Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 89 references

superB/NRPy: Scalable, Task-Based Numerical Relativity for 3G Gravitational Wave Science

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read superB extends NRPy to generate distributed-memory, task-based Charm++ code from BlackHoles@Home modules, with a 45x speedup at 64 nodes.

desk verdict A credible, open-source distributed-memory backend for NRPy; the main caveat is that the bit-identical test and the headline scaling run exercise different code paths, leaving the spherical-like 3D path less validated than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00097 v2 pith:5ASTQC3L submitted 2025-04-30 gr-qc astro-ph.IMphysics.comp-ph

Nishita Jadoo , Terrence Pierre Jacques , Zachariah B. Etienne This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IMphysics.comp-ph
keywords numericalrelativitycodegenerationCharm++task-basedparallelismdistributedmemorycurvilinearcoordinatesblackholesimulationsstrongscaling
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

superB is an extension to the NRPy code-generation framework that automatically turns existing BlackHoles@Home numerical-relativity modules into distributed-memory, task-based C++ code. The aim is to let curvilinear-coordinate simulations that previously ran only on a single shared-memory node run efficiently across HPC clusters. The paper argues the generated code is correct because on one node it gives bit-identical results to the OpenMP version, and physically credible because a head-on binary black hole collision reproduces quasi-normal modes up to $\ell=8$. It further argues the code scales: a large 3D vacuum run shows roughly a 45x speedup on 64 nodes (7168 cores) over the single-node OpenMP baseline. If right, this removes a key bottleneck for NRPy-based simulations of long inspirals, extreme parameter studies, and gravitational-wave follow-ups.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the chare: a lightweight, Charm++-managed task that owns a rectangular subgrid of the logical grid. superB automatically splits each grid dimension into $N_{\rm chare}^i$ segments, keeps each chare's interior larger than the ghost-zone width $N_G$, and generates the three communication paths that fill ghost data: local application of outer boundary conditions; inner-boundary mappings handled by local copies or point-to-point Charm++ messages, including parity transforms; and sequential east-west, north-south, top-bottom halo exchanges for neighbor data. Inside every Runge-Kutta substage the generated code applies outer boundary conditions, then inner-boundary mappings, then halo exchange, so all stencils see valid data before finite differences are evaluated. This ordering, driven by NRPy's existing coordinate-singularity metadata, is what carries the bitwise-equivalence argument from single node to distributed memory.

What would settle it

Run a production-length (thousands of iterations) version of the large 3D vacuum test on 64 nodes with a partitioning that forces the $\rho=0$ and $\phi=\pm\pi$ inner-boundary source points onto different chares, and compare an evolved diagnostic variable against the OpenMP output; any divergence, constraint violation growth, or waveform mismatch would identify a communication path the current tests did not exercise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that superB extends NRPy so that the same high-level symbolic BSSN equations and infrastructure that produce the single-node BlackHoles@Home code also produce a Charm++-parallelized code with a complete, automatically generated communication layer. superB partitions the logically rectangular curvilinear grid into chares, and generates the ghost-zone filling logic for outer boundary points, for inner boundary points that map across the grid with parity transformations, and for halo points exchanged with neighboring chares. The validation claim is that, compiled with the same compiler and run with identical parameters on one node, the generated Charm++ code produces bit-identical evolved variables to the OpenMP version. The physical validation claim is that the head-on collision's ringdown matches analytic Schwarzschild quasi-normal-mode frequencies and damping rates up to $\ell=8$. The performance claim is near-ideal strong scaling up to about 1000 cores and an approximately 45x wall-clock speedup at 7168 cores over the single-node OpenMP code on the same large 3D vacuum test.

