Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Breaking the mold: overcoming the time constraints of molecular dynamics on general-purpose hardware

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A general-purpose wafer-scale processor sustains molecular dynamics at 1.144 million timesteps per second for 200,000 atoms, the fastest MD rate reported on any platform, opening direct millisecond-timescale simulation.

desk verdict The step-rate record is real and measured; the millisecond capability claim needs an FP32 accuracy check before it lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10532 v1 pith:EUYHM4XH submitted 2024-11-15 cs.DC cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph

Danny Perez , Aidan Thompson , Stan Moore , Tomas Oppelstrup , Ilya Sharapov , Kylee Santos , Amirali Sharifian , Delyan Z. Kalchev
show 6 more authors
Robert Schreiber Scott Pakin Edgar A. Leon James H. Laros III Michael James Sivasankaran Rajamanickam
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph
keywords moleculardynamicswafer-scaleenginestrongscalingEmbeddedAtomMethodlong-timescalesimulationfine-grainedparallelismneutralterritoryFP32precision
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

The paper claims that a general-purpose programmable processor, the Cerebras Wafer-Scale Engine, can run molecular dynamics at 1.144 million timesteps per second for a 200,000-atom tantalum system described by an Embedded Atom Method potential, the fastest MD simulation rate reported on any platform. Since the mid-2000s, general-purpose CPU and GPU systems have plateaued near $10^{4}$ to $10^{5}$ steps per second, and only special-purpose MD hardware such as Anton approached one million steps per second, but only for restricted biomolecular force fields. If the claim holds, direct atomistic simulation over millisecond timescales becomes possible on fully programmable hardware, allowing slow thermally activated processes like defect diffusion and microstructural evolution to be studied without bespoke machines. The peak rate of 1.144 million steps per second corresponds to roughly 0.1 ms of simulated time per wall-clock day.

What carries the argument

The central object is a fine-grained parallel short-range MD algorithm for a two-dimensional mesh of cores. Atoms are mapped to the grid by projecting their coordinates and sorting spatially, then each atom's pairwise interactions are split across a small rectangle of cores using a neutral-territory assignment with a T-shaped multicast communication pattern, so that data travels only along directly connected cores. Increasing the number of cores per atom (up to four or six) spreads the very low arithmetic intensity of EAM force calculations across more processors, and the WSE's on-chip network delivers 20 PB/s of bandwidth with single-cycle neighbor latency, which keeps hundreds of thousands of cores usefully busy. Periodic greedy remapping and local neighbor lists keep the mapping efficient as atoms move.

