size, no methodology, no control group, and no data. This claim is used in the abstract to support the educational benefits of "benchmark carpentry." Please either provide a rigorous evaluation (e.g., a structured user study with numbers of participants and tasks) or reframe the claim as anecdotal and remove it from the abstract's central argument.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 1, paragraph 4] "The increasing using of machine learning" should be "The increasing use of machine learning."
  2. [Section 2.1] The tier labels are inconsistent ("Tier-0" vs. "Tier 0"); choose one convention for readability.
  3. [Section 3.2, Listing 1] The import line reads "from smartsim impo rt Experiment"; fix the typo.
  4. [Section 3.3.2, SLURM template example] The output option "-o" appears twice; the second instance should presumably be "-e" for error output.
  5. [Section 3.4, Table 1 heading] "A WS PCS" should be "AWS PCS."
  6. [Section 3.7] "undelaying respurces" and "direclty" should be "underlying resources" and "directly."
  7. [Section 4.1] "facillitated" should be "facilitated."
  8. [Section 2.1, Figure 1] The claim "Index Equilibrium is at about 7" should cite the specific Top500 list version and date and provide the underlying data, since this number is used in the "Minimal support for virtualization in the cloud" implication.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Requirements are distilled from Cloudmesh and SmartSim and then the same two tools are presented as independent evidence that the requirements are fundamental; the asserted independence is internal, not externally verified.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 (Workflow Requirements, intro) and Section 3 (Overview and Implementation of the Experiment Executors, opening paragraph)]
    "Importantly, these requirements listed had a direct impact in the development of the experiment executors for SmartSim and Cloudmesh. ... The requirements discussed previously were distilled from our experience as principal developers of two workflow libraries Cloudmesh and SmartSim."

    The requirements are explicitly derived from the very two tools that are later used as evidence of convergence. Section 2 states the requirements 'had a direct impact in the development' of SmartSim and Cloudmesh, and Section 3 states they were 'distilled from our experience as principal developers' of those tools. The subsequent comparison (Table 4) then maps each requirement back onto the same tools. This is a closed loop: requirements were extracted from the tools' feature sets, and the tools are then shown to satisfy those requirements by construction. The mapping does not test or validate the requirements against any external source; it merely restates the design inputs.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 opening paragraph and Section 6 (Conclusion)]
    "This remarkable convergence and their demonstrated use across a wide variety of novel use cases suggests that the requirements discussed here are fundamental to the types of emerging computational paradigms in the exascale era. ... Most importantly we discovered that these requirements have been fulfilled by two completely independently developed efforts."

    The central 'discovery' that the requirements are fundamental is fitted to the two-tool sample that generated the requirements. The independence premise ('developed completely independently without knowledge of the other until the writing of this paper') is asserted without supporting evidence such as design histories, and both tools are contributed to by co-authors of this paper. The paper also declines to compare with external workflow systems: 'the authors are not privy to the software engineering and design history of those.' Consequently, the convergence between Cloudmesh and SmartSim does not provide independent confirmation; it is an internal consistency check between two artifacts shaped by the same authors' experience, not an external validation of the requirements.

full rationale

The paper's requirements section is candid that the listed requirements came from the authors' own experience developing Cloudmesh and SmartSim, and that those requirements guided the tools' development. The validation section then uses the overlap between those same two tools as evidence that the requirements are 'fundamental' to emerging HPC/AI workflows. That is circular in the specific sense that the tools' features are both the source of the requirements and the evidence offered for their generality. The two-tool convergence would be meaningful only if the tools were truly independent and if the requirements had not been distilled from them; the paper asserts independence but provides no external documentation, and its own author contributions describe both tools as part of the same collaborative ecosystem (e.g., Shao is a lead developer of SmartSim, GvL is the author of Cloudmesh, and both are used in the OSMI work co-authored here). There is also some self-citation for the term 'benchmark carpentry' ([95]), but that is not load-bearing for the central requirements claim. The paper does contain genuinely useful engineering descriptions and use cases, so the circularity is partial rather than total. The score of 6 reflects that the central 'fundamental requirements' claim reduces to an internal fit between requirements and the tools that supplied them, while the underlying tool implementations and use-case descriptions retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data; the cost formula H = C + N*(M+I) uses AWS list prices and is not tuned. No new physical or software entities are postulated; 'benchmark carpentry' and 'experiment executor' are descriptive terms introduced in earlier work. The main assumptions are the independence of the two tools, the generality of personal experience, and the choice of YAML as the specification language.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Two independently developed tools that overlap in functionality imply the requirements are fundamental.
    This underlies the central conclusion in Section 6, but the two tools are both developed by the paper's authors, so the 'independence' does not provide external grounding.
  • domain assumption The personal experience of the authors generalizes to the broader HPC and educational community.
    The requirements in Section 2 are presented as universal, but they are derived from the authors' own projects and communities without a systematic survey.
  • domain assumption YAML is a sufficiently expressive and accessible language for workflow specification.
    The paper assumes YAML is the right abstraction in Sections 2.3 and 3.3, based on anecdotal experience with students, not on a comparative study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Experiment Execution in Support of Community Benchmark Workflows for HPC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XEZ2U4VM

@misc{pith2026250722294,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Experiment Execution in Support of Community Benchmark Workflows for HPC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XEZ2U4VM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22294}
}
read the original abstract