Load-bearing premise

The single-node bitwise test used one partitioning and the scaling test ran only 124 iterations, so the paper assumes those exercises cover every inner-boundary parity mapping, periodic wrap, and halo pattern that will appear in production multi-node simulations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NRPy/BH@H-based codes gain a distributed-memory path without hand-written MPI, since superB generates the communication code from existing modules.
  • The GRoovy general-relativistic-hydrodynamics code, built on the same BH@H infrastructure, integrated Charm++ parallelism in about two weeks, implying other NRPy-native codes can follow quickly.
  • The distributed layer is the stated foundation for future multi-patch, multi-coordinate grids, which are needed for long inspirals and high-mass-ratio binaries relevant to third-generation gravitational-wave detectors.
  • Strong scaling on a fixed-size problem means extreme parameter studies—high spins, large mass ratios, scattering runs—can trade more nodes for shorter time-to-solution.
  • Planned integration with NRPy-CUDA would combine distributed-memory scaling with node-level GPU acceleration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the bitwise check exercised one single-node partitioning and the scaling run lasted 124 iterations, so parity/periodic mappings not hit by those tests are inferred, not demonstrated, to work.
  • Beyond the paper: because the 45x figure comes from a brief vacuum run, communication-logic or load-imbalance issues that grow over production-length evolutions would not appear in the benchmark; a long binary-inspiral run is the natural next test.
  • Beyond the paper: since superB generates the communication layer from NRPy's existing mapping metadata, any NRPy-based code could inherit distributed-memory support; if the automation is as general as claimed, the framework's reach multiplies well beyond the two validated examples.
  • Beyond the paper: the scaling curve bends away from ideal beyond roughly 1000 cores, so at larger core counts or for communication-heavy runs users should expect less than the headline 45x; the number is nonetheless a real distributed-memory demonstration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents superB, a Python extension of the NRPy code-generation framework that produces Charm++-based, distributed-memory C++ codes from existing BlackHoles@Home modules. The generated code partitions the logical grid into chares and automatically handles ghost-zone filling for outer, inner, and neighbor boundaries. The authors validate the generated code against the single-node OpenMP version via a bit-identical test for the scalar W in an axisymmetric cylindrical head-on run; validate the ringdown of a head-on binary-black-hole collision against Schwarzschild QNM frequencies and damping rates; and report strong-scaling benchmarks on up to 64 nodes, claiming an approximately 29x speedup over the 1-node Charm++ version and approximately 45x over the single-node OpenMP baseline for a large 3D vacuum evolution.