What would settle it

Run the same 200,000-atom tantalum EAM system on the WSE in FP32 and on a double-precision reference implementation (for example, LAMMPS on Frontier) for $10^{8}$ steps in the microcanonical ensemble, and compare total energy drift and final atomic configurations. If the FP32 trajectory's energy drift exceeds a few kT or its end-state configurations diverge substantially from the FP64 run, then the millisecond-timescale simulation claim fails despite the 1.144 million steps/s rate being real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the WSE-2 processor, by assigning four cores to each atom, the authors measure 1,144,000 timesteps per second for 200,000 tantalum atoms interacting through the EAM potential of Li et al. This is roughly 63% faster than their own one-core-per-atom implementation, which achieved 700,000 steps per second for 800,000 atoms, and it is, as far as the authors know, the fastest MD simulation rate ever reported on any platform. For the longer-ranged tungsten potential, the same strategy yields 503,000 steps per second at six cores per atom, a 60% improvement over the single-core-per-atom case. The benchmarks use thin quasi-2D slabs similar to grain-boundary evolution geometries, and the WSE runs in FP32 because the hardware lacks double-precision units, whereas the Frontier comparison used FP64.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that single-precision (FP32) arithmetic, which the WSE is limited to, preserves the physical trajectory over the millisecond timescales the paper targets; the paper does not demonstrate this with energy-conservation checks or a double-precision reference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Direct simulation of 0.1 ms of material time per simulation-day becomes possible for systems of roughly 10^5 to 10^6 atoms on programmable hardware, a regime previously restricted to special-purpose machines.
  • The 63% speedup from multi-core-per-atom strong scaling shows that latency-bound short-range MD can still profit from extremely fine parallel decomposition when communication is cheap.
  • The same implementation raises tungsten EAM rates by 60% at six cores per atom, indicating the benefit extends beyond the shortest-cutoff potentials.
  • A planned many-atoms-per-core version should allow weak scaling, extending accessible atom counts while holding the high step rate.
  • Generalizing the approach to machine-learned and long-range potentials, cited as ongoing work, would expand both the time and accuracy axes of the MD simulation space on a single architecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not validate FP32 accuracy for millisecond trajectories; if energy drift proves acceptable, the same precision strategy could be adopted on GPU clusters where FP32 throughput exceeds FP64, independently of wafer-scale hardware.
  • The T-shaped neutral-territory pattern is not specific to EAM and may accelerate other short-range particle methods on mesh-connected many-core chips, such as smoothed-particle hydrodynamics or short-range Coulomb sums.
  • A cross-platform benchmark using the identical potential and precision (for example, the same Ta EAM system on WSE and on a large GPU cluster) would isolate the architecture's contribution from algorithmic or precision effects, which the paper's mixed-precision, mixed-potential comparisons do not fully separate.
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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the Cerebras Wafer-Scale Engine (WSE-2), a commercially available programmable processor, can break the long-standing MD timescale barrier by assigning multiple processor cores to each atom. It describes an EAM implementation based on spatial sorting, T-shaped multicast communication, neutral-territory force assignment, and periodic greedy remapping. Benchmarks on Ta and W at 300 K report up to 1.144 million steps/s for 200,000 Ta atoms at 4 cores/atom, corresponding to about 0.1 ms of simulated time per day at a 1 fs timestep. The paper compares this with LAMMPS on Frontier and with published Fugaku and Anton results, and claims that this is the fastest reported MD simulation rate on any platform and that it enables direct simulation over millisecond timescales.