A key hurdle is demonstrating compute resource capability with limited benchmarks. We propose workflow templates as a solution, offering adaptable designs for specific scientific applications. Our paper identifies common usage patterns for these templates, drawn from decades of HPC experience, including recent work with the MLCommons Science working group. We found that focusing on simple experiment management tools within the broader computational workflow improves adaptability, especially in education. This concept, which we term benchmark carpentry, is validated by two independent tools: Cloudmesh's Experiment Executor and Hewlett Packard Enterprise's SmartSim. Both frameworks, with significant functional overlap, have been tested across various scientific applications, including conduction cloudmask, earthquake prediction, simulation-AI/ML interactions, and the development of computational fluid dynamics surrogates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22294 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top500 List Comparison with the index equilibrium at about 7. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the Cloudmesh Workflow Service Framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cloudmesh Experiment Specification Example. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Table and Graph view of CC experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: OpenAPI workflow interfaces. first experiments with a smaller runtime in order to estimate the impact larger experiments have on the runtime. While practically working with the system, we observed that stu￾dents (as part of research experiences) not using our experimen…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Architecture of OSMI benchmark. Requirements implied by the OSMI benchmark. The immediate requirements we gather from such a com￾plex experiment workflow are (a) the interplay between large computational components executed on GPUs that are interwoven with the overall …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scheduling challenges applied to all levels. We added not all but selected publications that we worked on as part of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Machine-learned surrogate model training and de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Digital twin workflow [20]. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Exascale Workflow Applications and Middleware: An ExaWorks Retrospective

    Aymen Alsaadi, Mihael Hategan-Marandiuc, Ketan Maheshwari, Andre Merzky, Mikhail Titov, Matteo Turilli, Andreas Wilke, Justin M. Wozniak, Kyle Chard, Rafael Ferreira da Silva, Shantenu Jha, and Daniel Laney. 2024. Exascale Workflow Applications and Middleware: An ExaWorks Retrospective. (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.10637 arXiv:2411.10637 [cs.SE]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.10637 2024

  2. [2]

    Integration in reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces of Gaussian kernels

    Kaizar Amin, Mihael Hategan, Gregor von Laszewski, Nestor J. Zaluzec, Shawn Hampton, and Albert Rossi. 2004. GridAnt: A Client-Controllable Grid Workflow System. In 37th Hawai’i International Conference on System Science, Vol. 7. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, Island of Hawaii, Big Island. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265491 The orig...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Kaizar Amin, Gregor von Laszewski, Rashid Al Ali, Omer Rana, and David Walker. 2006. An Abstraction Model for a Grid Execution Framework.Euromicro Journal of Systems Architecture 52, 2 (2006), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sysarc.2004.10.007

    doi:10.1016/j 2006

  4. [4]

    V Ananthraj, K De, S Jha, A Klimentov, D Oleynik, S Oral, A Merzky, R Mashin- istov, S Panitkin, P Svirin, M Turilli, J Wells, and S Wilkinson. 2018. Towards Exascale Computing for High Energy Physics: The ATLAS Experience at ORNL. In 2018 IEEE 14th International Conference on e-Science (e-Science) . 341–342. https://doi.org/10.1109/eScience.2018.00086

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    K. B. Antypas, D. J. Bard, J. P. Blaschke, R. Shane Canon, Bjoern Enders, Mallikar- jun Arjun Shankar, Suhas Somnath, Dale Stansberry, Thomas D. Uram, and Sean R. Wilkinson. 2021. Enabling discovery data science through cross-facility workflows. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) . 3671–

    2021

  6. [6]

    Jyotika Athavale, Cullen Bash, Wesley Brewer, Matthias Maiterth, Dejan Miloji- cic, Harry Petty, and Soumyendu Sarkar. 2024. Digital Twins for Data Centers. Computer 57, 10 (2024), 151–158

    2024

  7. [7]

    Avetisyan, Roy Campbell, Indranil Gupta, Michael T

    Arutyun I. Avetisyan, Roy Campbell, Indranil Gupta, Michael T. Heath, Steven Y. Ko, Gregory R. Ganger, Michael A. Kozuch, David O’Hallaron, Marcel Kunze, Thomas T. Kwan, Kevin Lai, Martha Lyons, Dejan S. Milojicic, Hing Yan Lee, Yeng Chai Soh, Ng Kwang Ming, Jing-Yuan Luke, and Han Namgoong. 2010. Open Cirrus: A Global Cloud Computing Testbed. Computer 43...

    work page doi:10.1109/mc.2010.111 2010

  8. [8]

    AWS. 2024. What is AWS ParallelCluster. NA (Oct. 2024). https://docs.aws. amazon.com/parallelcluster/latest/ug/what-is-aws-parallelcluster.html [Online; Accessed on 03/01/2025]

    2024

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    AWS. 2025. HPC Workload Service – AWS Parallel Computing Service Pric- ing. Web Page. https://aws.amazon.com/pcs/pricing/ [Online; accessed on 03/08/2025]

    2025

  2. [10]

    Katz, Ben Clifford, Rohan Kumar, Lukasz Lacinski, Ryan Chard, Justin M

    Yadu Babuji, Anna Woodard, Zhuozhao Li, Daniel S. Katz, Ben Clifford, Rohan Kumar, Lukasz Lacinski, Ryan Chard, Justin M. Wozniak, Ian Foster, Michael Wilde, and Kyle Chard. 2019. Parsl: Pervasive Parallel Programming in Python. In Proceedings of the 28th International Symposi...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Badia, Laure Berti-Equille, Rafael Ferreira Da Silva, and Ulf Leser

    Rosa M. Badia, Laure Berti-Equille, Rafael Ferreira Da Silva, and Ulf Leser. 2024. Integrating HPC, AI, and Workflows for Scientific Data Analysis: Report from Dagstuhl Seminar 23352 . Technical Report. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States). https...

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Prasanna Balaprakash, Michael Salim, Thomas D Uram, Venkat Vishwanath, and Stefan M Wild. 2018. DeepHyper: Asynchronous hyperparameter search for deep neural networks. In 2018 IEEE 25th international conference on high performance computing (HiPC). IEEE, 42–51. https://doi.org...