Significance. If the claims hold, superB is a meaningful infrastructure advance: it makes the open-source NRPy/BH@H pipeline run on distributed-memory clusters while preserving bit-identical single-node behavior, and the paper includes a reproducible example command that lowers the barrier to adoption. The QNM comparison uses independently known frequencies and damping rates from the qnm package, with only amplitude and phase fitted, so it is a genuine physics check of the generated evolution and extraction. The paper also shows that the same infrastructure can absorb recent algorithmic improvements such as the Slow Start Lapse technique, and it gives a concrete path toward GRHD and GPU acceleration. The principal weakness is evidential: the strongest correctness result and the strongest performance result are obtained on different code paths, and the performance numbers are single-trial timings without uncertainty estimates.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4 (Fig. 3) vs Sec. 4.2.2] The bit-identical validation and the strong-scaling benchmark exercise different code paths, and the validation does not cover the communication patterns used in the benchmark. The Fig. 3 test is a cylindrical-like axisymmetric run with partition Ncharei={18,2,1} and compares only the scalar conformal factor W; it therefore does not exercise tensor parity mappings, theta-pole handling, or z-direction halo exchange. The large 3D spherical-like test in Sec. 4.2.2 (N={1008,168,336}, NFD=4, NG=3) has a different grid topology and partitions in all three logical directions, yet no bitwise comparison, convergence check, or independent-reference comparison is reported for this path. Because the abstract's correctness claim is anchored to the single-node bitwise test while the headline speedup is measured on this unvalidated path, this is a load-bearing gap. Please add a single-node bitwise (or at least round-off-level) comparison for the spherical-like 3D test, comparing all evolved variables or at least representative tensor components, and run it with the same partition used in the scaling benchmark.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.2, Fig. 7] The strong-scaling evidence is a single timing per node count, from a run lasting only 124 iterations with diagnostics disabled; there are no repeated runs, error bars, or discussion of run-to-run variability. The headline 29x and 45x numbers should be supported by at least a few repetitions at the endpoints, and the paper should quantify parallel efficiency: 29x on 64 nodes is about 45% efficiency relative to the 1-node run, which is worth discussing explicitly rather than describing only as 'good scaling.' The 45x speedup relative to the single-node OpenMP code is a combined effect of 64x more cores and a different parallelization strategy; the text should state this decomposition so readers do not mistake it for a pure algorithmic speedup.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.2.1, Table 1] The single-node comparison uses 32 OpenMP threads on a 16-core desktop while the Charm++ runs use 16 cores; please clarify whether hyperthreading is being used and, ideally, add a 16-thread OpenMP run so the overhead comparison is apples-to-apples.
  2. [Fig. 3] The y-axis label 'max(-20, log10 Erel(W))' should be explained in the caption: the -20 floor represents exact bitwise agreement (zero relative difference), not a data value; otherwise the solid circles at -20 can be misread.
  3. [Fig. 4] Please state explicitly in the text that only even-ℓ, m=0 modes are shown because the odd-ℓ modes are expected to vanish in this equal-mass head-on configuration, and quantify the fit residuals in the fitting window (e.g., relative error in log10|ψ4|) to support 'excellent agreement.'
  4. [Sec. 4.1] Please list the actual grid sizes for the low, medium, and high resolution runs rather than only the scaling factors 1x, 1.25x, and 1.5x, so readers can reproduce the resolution study without recomputation.
  5. [Sec. 3] The description of the precomputed point-to-point communication lists in item (ii) would benefit from a sentence on how the list size scales with chare count and how the lists are cached across RK substages; as written, the memory and setup cost is not quantified.
  6. [References] Some references are incomplete or lack version identifiers (e.g., [62] is a bare GitHub URL and [88] lacks a DOI); please polish the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parallelization and physics claims are validated by direct comparison and external QNM data, not by definitional or self-citational forcing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (1) that superB/NRPy-generated Charm++ code produces bit-identical results to the existing OpenMP BH@H code on a single node, (2) that a head-on binary-black-hole simulation reproduces quasi-normal-mode frequencies and damping rates, and (3) that strong scaling gives a measured speedup. None of these reduce to an input by construction. The bitwise test is an empirical comparison of two independently generated code paths with identical physics; no fitting parameter is involved. The QNM validation uses external Schwarzschild frequencies and damping rates from the qnm package [88], fitting only amplitude and phase, which are not the quantities being validated. The scaling comparison uses wall-clock timings against an OpenMP baseline and involves no fitted or self-referential quantity. The paper does rely on self-citations to the prior NRPy/BH@H body of work for inherited physics validation, but this is a statement about reusing an existing open-source codebase, not a definitional substitution; the new parallelization is tested against that codebase rather than assumed from it. The identified validation-coverage gap (bitwise test in cylindrical-like coordinates versus the spherical-like scaling benchmark) is a potential correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity: the scaling claim does not assume its own correctness, and the gap does not make any predicted result equivalent to an input. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the required evidentiary standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an infrastructure claim and does not depend on fitting. The only fitted values are in the QNM validation. The main assumptions are prior NRPy physics and tooling, the external Charm++ runtime, and transferability of single-node validation to multi-node production use. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • QNM fit amplitude A_f and phase phi_f per mode = Fitted to numerical waveform between t-Rext=100M and 130M
    Used to compare ringdown to analytical QNM predictions; these are fitted in the validation, so the agreement is not a fully parameter-free prediction.
  • Sinh focusing parameter w = 0.2
    Chosen by hand to concentrate grid points near the origin in the head-on collision; affects resolution but is part of the run configuration, not fitted to the result.
  • Gamma-driver damping eta = 2.0
    Standard gauge damping parameter chosen for the head-on collision; not fitted, but user-selected.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The covariant BSSN equations with reference metric, 1+log slicing, and Gamma-driver shift form a stable and sufficient evolution system for puncture black holes.
    Invoked throughout Section 2; standard in numerical relativity, and prior NRPy validation is cited rather than re-derived.
  • domain assumption Tensor rescaling in the non-coordinate basis makes all evolved tensor components regular at coordinate singularities, so finite differencing and ghost-zone copies are valid.
    Section 2.2 and Ref. [61]; this is prior literature, not re-proved here.
  • domain assumption Charm++ provides correct message delivery and scheduling for the generated point-to-point and halo communication.
    External runtime assumption; no formal proof, but standard HPC practice.
  • domain assumption Single-node bitwise agreement plus a short multi-node vacuum run implies correct physics on distributed nodes.
    The paper validates the generated communication logic on one node and one short cluster benchmark; transferability to long production runs is assumed.
  • standard math The qnm package's Schwarzschild fundamental QNM frequencies and damping rates are accurate.
    Used as an external benchmark in Sec. 4.1 for the head-on collision ringdown; standard perturbation theory result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of superB/NRPy: Scalable, Task-Based Numerical Relativity for 3G Gravitational Wave Science." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ASTQC3L