Significance. If the claims are validated, this is a significant result: it demonstrates that a general-purpose architecture can sustain MD step rates comparable to or exceeding bespoke machines such as Anton, while using a many-body EAM potential that requires two communication passes per step. The performance measurements are direct, are free of fitted parameters, and are internally consistent (Ta peaks at 4 cores/atom and W increases monotonically with cores/atom). The algorithmic description is concrete, and the comparison with Frontier is a useful quantitative anchor. The main missing element is physical validation of the FP32 trajectories: the millisecond-timescale capability claim currently rests on a throughput measurement rather than on evidence that the generated dynamics remain faithful over long simulated times.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV; Section V; Abstract] The paper's central capability claim, that the WSE enables direct simulations over millisecond timescales, is not supported by the evidence because the WSE runs use FP32 (Section IV: 'We used FP32 (single precision) on WSE because the WSE lacks FP64 (double precision) hardware') and no validation of trajectory fidelity is reported. At the Table II peak rate of 1.144M steps/s and a 1 fs timestep, 1 ms of simulated time corresponds to about 10^12 steps and roughly 10 days of wall-clock time; the manuscript reports no energy-conservation check, no FP64 cross-validation, and no physical observable from a long run. The benchmark system is a defect-free perfect crystal at 300 K, which does not exercise the rare thermally activated events that motivate millisecond-scale materials simulation. To support the claim, the authors should report energy drift and temperature stability over at least 10^8 steps, compare against an FP64 reference (for example, the same initial conditions run with LAMMPS on Frontier), and ideally demonstrate a slow dynamical observable that is insensitive to FP32 rounding. Without this, the step rate is a throughput measurement, not a demonstration of millisecond-timescale capability.
  2. [Section V, Table II] The claimed 'additional speedup of about 63%' from multiple cores/atom is not a strong-scaling speedup at fixed problem size: the 1 core/atom row is N=800,000 at 700,000 steps/s, while the 4 cores/atom row is N=200,000 at 1,144,000 steps/s. The total number of cores is the same (about 800k), but the total number of atoms, and therefore the per-step work, is four times smaller. The fastest-rate claim is unaffected, but the 'speedup' language conflates a reduction in system size with an increase in simulation rate. Please state explicitly that the comparison is at fixed core count with decreasing N, and report atom-timesteps/s or a fixed-N comparison for a smaller system so readers can separate rate from workload.
  3. [Section IV; Section V; Fig. 3] The '0.1 ms per simulation-day' number and the accessible-space plot in Fig. 3 assume that the short-benchmark step rate is sustained over 24 hours of wall-clock time, including periodic neighbor-list rebuilds and the greedy remapping step. The text states that remapping is 'infrequent enough that it exhibits only a small impact on the overall simulation performance' but provides no measurement of this overhead, and no sustained-run data are shown. Because the millisecond-timescale argument rests on roughly 10^11--10^12 consecutive steps, the authors should report at least one long run (say 10^8 steps) with measured sustained throughput, the fraction of time spent in remapping and neighbor-list rebuilds as a function of cores/atom, and confirmation that the 24-hour extrapolation is not optimistic. This is particularly important at 4--6 cores/atom, where communication and remapping are most intense.
  4. [Section V, Table I] The headline 'fastest reported MD simulation rate on any platform' compares heterogeneous benchmarks: Anton-3's 980k steps/s is for 24k atoms with a biomolecular force field including long-range electrostatics, while the WSE result is for 200k atoms with a short-ranged EAM potential. The authors acknowledge these qualitative differences in Section V, but the Abstract and Conclusions state the comparison without those qualifications. Please either qualify the claim (for example, 'fastest reported rate for a short-ranged many-body potential') or add a normalized metric such as atom-timesteps/s or steps/s per interacting pair so that the record claim is not misleading. This affects how the central result will be cited and should be corrected in revision.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section IV, Table II] The manuscript never states the MD integration scheme or the timestep used in the benchmarks; the 0.1 ms/day conversion assumes 1 fs steps, but this should be stated explicitly near Table II and in the Methods.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (1)] The force calculation and the two-pass density/force communication are described only verbally; a pseudocode or equations for the velocity-Verlet update and the neighbor-list screening would materially help reproducibility.
  3. [Table II] In the tungsten block, the 6 cores/atom row (503,000 steps/s) is the maximum and should be bolded consistently with the tantalum block if the bold style marks the maximum.
  4. [Section V] The statement that only 743 cycles are required to complete a timestep lacks the WSE-2 clock frequency; please specify the frequency so the cycle count can be interpreted.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The figure uses extrapolated 24-hour values for several platforms; the caption should clearly distinguish measured points from ideal-scaling extrapolations (Frontier) and from assumed sustained-rate extrapolations (WSE, Anton, Fugaku).
  6. [Section VI] The claim that 'preliminary modeling indicates' multi-WSE clusters largely maintain the time-stepping rate is speculative and unsupported; it should be labeled as a projection or removed from the Discussion.
  7. [References and data availability] No data or code availability statement is provided; benchmark scripts, input files (potentials and initial configurations), and a measurement protocol would materially aid verification.
  8. [Table I] The paper should clarify which Table I entries from 2024 come from the authors' prior Santos et al. work (arXiv:2405.07898) and which are newly measured here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the step-rate result is a direct measurement, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation as the comparison baseline.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are measured performance numbers, not derived quantities. The 1.144M steps/s rate is a direct benchmark result (Table II) on the WSE, and the 0.1 ms/day figure is the literal product of that rate and 86,400 seconds per day at a 1 fs timestep; no fitted parameter or target quantity is used as an input. The comparison against prior work uses Ref. [44] (Santos et al., with overlapping authors) as the one-core-per-atom baseline, but that baseline is itself a measured benchmark and the claimed 63% speedup is computed from two independently reported rates; it does not define the result. The 'millisecond timescales' capability statement is an extrapolation of the measured rate, not a circular definition. The only notable weakness is the absence of FP32 trajectory validation, but that is a correctness and robustness risk, not a circularity: the FP32 limitation is stated openly in Section IV and does not enter the performance derivation. No uniqueness theorem, fitted-input-as-prediction pattern, or ansatz-smuggled-via-citation pattern is present. Score 1 reflects a minor non-load-bearing self-citation; the derivation chain is otherwise self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a measured performance number, so it introduces no fitted parameters or invented entities. It does rely on four unproven background assumptions: the accuracy of the chosen EAM potentials, the sufficiency of FP32 precision, the validity of ideal weak-scaling extrapolations for the Frontier comparison, and the representativeness of the perfect-crystal benchmark geometry.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Embedded Atom Method potentials for tantalum (Li et al. 2003) and tungsten (Zhou et al. 2001) are accurate enough to represent the physics of the benchmarked crystals.
    The scientific relevance of the millisecond-timescale claim assumes these potentials describe the intended material behavior; the paper does not test this.
  • ad hoc to paper FP32 single-precision arithmetic on the WSE preserves the fidelity of MD trajectories over long simulations.
    The paper uses FP32 because the WSE lacks FP64, but provides no accuracy validation (Section IV).
  • domain assumption Frontier performance can be ideally weak-scaled from 128 nodes to the full 9,408-node machine and to 24 hours of wall time.
    The comparison in Fig. 3 relies on this extrapolation, which is standard for capability projections but is not a measured result (Section V).
  • domain assumption A quasi-2D perfect-crystal slab at 300 K is representative of the grain-boundary evolution workloads the millisecond-timescale claim targets.
    The benchmarks use defect-free crystals, while grain-boundary problems involve interfaces and defects; the paper states the geometry is 'akin to' such studies but does not benchmark the actual problem (Sections IV and V).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Breaking the mold: overcoming the time constraints of molecular dynamics on general-purpose hardware." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUYHM4XH