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Shanti Bhushan, Greg W Burgreen, Wesley Brewer, and Ian D Dettwiller. 2021. Development and validation of a machine learned turbulence model. Energies 14, 5 (2021), 1465. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14051465

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Shanti Bhushan, Greg W Burgreen, Wesley Brewer, and Ian D Dettwiller. 2023. Assessment of neural network augmented Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes turbulence model in extrapolation modes. Physics of Fluids 35, 5 (2023). https: //doi.org/10.1063/5.0146456

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Bieberich, Ketan C

    Samuel T. Bieberich, Ketan C. Maheshwari, Sean R. Wilkinson, Prasanna Date, In-Saeng Suh, and Rafael Ferreira da Silva. 2023. Bridging HPC and Quantum Systems using Scientific Workflows. (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310. 03286 arXiv:2310.03286 [cs.ET]

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Alexey Bochkovskiy, Chien-Yao Wang, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. 2020. YOLOv4: Optimal Speed and Accuracy of Object Detection. arXiv (2020). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.10934 arXiv:2004.10934 cs.CV

    2020 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Mathew Boyer, Wesley Brewer, Dylan Jude, and Ian Dettwiller. 2022. Scalable Integration of Computational Physics Simulations with Machine Learning. In 2022 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Scientific Applications (AI4S) . IEEE...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Wesley Brewer, Greg Behm, Alan Scheinine, Ben Parsons, Wesley Emeneker, and Robert P Trevino. 2020. Inference benchmarking on HPC systems. In 2020 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC) . IEEE, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPEC43674.2020.9286138

    2020

  11. [19]

    Wes Brewer, Ana Gainaru, Frédéric Suter, Feiyi Wang, Murali Emani, and Shantenu Jha. 2024. AI-coupled HPC Workflow Applications, Middleware and Performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14315 (2024). https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2406.14315

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Wesley Brewer, Matthias Maiterth, Vineet Kumar, Rafal Wojda, Sedrick Bouknight, Jesse Hines, Woong Shin, Scott Greenwood, David Grant, Wes- ley Williams, and Feiyi Wang. 2024. A digital twin framework for liquid-cooled supercomputers as demonstrated at exascale. In Proceedings...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Wesley Brewer, Daniel Martinez, Mathew Boyer, Dylan Jude, Andy Wissink, Ben Parsons, Junqi Yin, and Valentine Anantharaj. 2021. Production deployment of machine-learned rotorcraft surrogate models on HPC. In 2021 IEEE/ACM Workshop on Machine Learning in High Performance Comput...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Wesley Brewer, Daniel Martinez, Muralikrishnan Gopalakrishnan Meena, Aditya Kashi, Katarzyna Borowiec, Siyan Liu, Christopher Pilmaier, Greg Burgreen, and Shanti Bhushan. 2023. Entropy-driven Optimal Sub-sampling of Fluid Dynamics for Developing Machine-learned Surrogates. In ...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Salvador Capella-Gutierrez, Diana de la Iglesia, Juergen Haas, Analia Lourenco, José María Fernández, Dmitry Repchevsky, Christophe Dessimoz, Torsten Schwede, Cedric Notredame, Josep Ll Gelpi, and Alfonso Valencia. 2017. Lessons Learned: Recommendations for Establishing Critic...

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Carpentries Introduction. 2025. Introduction to Workflows with Common Work- flow Language. https://carpentries-incubator.github.io/cwl-novice-tutorial/01- introduction/index.html [Online; accessed 03/01/2025]

    2025

  17. [25]

    Ryan Chard, Yadu Babuji, Zhuozhao Li, Tyler Skluzacek, Anna Woodard, Ben Blaiszik, Ian Foster, and Kyle Chard. 2020. funcX: A Federated Function Serving Fabric for Science. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on High- Performance Parallel and Distributed Computi...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Stéphane Charette. 2022. Stéphane’s Darknet FAQ (Apr 2022). https://www. ccoderun.ca/programming/darknet_faq/

    2022

  19. [27]

    Wilkin- son, Justin Wozniak, Frédéric Suter, Mallikarjun Shankar, and Rafael Ferreira Da Silva

    Tainã Coleman, Henri Casanova, Ketan Maheshwari, Loïc Pottier, Sean R. Wilkin- son, Justin Wozniak, Frédéric Suter, Mallikarjun Shankar, and Rafael Ferreira Da Silva. 2022. WfBench: Automated Generation of Scientific Workflow Bench- marks. In 2022 IEEE/ACM International Worksh...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Tainã Coleman, Henri Casanova, Loïc Pottier, Manav Kaushik, Ewa Deelman, and Rafael Ferreira da Silva. 2022. WfCommons: A Framework for Enabling Scientific Workflow Research and Development. Future Generation Computer Systems 128 (2022), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future...

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Badia, Venkat Bala, Debbie Bard, Peer-Timo Bremer, Ian Buckley, Silvina Caino-Lores, Kyle Chard, Carole Goble, Shantenu Jha, Daniel S

    Rafael Ferreira da Silva, Rosa M. Badia, Venkat Bala, Debbie Bard, Peer-Timo Bremer, Ian Buckley, Silvina Caino-Lores, Kyle Chard, Carole Goble, Shantenu Jha, Daniel S. Katz, Daniel Laney, Manish Parashar, Frederic Suter, Nick Tyler, Thomas Uram, Ilkay Altintas, Stefan Anderss...

  22. [30]

    DeLeon, Thomas R

    Robert L. DeLeon, Thomas R. Furlani, Steven M. Gallo, Joseph P. White, Matthew D. Jones, Abani Patra, Martins Innus, Thomas Yearke, Jeffrey T. Palmer, Jeanette M. Sperhac, Ryan Rathsam, Nikolay Simakov, Gregor von Laszewski, and Fugang Wang. 2015. TAS View of XSEDE Users and U...