@misc{pith2026250500097,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: superB/NRPy: Scalable, Task-Based Numerical Relativity for 3G Gravitational Wave Science},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ASTQC3L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00097}
}
abstract

Modern gravitational-wave science demands increasingly accurate and computationally intensive numerical relativity (NR) simulations. The Python-based, open-source NRPy framework generates optimized C/C++ code for NR, including the complete NR code BlackHoles@Home (BH@H), which leverages curvilinear coordinates well-suited to many astrophysical scenarios. Historically, BH@H was limited to single-node OpenMP CPU parallelism. To address this, we introduce superB, an open-source extension to NRPy that enables automatic generation of scalable, task-based, distributed-memory Charm++ code from existing BH@H modules. The generated code partitions the structured grids used by NRPy/BH@H, managing communication between them. Its correctness is validated through bit-identical results with the standard OpenMP version on a single node and via a head-on binary black hole simulation in cylindrical-like coordinates, accurately reproducing quasi-normal modes (up to $\ell=8$). The superB/NRPy-generated code demonstrates excellent strong scaling, achieving an $\approx 45$x speedup on 64 nodes (7168 cores) compared to the original single-node OpenMP code for a large 3D vacuum test. This scalable infrastructure benefits demanding simulations and lays the groundwork for future multi-patch grid support, targeting long inspirals, extreme parameter studies, and rapid follow-ups. This infrastructure readily integrates with other NRPy/BH@H-based projects, enabling performant scaling for the general relativistic hydrodynamics code GRoovy, and facilitating future coupling with GPU acceleration via the NRPy-CUDA project.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00097 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Physical grid layout in the equatorial plane for a spherical coordinate system used by NRPy/BH@H, illustrating different ghost point types. Black dots represent interior grid points. Blue circles are outer boundary ghost points, located beyond the maximal radius (r > rmax). Red circles are inner boundary ghost points, arising from coordinate system properties: the origin (r = 0) and periodicity (ϕ = ±π). These inner… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the parallel decomposition strategy. The spherical grid from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Demonstration of bitwise agreement for the evolved variable W along the y-axis at the end of an axisymmetric head-on BH collision simulation in cylindrical￾like coordinates on a 16-core desktop comparing BH@H (OpenMP) and superB (Charm++, partitioned with Ncharei = {18, 2, 1}). When using the same compiler, the results are identical (solid circles, difference is zero). For comparison, using BH@H compiled with differ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Head-on collision of two equal-mass, non-spinning BHs from an initial separation of 10 M. Real part of the extracted Weyl scalar ψ4, decomposed into spin￾weighted spherical harmonics −2Yℓm, for the m = 0 modes (ℓ = 2, 4, 6, 8). Waveforms are extracted at radius Rext = …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Head-on collision of two BHs from a separation of 10 M. Logarithm of Hamiltonian, H, and momentum, M ≡ √MiMi , constraint violations (Eqs. (16) and (17)) along the y-axis (ρ-axis at z = 0) (left panels) and z-axis (ρ = 0) (right panels) at t = 50 M. Results are shown f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online.) Time profile view generated by the Projections analysis tool [90] for the 3D BH vacuum test case running on a single 16-core desktop node using the superB/NRPy-generated code (Charm++ MPI build, Nchare = 16). The plot shows average core utilization over…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Strong scaling performance of superB/NRPy for the large 3D vacuum BH test case on the WindRiver HPC cluster (wall-clock time vs. number of cores). The number of chares is set equal to the number of cores. The dashed orange line indicates ideal scaling (slope -1). The s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019 Phys. Rev. X 9 031040 (Preprint 1811.12907)