@misc{pith2026241110532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Breaking the mold: overcoming the time constraints of molecular dynamics on general-purpose hardware},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUYHM4XH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10532}
}
read the original abstract

The evolution of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations has been intimately linked to that of computing hardware. For decades following the creation of MD, simulations have improved with computing power along the three principal dimensions of accuracy, atom count (spatial scale), and duration (temporal scale). Since the mid-2000s, computer platforms have however failed to provide strong scaling for MD as scale-out CPU and GPU platforms that provide substantial increases to spatial scale do not lead to proportional increases in temporal scale. Important scientific problems therefore remained inaccessible to direct simulation, prompting the development of increasingly sophisticated algorithms that present significant complexity, accuracy, and efficiency challenges. While bespoke MD-only hardware solutions have provided a path to longer timescales for specific physical systems, their impact on the broader community has been mitigated by their limited adaptability to new methods and potentials. In this work, we show that a novel computing architecture, the Cerebras Wafer Scale Engine, completely alters the scaling path by delivering unprecedentedly high simulation rates up to 1.144M steps/second for 200,000 atoms whose interactions are described by an Embedded Atom Method potential. This enables direct simulations of the evolution of materials using general-purpose programmable hardware over millisecond timescales, dramatically increasing the space of direct MD simulations that can be carried out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10532 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Progression of maximum simulation speed over six [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Optimizations of communication patterns that enable fine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Accessible simulation space, assuming 24 hours of run time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unstructured Hydrodynamics on Spatial Dataflow Architectures: A Joint Code and Data Decomposition Approach

    cs.DC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A joint code-and-data decomposition pipeline maps the LULESH proxy application onto the Cerebras WSE, measured up to 4.8x faster than an NVIDIA A100, with analytical models predicting runtime within ~50%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    author author B. J. \ Alder \ and\ author T. E. \ Wainwright ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 31 ,\ pages 459 ( year 1959 ) NoStop

    work page 1959

  2. [2]

    Rahman ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review \ volume 136 ,\ pages A405 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    author author A. Rahman ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review \ volume 136 ,\ pages A405 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    work page 1964

  3. [3]

    Hooker ,\ @noop journal journal Communications of the ACM \ volume 64 ,\ pages 58 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    author author S. Hooker ,\ @noop journal journal Communications of the ACM \ volume 64 ,\ pages 58 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    author author CPU DB ,\ @noop howpublished http://cpudb.stanford.edu/visualize/clock_frequency.html ,\ note [Online; Last updated 23-June-2016] NoStop