    2015

  23. [31]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. (2019). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805 arXiv:1810.04805 [cs.CL]

    2019 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Paolo Di Tommaso, Maria Chatzou, Evan W Floden, Pablo Prieto Barja, Emilio Palumbo, and Cedric Notredame. 2017. Nextflow enables reproducible compu- tational workflows. Nature Biotechnology 35, 4 (April 2017), 316–319. https: //doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3820

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Javier Diaz, Gregor von Laszewski, Fugang Wang, and Geoffrey C. Fox. 2012. Abstract Image Management and Universal Image Registration for Cloud and HPC Infrastructures. In IEEE Cloud 2012 . Honolulu. https://doi.org/10.1109/ CLOUD.2012.94

    2012

  26. [34]

    Wu-chun Feng and Kirk Cameron. 2007. The Green500 List: Encouraging Sustainable Supercomputing. Computer 40, 12 (dec 2007), 50–55. https://doi. org/10.1109/MC.2007.445

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Rafael Ferreira da Silva, Deborah Bard, Kyle Chard, de Witt Shaun, Ian T. Foster, Tom Gibbs, Carole Goble, William Godoy, Johan Gustafsson, Utz-Uwe Haus, Stephen Hudson, Shantenu Jha, Laila Los, Drew Paine, Frédéric Suter, Logan Ward, Sean Wilkinson, Marcos Amaris, Yadu Babuji...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Bernat Font, Francisco Alcántara-Ávila, Jean Rabault, Ricardo Vinuesa, and Oriol Lehmkuhl. 2024. Active flow control of a turbulent separation bubble through deep reinforcement learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2753, 1 (apr 2024), 012022. https://doi.org/10.1088/...

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Fox, Gregor von Laszewski, Javier Diaz, Kate Keahey, Jose Fortes, Renato Figueiredo, Shava Smallen, Warren Smith, and Andrew Grimshaw

    Geoffrey C. Fox, Gregor von Laszewski, Javier Diaz, Kate Keahey, Jose Fortes, Renato Figueiredo, Shava Smallen, Warren Smith, and Andrew Grimshaw. 2012. FutureGrid - a reconfigurable testbed for Cloud, HPC and Grid Computing. In Contemporary HPC Architectures (draft ed.). http...

    2012

  30. [38]

    Geoffrey C Fox, Gregor von Laszewski, Javier Diaz, Kate Keahey, Jose Fortes, Renato Figueiredo, Shava Smallen, Warren Smith, and Andrew Grimshaw. 2017. Futuregrid: a Reconfigurable Testbed for Cloud, Hpc, and Grid Computing. In Contemporary High Performance Computing . Chapman...

    2017

  31. [39]

    Friedman and Wise. 1978. Aspects of Applicative Programming for Parallel Processing. IEEE Trans. Comput. C-27, 4 (1978), 289–296. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TC.1978.1675100

    1978

  32. [40]

    Thomas Mesnard Gemma Team, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhu- patiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivière, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, Pouya Tafti, Léonard Hussenot, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Adam Roberts, Aditya Barua, Alex Botev, Ale...

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wilkinson, Finn Bacall, Luca Pireddu, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Simone Leo, Stuart Owen, Nick Juty, José M

    Ove Johan Ragnar Gustafsson, Sean R. Wilkinson, Finn Bacall, Luca Pireddu, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Simone Leo, Stuart Owen, Nick Juty, José M. Fernán- dez, Björn Grüning, Tom Brown, Hervé Ménager, Salvador Capella-Gutierrez, Frederik Coppens, and Carole Goble. 2024. WorkflowHub: ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hewlett Packard Enterprise. 2025. SmartSim Source Code and Documentation. GitHub (March 2025). https://github.com/CrayLabs/SmartSim/

    2025

  35. [43]

    InCommon. 2024. Home Page. Web Page. (Oct. 2024). https://incommon.org/ [Online; accessed: 03/01/2025]

    2024

  36. [44]

    Annika Jacobsen, Ricardo de Miranda Azevedo, Nick Juty, Dominique Batista, Simon Coles, Ronald Cornet, Mélanie Courtot, Mercè Crosas, Michel Dumontier, Chris T Evelo, et al. 2020. FAIR principles: interpretations and implementation considerations. Data intelligence 2, 1-2 (202...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Ziheng Jiang, Haibin Lin, Yinmin Zhong, Qi Huang, Yangrui Chen, Zhi Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Xiang Li, Cong Xie, Shibiao Nong, Yulu Jia, Sun He, Hongmin Chen, Zhihao Bai, Qi Hou, Shipeng Yan, Ding Zhou, Yiyao Sheng, Zhuo Jiang, Haohan Xu, Haoran Wei, Zhang Zhang, Pengfei Nie, Leqi...

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    The Kepler Project

    Kepler 2011. The Kepler Project. https://kepler-project.org/ [Online; accessed 03/01/2025]

    2011

  39. [47]

    Ismael Kherroubi Garcia, Christopher Erdmann, Sandra Gesing, Michael Barton, Lauren Cadwallader, Geerten Hengeveld, Christine R. Kirkpatrick, Kathryn Knight, Carsten Lemmen, Rebecca Ringuette, Qing Zhan, Melissa Harrison, Feilim Mac Gabhann, Natalie Meyers, Cailean Osborne, Ch...

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Christine Kirkpatrick. 2023. FAIRIST of them all: Meeting researchers where they are with just-in-time, FAIR implementation advice. Invited talk at the WORKS workshop at the Supercomputing Conference 2023, Denver. (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Christine Kirkpatrick, Gregor von Laszewski, Gregg Barrett, Wesley Brewer, Julie Christopher, Inês Dutra, Murali Emani, Piotr Luszczek, Mallikarjun (Arjun) Shankar, Juri Papay, Jeyan Thiyagalingam, and Geoffrey Fox. 2025. Optimizing Machine Learning Benchmarking: A FAIR Approa...

    2025

  42. [50]

    Marius Kurz, Philipp Offenhäuser, and Andrea Beck. 2023. Deep reinforcement learning for turbulence modeling in large eddy simulations.International journal of heat and fluid flow 99 (2023), 109094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow. 2022.109094

    2023

  43. [51]

    Hyungro Lee, Andre Merzky, Li Tan, Mikhail Titov, Matteo Turilli, Dario Alfe, Agastya Bhati, Alex Brace, Austin Clyde, Peter Coveney, Heng Ma, Arvind Ramanathan, Rick Stevens, Anda Trifan, Hubertus Van Dam, Shun- zhou Wan, Sean Wilkinson, and Shantenu Jha. 2021. Scalable HPC &...