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2021 Phys

    Abbott R et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2021 Phys. Rev. X 11 021053 (Preprint 2010.14527)

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO) 2024 Phys

    Abbott R et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO) 2024 Phys. Rev. D 109 022001 (Preprint 2108.01045)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific) 2023 Phys

    Abbott R et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific) 2023 Phys. Rev. X 13 041039 ( Preprint 2111.03606)

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Nitz A H, Capano C D, Kumar S, Wang Y F, Kastha S, Sch¨ afer M, Dhurkunde R and Cabero M 2021 Astrophys. J. 922 76 (Preprint 2105.09151)

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Baiotti L and Rezzolla L 2017 Rept. Prog. Phys. 80 096901 (Preprint 1607.03540)

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Shibata M and Hotokezaka K 2019 Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69 41–64 (Preprint 1908.02350)

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Pan Y, Buonanno A, Buchman L T, Chu T, Kidder L E, Pfeiffer H P and Scheel M A 2010 Phys. Rev. D 81 084041 (Preprint 0912.3466)

    arXiv 2010

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Ramos-Buades A, Buonanno A, Estell´ es H, Khalil M, Mihaylov D P, Ossokine S, Pompili L and Shiferaw M 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 124037 (Preprint 2303.18046)

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Khan S, Husa S, Hannam M, Ohme F, P¨ urrer M, Jim´ enez Forteza X and Boh´ e A 2016Phys. Rev. D 93 044007 (Preprint 1508.07253)

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Blackman J, Field S E, Galley C R, Szil´ agyi B, Scheel M A, Tiglio M and Hemberger D A 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 121102 (Preprint 1502.07758)

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Varma V, Field S E, Scheel M A, Blackman J, Gerosa D, Stein L C, Kidder L E and Pfeiffer H P 2019 Phys. Rev. Research. 1 033015 (Preprint 1905.09300)

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Albanesi S, Gamba R, Bernuzzi S, Fontbut´ e J, Gonzalez A and Nagar A 2025 arXiv preprint ArXiv:2503.14580v1 (Preprint 2503.14580)

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Punturo et al 2010 Classical and Quantum Gravity 27 194002

    2010

  7. [15]

    2019 Bull

    Reitze D et al. 2019 Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51 141 (Preprint 1903.04615)

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Evans M et al. 2021 A horizon study for cosmic explorer: Science, observatories, and community Technical Report CE-P2100003-v6 Cosmic Explorer Project ( Preprint 2109.09882) URL https://dcc.cosmicexplorer.org/CE-P2100003/public

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    (TianQin) 2016 Class

    Luo J et al. (TianQin) 2016 Class. Quant. Grav. 33 035010 (Preprint 1512.02076)

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P Amaro-Seoane et al 2017 arXiv e-prints arXiv:1702.00786 (Preprint 1702.00786)

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Babak S, Petiteau A and Hewitson M 2021 Lisa sensitivity and snr calculations Technical Note LISA-LCST-SGS-TN-001 LISA Consortium ( Preprint 2108.01167)

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    P¨ urrer M and Haster C J 2020 Phys. Rev. Research 2 023151 (Preprint 1912.10055)

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ferguson D, Jani K, Laguna P and Shoemaker D 2021 Phys. Rev. D 104 044037 ( Preprint 2006.04272) superB/NRPy Numerical Relativity Framework for 3G Gravitational Wave Science 22

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Jan A, Ferguson D, Lange J, Shoemaker D and Zimmerman A 2024 Phys. Rev. D 110(2) 024023 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024023

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Amaro-Seoane P 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 063018 (Preprint 1807.03824)

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Foucart F, Laguna P, Lovelace G, Radice D and Witek H 2022 arXiv e-prints arXiv:2203.08139 (Preprint 2203.08139)