    2021

  44. [52]

    Siyan Liu, Pei Zhang, Dan Lu, and Guannan Zhang. 2021. PI3NN: Out-of- distribution-aware prediction intervals from three neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.02327 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Tomislav Maric, Mohammed Elwardi Fadeli, Alessandro Rigazzi, Andrew Shao, and Andre Weiner. 2024. Combining machine learning with computational fluid dynamics using OpenFOAM and SmartSim. Meccanica (20 Apr 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-024-01797-z

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Daniel Martinez, Wesley Brewer, Gregory Behm, Andrew Strelzoff, Andrew Wilson, and Daniel Wade. 2018. Deep learning evolutionary optimization for regression of rotorcraft vibrational spectra. In 2018 IEEE/ACM Machine Learning in HPC Environments (MLHPC) . IEEE, 57–66. https://...

    2018

  47. [55]

    Daniel A Martinez-Gonzalez, Dylan Jude, Jayanarayanan Sitaraman, Wesley Brewer, and Andrew M Wissink. 2022. ROAM-ML: A reduced order aerodynamic module augmented with neural network digital surrogates. In AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum. 1248. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-1248 29

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    McClure, Junqi Yin, Ryan T

    James E. McClure, Junqi Yin, Ryan T. Armstrong, Ketan C. Maheshwari, Sean Wilkinson, Lucas Vlcek, Ying Da Wang, Mark A. Berrill, and Mark Rivers

  49. [57]

    Muhammad Amir Mehmood, Hafiz Muhammad Shafiq, and Abdul Waheed

  50. [58]

    MLcommons. 2024. Benchmark MLPerf Training: HPC V2.0 Results. https: //mlcommons.org/benchmarks/training-hpc/ [Online; accessed 03/01/2025]

    2024

  51. [59]

    MLCommons MLPerf. 2023. MLCommons MLPerf. https://github.com/ mlcommons/training_policies/blob/master/hpc_training_rules.adoc#8- benchmark-results

    2023

  52. [60]

    Vanderlei Munhoz, Antoine Bonfils, Márcio Castro, and Odorico Mendizabal

  53. [61]

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Foundational Research Gaps and Future Directions for Digital Twins . The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/26894

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Daniel Nurmi, Rich Wolski, Chris Grzegorczyk, Graziano Obertelli, Sunil Soman, Lamia Youseff, and Dmitrii Zagorodnov. 2009. The Eucalyptus Open-Source Cloud-Computing System. In 2009 9th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid . 124–131. https://doi....

    2009 doi

  55. [63]

    NVIDIA. 2025. MLPerf AI Benchmarks. (March 2025). https://www.nvidia. com/en-us/data-center/resources/mlperf-benchmarks/

    2025

  56. [64]

    OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, Red Avila, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Valerie Balcom, Paul Baltescu, Haiming Bao, Mohammad Bavarian, Jeff ...

  57. [65]

    In 2023 International Symposium on Computer Architecture and High Performance Computing Workshops (SBAC-PADW)

    A Performance Comparison of HPC Workloads on Traditional and Cloud- Based HPC Clusters. In 2023 International Symposium on Computer Architecture and High Performance Computing Workshops (SBAC-PADW). IEEE, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1109/SBAC-PADW60351.2023.00026

    2023

  58. [66]

    Jaideep Pathak, Shashank Subramanian, Peter Harrington, Sanjeev Raja, Ashesh Chattopadhyay, Morteza Mardani, Thorsten Kurth, David Hall, Zongyi Li, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, et al. 2022. FourCastNet: A global data-driven high- resolution weather model using adaptive Fourier neur...

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Pegasus WMS – Automate, recover, and debug scientific compu- tations

    Pegasus 2025. Pegasus WMS – Automate, recover, and debug scientific compu- tations. https://pegasus.isi.edu/ [Online; accessed 03/01/2025]

    2025

  60. [68]

    Niranda Perera, Arup Kumar Sarker, Mills Staylor, Gregor von Laszewski, Kaiy- ing Shan, Supun Kamburugamuve, Chathura Widanage, Vibhatha Abeykoon, Thejaka Amila Kanewela, and Geoffrey Fox. 2023. In-depth analysis on parallel processing patterns for high-performance Dataframes....

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    PRACE. 2024. Fact Sheet PRACE Access. Web Page. https://prace-ri.eu/wp- content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-PRACE-Access.pdf [Online; accessed 03/01/2025]

    2024

  62. [70]

    PRACE. 2024. HPC Infrastructure. Web Page. https://prace-ri.eu/prace- archive/infrastructure-support/prace-hpc-infrastructure/ [Online: accessed 03/01/2025]

    2024

  63. [71]

    Shao, Scott Bachman, Gustavo Marques, and Benjamin Robbins

    Sam Partee, Matthew Ellis, Alessandro Rigazzi, Andrew E. Shao, Scott Bachman, Gustavo Marques, and Benjamin Robbins. 2022. Using Machine Learning at scale in numerical simulations with SmartSim: An application to ocean climate modeling. Journal of Computational Science 62 (202...

    2022

  64. [72]

    Michael Russell, Gabrielle Allen, Ian Foster, Ed Seidel, Jason Novotny, John Shalf, Gregor von Laszewski, and Greg Daues. 2002. The Astrophysics Simulation Collaboratory: A Science Portal Enabling Community Software Development. Journal on Cluster Computing 5, 3 (July 2002), 2...

    2002

  65. [73]

    Arup Kumar Sarker, Aymen Alsaadi, Niranda Perera, Mills Staylor, Gregor von Laszewski, Matteo Turilli, Ozgur Ozan Kilic, Mikhail Titov, Andre Merzky, Shantenu Jha, and Geoffrey Fox. 2024. Design and Implementation of an Analysis Pipeline for Heterogeneous Data. (2024). arXiv:2...