    2022 arXiv

  17. [26]

    L¨ offler F, Faber J, Bentivegna E, Bode T, Diener P, Haas R, Hinder I, Mundim B C, Ott C D, Schnetter E, Allen G, Campanelli M and Laguna P 2012 Classical and Quantum Gravity 29 115001 ISSN 1361-6382 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/29/11/115001

    2012 doi

  18. [27]

    2024 The Einstein Toolkit: The ”Annie Jump Cannon” release (ET 2024 11) released on December 1, 2024 URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14193969

    Haas R et al. 2024 The Einstein Toolkit: The ”Annie Jump Cannon” release (ET 2024 11) released on December 1, 2024 URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14193969

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    Pollney D, Reisswig C, Schnetter E, Dorband N and Diener P 2011 Phys. Rev. D 83 044045 (Preprint 0910.3803)

    2011 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Brown D, Diener P, Sarbach O, Schnetter E and Tiglio M 2009 Phys. Rev. D 79 044023 (Preprint 0809.3533)

    2009 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Sperhake U 2007 Phys. Rev. D 76 104015 (Preprint gr-qc/0606079)

    2007 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Br¨ ugmann B, Gonz´ alez J A, Hannam M, Husa S, Sperhake U and Tichy W 2008Phys. Rev. D 77 024027 (Preprint gr-qc/0610128)

    arXiv

  23. [32]

    Cao Z, Yo H J and Yu J P 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78(12) 124011 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.124011

    2008 doi

  24. [33]

    Clough K, Figueras P, Finkel H, Kunesch M, Lim E A and Tunyasuvunakool S 2015 Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 245011 (Preprint 1503.03436)

    2015 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Fernando M, Neilsen D, Lim H, Hirschmann E and Sundar H 2019 SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 41 C97–C138 (Preprint 1807.06128)

    2019 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Fernando M, Neilsen D, Zlochower Y, Hirschmann E W and Sundar H 2022 arXiv e-prints arXiv:2211.11575 (Preprint 2211.11575)

    2022 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Daszuta B, Zappa F, Cook W, Radice D, Bernuzzi S and Morozova V 2021 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 257 25 (Preprint 2101.08289)

    2021 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Daszuta B and Cook W 2024 arXiv e-prints arXiv:2406.05126 (Preprint 2406.05126)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Cook W, Daszuta B, Fields J, Hammond P, Albanesi S, Zappa F, Bernuzzi S and Radice D 2025 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 277 3 (Preprint 2311.04989)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Szil´ agyi B, Lindblom L and Scheel M A 2009 Phys. Rev. D 80 124010 (Preprint 0909.3557)

    2009 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Hilditch D, Weyhausen A and Br¨ ugmann B 2016Phys. Rev. D 93 063006 (Preprint 1504.04732)

    arXiv

  32. [41]

    Bugner M, Dietrich T, Bernuzzi S, Weyhausen A and Bruegmann B 2015 arXiv e-prints arXiv:1508.07147 (Preprint 1508.07147)

    2015 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Kidder L E, Field S E, Foucart F, Schnetter E, Teukolsky S A, Bohn A, Deppe N, Diener P, H´ ebert F, Lippuner J, Miller J, Ott C D, Scheel M A and Vincent T 2016 arXiv e-prints arXiv:1609.00098 (Preprint 1609.00098)

    2016 arXiv

  34. [43]

    2024 SpECTRE v2024.08.03 10.5281/zenodo.13207712 URL https://spectre-code.org

    Deppe N, Throwe W, Kidder L E, Vu N L, Nelli K C, Armaza C, Bonilla M S, H´ ebert F, Kim Y, Kumar P, Lovelace G, Macedo A, Moxon J, O’Shea E, Pfeiffer H P, Scheel M A, Teukolsky S A, Wittek N A et al. 2024 SpECTRE v2024.08.03 10.5281/zenodo.13207712 URL https://spectre-code.org

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    Lovelace G, Nelli K C, Deppe N, Vu N L, Throwe W, Bonilla M S, Carpenter A, Kidder L E, Macedo A, Scheel M A, Afram A, Boyle M, Ceja A, Giesler M, Habib S, Jones K Z, Kumar P, Lara G, Melchor D, Mendes I B, Mitman K, Morales M, Moxon J, O’Shea E, Pannone K, Pfeiffer H P, Ramir...