    2024 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Shawn M Strande, Haisong Cai, Trevor Cooper, Karen Flammer, Christopher Irving, Gregor von Laszewski, Amit Majumdar, Dmistry Mishin, Philip Pa- padopoulos, Wayne Pfeiffer, et al. 2017. Comet: Tales from the Long Tail: Two Years in and 10,000 users later. In Proceedings of the ...

    2017

  67. [76]

    Homepage

    Top500 2025. Homepage. https://www.top500.org/ [Online; accessed 03/01/2025]

    2025

  68. [77]

    Vijay Janapa Reddi, Christine Cheng, David Kanter, Peter Mattson, Guenther Schmuelling, Carole-Jean Wu, Brian Anderson, Maximilien Breughe, Mark Charlebois, William Chou, et al. 2020. MLPerf inference benchmark. In 2020 ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Symposium on Computer ...

    2020

  69. [78]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 1996. An Interactive Parallel Programming Environment Applied in Atmospheric Science. In Making Its Mark, Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Use of Parallel Processors in Meteorology , G.-R. Hoffman and N. Kreitz (Eds.). European Centre for Medium Wea...

    1996

  70. [79]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 1999. A Loosely Coupled Metacomputer: Cooperating Job Submissions Across Multiple Supercomputing Sites. Concurrency: Practice and Experience 11, 15 (Dec. 1999), 933–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096- 9128(19991225)11:15<933::AID-CPE461>3.0.CO;2-J Th...

    1999 doi

  71. [80]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 2005. The Java CoG Kit Experiment Manager . Technical Report P1259. Argonne National Laboratory. https://laszewski.github.io/papers/ vonLaszewski-exp.pdf

    2005

  72. [81]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 2005. Workflow Concepts of the Java CoG Kit.Journal of Grid Computing 3 (Jan. 2005), 239–258. Issue 3-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10723- 005-9013-5

    2005 doi

  73. [82]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 2020. cloudmesh/yamldb. https://github.com/ cloudmesh/yamldb [Online; accessed 03/01/2025]

    2020

  74. [83]

    Sudharshan Vazhkudai and Gregor von Laszewski. 2001. A Greedy Grid - The Grid Economic Engine Directive. In Proceedings of the 15th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, International Workshop on Internet Computing and E-Commerce (ICEC’01) (IPDPS ’01) . ...

    2001

  75. [84]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 2022. Cloudmesh GPU Monitor. https://github.com/ cloudmesh/cloudmesh-gpu [Accessed 03/01/2025]

    2022

  76. [85]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 2022. Cloudmesh VPN. https://github.com/cloudmesh/ cloudmesh-vpn [Accessed 03/01/2025]

    2022

  77. [86]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 2023. Cloudmesh Compute Coordinator. https://github. com/cloudmesh/cloudmesh-cc [Online; accessed 03/01/2025]

    2023

  78. [87]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 2023. Cloudmesh Experiment Executor. GitHub. https: //github.com/cloudmesh/cloudmesh-ee [Online; accessed 03/14/2025]

    2023

  79. [88]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 2024. Cloudmesh Version 4. https://cloudmesh.github. io/cloudmesh-manual/index.html [Online; accessed 03/01/2025]

    2024

  80. [89]

    Gregor von Laszewski. 2022. Cloudmesh Common StopWatch. https://github.com/cloudmesh/cloudmesh-common/blob/main/cloudmesh/ common/StopWatch.py

    2022

  81. [90]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Beulah Alunkal, Jarek Gawor, Ravi Madhuri, Pawel Plaszczak, and Xian-He Sun. 2003. A File Transfer Component for Grids. In Proceedings of the International Conferenece on Parallel and Distributed Pro- cessing Techniques and Applications , H.R. Arabnia and...

    2003

  82. [91]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Jonathan DiCarlo, and Bill Allcock. 2007. A Portal for Visualizing Grid Usage. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 19, 12 (Aug. 2007), 1683–1692. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.v19:12

    2007 doi

  83. [94]

    Gregor von Laszewski, J. P. Fleischer, and Geoffrey C. Fox. 2022. Hybrid Reusable Computational Analytics Workflow Management with Cloudmesh. (2022). arXiv:2210.16941 [cs.DC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.16941

    2022 arXiv

  84. [95]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Badi Abdul-Wahid, Fugang Wang, Hyungro Lee, Geof- frey C Fox, and Wo Chang. 2017. Cloudmesh in support of the NIST Big Data Architecture Framework. Technical Report. Technical report, Indiana University, Bloomingtion IN 47408, USA

    2017

  85. [96]

    Gregor von Laszewski and Ian Foster. 1999. Grid Infrastructure to Support Science Portals for Large Scale Instruments. In Proceedings of the Workshop Distributed Computing on the Web (DCW) . University of Rostock, Germany, 1–16. (Invited Talk)

    1999

  86. [97]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Ian Foster, Jarek Gawor, and Peter Lane. 2001. A Java Commodity Grid Kit. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 13, 8-9 (2001), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.572

    2001 doi

  87. [98]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Ian Foster, Jarek Gawor, Peter Lane, Nell Rehn, and Mike Russell. 2001. Designing Grid-based Problem Solving Environments and Portals. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34) (HICSS ’01, Vol. 9) . IE...

    2001

  88. [99]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Ian Foster, Jarek Gawor, Warren Smith, and Steve Tuecke

  89. [100]

    Fox, Fugang Wang, Andrew J Younge, Kul- shrestha, Gregory G

    Gregor von Laszewski, Geoffrey C. Fox, Fugang Wang, Andrew J Younge, Kul- shrestha, Gregory G. Pike, Warren Smith, Jens Voeckler, Renato J. Figueiredo, Jose Fortes, Kate Keahey, and Ewa Deelman. 2010. Design of the Future- Grid Experiment Management Framework. In Proceedings o...