    2025 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Tichy W, Ji L, Adhikari A, Rashti A and Pirog M 2023 Classical and Quantum Gravity 40 025004 (Preprint 2212.06340)

    2023 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Zhu H, Fields J, Zappa F, Radice D, Stone J, Rashti A, Cook W, Bernuzzi S and Daszuta B 2024 superB/NRPy Numerical Relativity Framework for 3G Gravitational Wave Science 23 arXiv e-prints arXiv:2409.10383 (Preprint 2409.10383)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Husa S, Hinder I and Lechner C 2006 Computer Physics Communications 174 983–1004 (Preprint gr-qc/0404023)

    2006 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Palenzuela C, Mi˜ nano B, Arbona A, Bona-Casas C, Bona C and Mass´ o J 2021Computer Physics Communications 259 107675 (Preprint 2010.00902)

    2010 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Ruchlin I, Etienne Z B and Baumgarte T W 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 064036 (Preprint 1712.07658)

    2018 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Pretorius F 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 121101 (Preprint gr-qc/0507014)

    2005 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Campanelli M, Lousto C O, Marronetti P and Zlochower Y 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 111101 (Preprint gr-qc/0511048)

    2006 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Baker J G, Centrella J, Choi D I, Koppitz M and van Meter J 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 111102 (Preprint gr-qc/0511103)

    2006 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Garfinkle D 2002 Phys. Rev. D 65 044029 (Preprint gr-qc/0110013)

    2002 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Pretorius F 2005 Class. Quant. Grav. 22 425–452 (Preprint gr-qc/0407110)

    2005 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Shibata M and Nakamura T 1995 Phys. Rev. D 52(10) 5428–5444 URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.52.5428

    1995 doi

  47. [56]

    Baumgarte T W and Shapiro S L 1998 Phys. Rev. D 59 024007 (Preprint gr-qc/9810065)

    1998 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Brown J D 2009 Phys. Rev. D 79 104029 (Preprint 0902.3652)

    2009 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Zlochower Y, Ponce M and Lousto C O 2012 Phys. Rev. D 86 104056 (Preprint 1208.5494)

    2012 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Etienne Z B, Baker J G, Paschalidis V, Kelly B J and Shapiro S L 2014 Phys. Rev. D 90 064032 (Preprint 1404.6523)

    2014 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Black W K, Neilsen D, Hirschmann E W, Van Komen D F and Fernando M 2025 arXiv e-prints arXiv:2502.20282 (Preprint 2502.20282)

    2025 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Baumgarte T W, Montero P J, Cordero-Carri´ on I and M¨ uller E 2013 Phys. Rev. D 87 044026 (Preprint 1211.6632)

    2013 arXiv

  53. [62]

    2025 NRPy GitHub repository https://github.com/nrpy/nrpy

    2025

  54. [63]

    2017 PeerJ Computer Science 3 e103:1–27 ISSN 2376-5992 URL https://doi

    Meurer A et al. 2017 PeerJ Computer Science 3 e103:1–27 ISSN 2376-5992 URL https://doi. org/10.7717/peerj-cs.103

    2017 doi

  55. [64]

    Etienne Z B 2024 Phys. Rev. D 110 064045 (Preprint 2404.01137)

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Montero P J and Cordero-Carri´ on I 2012Phys. Rev. D 85 124037 (Preprint 1204.5377)

    arXiv

  57. [66]

    Kale L V and Krishnan S 1993 Charm++: A portable concurrent object oriented system based on C++ Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA) (Washington, D.C., USA: Association for Computing Machinery) pp...

    1993

  58. [67]

    The Charm++ Development Team 2025 Charm++: The Parallel Programming System https: //github.com/UIUC-PPL/charm accessed: 2025-04-13

    2025

  59. [68]

    Mewes V, Zlochower Y, Campanelli M, Ruchlin I, Etienne Z B and Baumgarte T W 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 084059 (Preprint 1802.09625)

    2018 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Mewes V, Zlochower Y, Campanelli M, Baumgarte T W, Etienne Z B, Lopez Armengol F G and Cipolletta F 2020 Phys. Rev. D 101 104007 (Preprint 2002.06225)

    2020 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Ji L, Mewes V, Zlochower Y, Ennoggi L, Armengol F G L, Campanelli M, Cipolletta F and Etienne Z B 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 104005 (Preprint 2305.01537)

    2023 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Alic D, Bona-Casas C, Bona C, Rezzolla L and Palenzuela C 2012 Phys. Rev. D 85 064040 (Preprint 1106.2254)

    2012 arXiv

  63. [72]

    M¨ osta P, Mundim B C, Faber J A, Haas R, Noble S C, Bode T, L¨ offler F, Ott C D, Reisswig C and Schnetter E 2014 Class. Quant. Grav. 31 015005 (Preprint 1304.5544)

    2014 arXiv

  64. [73]

    2019 Deprecated NRPy+ repository, hosted on bitbucket https://bitbucket.org/zach_ etienne/nrpy

    2019

  65. [74]

    Schnetter E, Hawley S H and Hawke I 2004 Class. Quant. Grav. 21 1465–1488 ( Preprint gr-qc/0310042)

    2004 arXiv

  66. [75]

    2024 Carpet: Adaptive mesh refinement for the Cactus Framework http://www.carpetcode.org/

    2024

  67. [76]

    Jacques T P, Cupp S, Werneck L R, Tootle S D, Hamilton M C B and Etienne Z B 2024 arXiv superB/NRPy Numerical Relativity Framework for 3G Gravitational Wave Science 24 preprint (Preprint 2412.03659)

    2024

  68. [77]

    Tootle S D, Werneck L R, Assumpcao T, Jacques T P and Etienne Z B 2025 arXiv preprint (Preprint 2501.14030)

    2025 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Tichy W and Marronetti P 2007 Phys. Rev. D 76 061502 (Preprint gr-qc/0703075)

    2007 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Marronetti P, Tichy W, Br¨ ugmann B, Gonz´ alez J and Sperhake U 2008Phys. Rev. D 77 064010 (Preprint 0709.2160)

    arXiv

  71. [80]

    Bona C, Mass´ o J, Seidel E and Stela J 1995Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 600–603 (Preprint gr-qc/9412071)

    arXiv

  72. [81]

    Alcubierre M, Br¨ ugmann B, Diener P, Koppitz M, Pollney D, Seidel E and Takahashi R 2003 Phys. Rev. D 67 084023 (Preprint gr-qc/0206072)

    2003 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Schnetter E 2010 Classical and Quantum Gravity 27 167001 (Preprint 1003.0859)

    2010 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Assump¸ c˜ ao T, Werneck L R, Pierre Jacques T and Etienne Z B 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 104037 (Preprint 2111.02424)

    2022 arXiv

  75. [84]

    org/stable/3649684

    Gottlieb S, Shu C W and Tadmor E 2001 SIAM Review 43 89–112 URL https://www.jstor. org/stable/3649684

    2001

  76. [85]

    Ansorg M, Br¨ ugmann B and Tichy W 2004 Phys. Rev. D 70 064011 (Preprint gr-qc/0404056)

    2004 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Alcubierre M 2003 Classical and Quantum Gravity 20 607–623 (Preprint gr-qc/0210050)

    2003 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Alcubierre M 2005 Classical and Quantum Gravity 22 4071–4081 (Preprint gr-qc/0503030)

    2005 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Open Source Softw

    Stein L C 2019 J. Open Source Softw. 4 1683 (Preprint 1908.10377)

    2019 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Anninos P, Hobill D, Seidel E, Smarr L and Suen W M 1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. 71(18) 2851–2854 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.2851

    1993 doi

  81. [90]

    Kal´ e L V, Zheng G, Lee C W and Kumar S 2006 Future Generation Computer Systems 22 347–358 ISSN 0167-739X URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0167739X04002262

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.