    2010

  90. [101]

    Gregor von Laszewski, J. P. Fleischer, Robert Knuuti, Geoffrey C. Fox, Jake Kolessar, Thomas S. Butler, and Judy Fox. 2023. Opportunities for enhancing MLCommons efforts while leveraging insights from educational MLCommons earthquake benchmarks efforts. Frontiers in High Perfo...

    2023

  91. [102]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Jarek Gawor, Peter Lane, Nell Rehn, Mike Russell, and Keith Jackson. 2002. Features of the Java Commodity Grid Kit. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 14, 13-15 (2002), 1045–1055. https: //doi.org/10.1002/cpe.674

    2002 doi

  92. [103]

    Peña, and Ian Foster

    Gregor von Laszewski, Jarek Gawor, Carlos J. Peña, and Ian Foster. 2002. Info- Gram: A Peer-to-Peer Information and Job Submission Service. In Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC ’02) . IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, E...

    2002

  93. [104]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Jarek Gawor, Pawel Plaszczak, Mike Hategan, Kaizar Amin, Ravi Madduri, and Scott Gose. 2004. An Overview of Grid File Transfer Patterns and their Implementation in the Java CoG Kit.Journal of Neural Parallel and Scientific Computing 12, 3 (Sept. 2004), 32...

    2004

  94. [105]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Christopher Grubbs, Matthew Bone, and David Angulo

  95. [106]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Mihael Hategan, and Deepti Kodeboyina. 2006. Work coordination for Grid computing. In Grid Technologies, M.P. Bekakos, G.A. Grav- vanis, and H.R. Arabnia (Eds.). State-of-the-art in Science and Engineering, Vol. 5. Wit. https://laszewski.github.io/papers/...

    2006

  96. [107]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Mihael Hategan, and Depti Kodeboyina. 2007. Grid Workflow with the Java CoG Kit. InWorkflows for E-science: Scientific Workflows for Grids, Ian J. Taylor, Ewa Deelman, Dennis B. Gannon, and Matthew Shields (Eds.). Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus,...

    2007

  97. [108]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Jarek Gawor, Sriram Krishnan, and Keith Jackson. 2003. Commodity Grid Kits - Middleware for Building Grid Computing Environments. In Grid Computing: Making the Global Infrastructure a Reality , Fran Berman, Geoffrey Fox, and Toney Hey (Eds.). Wiley, 639–6...

    2003

  98. [109]

    Gregor von Laszewski, J.P. J.P. Fleischer, Geoffrey C. Fox, Juri Papay, Sam Jack- son, and Jeyan Thiyagalingam. 2023. Templated Hybrid Reusable Computational Analytics Workflow Management with Cloudmesh, Applied to the Deep Learn- ing MLCommons Cloudmask Application. In eScien...

    2023

  99. [110]

    Gregor von Laszewski and Deepti Kodeboyina. 2005. A Repository Service for Grid Workflow Components. In Proceedings of the Joint International Confer- ence on Autonomic and Autonomous Systems and International Conference on Networking and Services (ICAS-ICNS ’05) . IEEE Comput...

    2005

  100. [111]

    Fox, and Tom Furlani

    Gregor von Laszewski, Hyungro Lee, Javier Diaz, Fugang Wang, Koji Tanaka, Shubhada Karavinkoppa, Geoffrey C. Fox, and Tom Furlani. 2012. Design of an Accounting and Metric-based Cloud-shifting and Cloud-seeding Framework for Federated Clouds and Bare-metal Environments. In Pro...

    2012

  101. [112]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Mike Seablom, Milo Makivic, Peter Lyster, and Sanya Ranka. 1994. Design Issues for the Parallelization of an Optimal Interpolation Algorithm. In Coming of Age, Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on the Use of Parallel Processing in Atmospheric Science , G.-R...

    1994

  102. [113]

    Fox, Shawn Strande, Christo- pher Irving, Trevor Cooper, Dmitry Mishin, and Michael L

    Gregor von Laszewski, Fugang Wang, Geoffrey C. Fox, Shawn Strande, Christo- pher Irving, Trevor Cooper, Dmitry Mishin, and Michael L. Norman. 2019. Human in the Loop Virtual Machine Management on Comet. In Humans in the Loop: Enabling and Facilitating Research on Cloud Computi...

    2019

  103. [114]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Fugang Wang, Hyungro Lee, Heng Chen, and Geoffrey C. Fox. 2014. Accessing multiple clouds with cloudmesh. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Workshop on Software-Defined Ecosystems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (BigSystem ’14). Association for Computi...

    2014

  104. [115]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Mary Westbrook, Ian Foster, Edwin Westbrook, and Craig Barnes. 2000. Using Computational Grid Capabilities to Enhance the Ability of an X-Ray Source for Structural Biology. Cluster Computing 3, 3 (2000), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019036421819

    2000 doi

  105. [116]

    2007.Java CoG Kit Workflow

    Gregor von Laszewski, Mihael Hategan, and Deepti Kodeboyina. 2007.Java CoG Kit Workflow. Springer London, London, 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 1-84628-757-2_21

    2007 doi

  106. [117]

    Gregor vonLaszewski, Robert Grossman, and Michael Kozuchand Rick McGeerand Dejan Milojicic (Eds.). 2012. FederatedClouds ’12: Proceedings of the 2012 Workshop on Cloud Services, Federation, and the 8th Open Cirrus Sum- mit (San Jose, California, USA). ACM, New York, NY, USA. h...

    2012

  107. [118]

    Rick Wagner, Philip Papadopoulos, Dmitry Mishin, Trevor Cooper, Mahidhar Tatineti, Gregor von Laszewski, Fugang Wang, and Geoffrey C. Fox. 2016. User Managed Virtual Clusters in Comet. In Proceedings of the XSEDE16 Conference on Diversity, Big Data, and Science at Scale . ACM,...

    2016

  108. [119]

    Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E

    Mark D. Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E. Bourne, Jildau Bouwman, Anthony J. Brookes, Tim Clark, Mercè Crosas, Ingrid Dillo, Olivier Dumo...

    2016

  109. [120]

    Sean Wilkinson, Kathryn Knight, Olga Kuchar, Kshitij Mehta, Mallikarjun Shankar, and Matthew Wolf. 2022. Official Report on the 2021 Computational and Autonomous Workflows Workshop (CA W 2021) . Technical Report. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United Stat...

    2022 doi

  110. [121]

    Wilkinson, Meznah Aloqalaa, Khalid Belhajjame, Michael R

    Sean R. Wilkinson, Meznah Aloqalaa, Khalid Belhajjame, Michael R. Crusoe, Bruno de Paula Kinoshita, Luiz Gadelha, Daniel Garijo, Ove Johan Ragnar Gustafsson, Nick Juty, Sehrish Kanwal, Farah Zaib Khan, Johannes Köster, Karsten Peters-von Gehlen, Line Pouchard, Randy K. Rannow,...

    2025

  111. [122]

    Wilkinson, Greg Eisenhauer, Anuj J

    Sean R. Wilkinson, Greg Eisenhauer, Anuj J. Kapadia, Kathryn Knight, Jeremy Logan, Patrick Widener, and Matthew Wolf. 2022. F*** workflows: when parts of FAIR are missing. In 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on e-Science (e-Science). IEEE, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 507–5...

    2022

  112. [123]

    Wilkinson, Ketan Maheshwari, and Rafael Ferreira da Silva

    Sean R. Wilkinson, Ketan Maheshwari, and Rafael Ferreira da Silva. 2022. Un- veiling User Behavior on Summit Login Nodes as a User. In Computational Science – ICCS 2022 , Derek Groen, Clélia de Mulatier, Maciej Paszynski, Vale- ria V. Krzhizhanovskaya, Jack J. Dongarra, and Pe...

    2022 doi

  113. [124]

    Gregor von Laszewski, Andrew Younge, Xi He, Kumar Mahinthakumar, and Lizhe Wang. 2009. Experiment and Workflow Management Using Cyberaide Shell. In4th International Workshop on Workflow Systems in e-Science (WSES 09) in conjunction with 9th IEEE International Symposium on Clus...

    2009 doi

  114. [125]

    Greg Wilson, D. A. Aruliah, C. Titus Brown, Neil P. Chue Hong, Matt Davis, Richard T. Guy, Steven H. D. Haddock, Kathryn D. Huff, Ian M. Mitchell, Mark D. Plumbley, Ben Waugh, Ethan P. White, and Paul Wilson. 2014. Best Practices for Scientific Computing. PLoS Biology 12, 1 (j...

    2014 doi

  115. [126]

    Existing Workflow systems

    Workflow Language 2025. Existing Workflow systems. https://github.com/ common-workflow-language/common-workflow-language/wiki/Existing- Workflow-systems [Online; accessed 03/01/2025]

    2025

  116. [127]

    Mengwei Xu, Wangsong Yin, Dongqi Cai, Rongjie Yi, Daliang Xu, Qipeng Wang, Bingyang Wu, Yihao Zhao, Chen Yang, Shihe Wang, Qiyang Zhang, Zhenyan Lu, Li Zhang, Shangguang Wang, Yuanchun Li, Yunxin Liu, Xin Jin, and Xuanzhe Liu

  117. [128]

    Hategan, B

    Yong Zhao, M. Hategan, B. Clifford, I. Foster, G. von Laszewski, V. Nefedova, I. Raicu, T. Stef-Praun, and M. Wilde. 2007. Swift: Fast, Reliable, Loosely Coupled Parallel Computation. In Services, 2007 IEEE Congress on . 199–206. https://doi. org/10.1109/SERVICES.2007.63 32

    2007 doi

  118. [132]

    Eric Wilson, John Vant, Jacob Layton, Ryan Boyd, Hyungro Lee, Matteo Turilli, Benjamín Hernández, Sean Wilkinson, Shantenu Jha, Chitrak Gupta, Daipayan Sarkar, and Abhishek Singharoy. 2021. Large-Scale Molecular Dynamics Sim- ulations of Cellular Compartments . Springer US, Ne...

    2021 doi

  119. [136]

    arXiv (2024)

    A Survey of Resource-efficient LLM and Multimodal Foundation Models. arXiv (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.08092 arXiv:2401.08092 cs.LG

    2024 doi arXiv

  120. [2000]

    In Proceedings of the ACM 2000 conference on Java Grande (San Francisco, California, United States) (JA V A’00)

    CoG Kits: A Bridge between Commodity Distributed Computing and High-Performance Grids. In Proceedings of the ACM 2000 conference on Java Grande (San Francisco, California, United States) (JA V A’00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, San Francisco, CA, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/33...

    2000

  121. [2006]

    In International Workshop on Grid Computing Environments 2006 in Conjunction with SC06

    The Java CoG Kit Experiment Manager. In International Workshop on Grid Computing Environments 2006 in Conjunction with SC06 . http://library.rit.edu/ oajournals/index.php/gce/article/view/75/36

    2006

  122. [2017]

    In 2017 IEEE 13th Malaysia International Conference on Communications (MICC)

    Understanding regional context of World Wide Web using common crawl corpus. In 2017 IEEE 13th Malaysia International Conference on Communications (MICC). 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1109/MICC.2017.8311752

    2017

  123. [2020]

    Toward Real-Time Analysis of Synchrotron Micro-Tomography Data: Accelerating Experimental Workflows with AI and HPC. InDriving Scientific and Engineering Discoveries Through the Convergence of HPC, Big Data and AI , Jeffrey Nichols, Becky Verastegui, Arthur ‘Barney’ Maccabe, O...

    doi

  124. [2023]

    (March 2023)

    Workflows Community Summit 2022: A Roadmap Revolution. (March 2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7750670 28

    2022 doi

  125. [2024]

    GPT-4 Technical Report. (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 arXiv:2303.08774 [cs.CL]

    2024 doi arXiv

  126. [3680]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData52589.2021.9671421

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.