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    author author T. C. \ Germann \ and\ author K. Kadau ,\ @noop journal journal International Journal of Modern Physics C \ volume 19 ,\ pages 1315 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    author author C. R. \ Trott , author S. D. \ Hammond , \ and\ author A. P. \ Thompson ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Supercomputing: 29th International Conference, ISC 2014, Leipzig, Germany, June 22-26, 2014. Proceedings 29 \ ( organization Springer International Publishing ,\ year 2014 )\ pp.\ pages 19--34 NoStop

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Scaling Molecular Dynamics with ab initio Accuracy to 149 Nanoseconds per Day

    author author J. Li , author B. Li , author Z. Guo , author M. Li , author E. Li , author L. Liu , author G. Yuan , author Z. Wang , author G. Tan , \ and\ author W. Jia ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22867 \ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [8]

    Behler ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 145 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    author author J. Behler ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 145 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page 2016

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    author author V. L. \ Deringer , author M. A. \ Caro , \ and\ author G. Cs \'a nyi ,\ @noop journal journal Advanced Materials \ volume 31 ,\ pages 1902765 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  2. [10]

    Kadau , author C

    author author K. Kadau , author C. Rosenblatt , author J. L. \ Barber , author T. C. \ Germann , author Z. Huang , author P. Carles , \ and\ author B. J. \ Alder ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \ volume 104 ,\ pages 7741 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007

  3. [11]

    Swaminarayan , author T

    author author S. Swaminarayan , author T. C. \ Germann , author K. Kadau , \ and\ author G. C. \ Fossum ,\ in\ @noop booktitle SC'08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing \ ( organization IEEE ,\ year 2008 )\ pp.\ pages 1--10 NoStop

    2008

  4. [12]

    author author F. F. \ Abraham , author R. Walkup , author H. Gao , author M. Duchaineau , author T. Diaz De La Rubia , \ and\ author M. Seager ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \ volume 99 ,\ pages 5783 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002

  5. [13]

    Rousset , author G

    author author M. Rousset , author G. Stoltz , \ and\ author T. Lelievre ,\ @noop title Free energy computations: a mathematical perspective \ ( publisher World Scientific ,\ year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  6. [14]

    author author R. C. \ Bernardi , author M. C. \ Melo , \ and\ author K. Schulten ,\ @noop journal journal Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects \ volume 1850 ,\ pages 872 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  7. [15]

    author author Y. I. \ Yang , author Q. Shao , author J. Zhang , author L. Yang , \ and\ author Y. Q. \ Gao ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 151 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  8. [16]

    K \"a stner ,\ @noop journal journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science \ volume 1 ,\ pages 932 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    author author J. K \"a stner ,\ @noop journal journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science \ volume 1 ,\ pages 932 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  9. [17]

    author author D. J. \ Earl \ and\ author M. W. \ Deem ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics \ volume 7 ,\ pages 3910 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  10. [18]

    author author R. Elber ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2005.02.004 journal journal Current Opinion in Structural Biology \ volume 15 ,\ pages 151 ( year 2005 ) ,\ note theory and simulation/Macromolecular assemblages NoStop

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    author author R. J. \ Allen , author C. Valeriani , \ and\ author P. R. \ Ten Wolde ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of physics: Condensed matter \ volume 21 ,\ pages 463102 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  12. [20]

    Perez , author B

    author author D. Perez , author B. P. \ Uberuaga , author Y. Shim , author J. G. \ Amar , \ and\ author A. F. \ Voter ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Reports in computational chemistry \ volume 5 ,\ pages 79 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  13. [21]

    Zamora , author D

    author author R. Zamora , author D. Perez , author E. Martinez , author B. P. \ Uberuaga , \ and\ author A. F. \ Voter ,\ @noop journal journal Handbook of Materials Modeling: Methods: Theory and Modeling \ ,\ pages 745 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  14. [22]

    Perez , author B

    author author D. Perez , author B. P. \ Uberuaga , \ and\ author A. F. \ Voter ,\ @noop journal journal Computational Materials Science \ volume 100 ,\ pages 90 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  15. [23]

    author author D. E. \ Shaw et al. ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis ,\ series and number SC '21 \ ( publisher Association for Computing Machinery ,\ address New York, NY, USA ,\ y...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Susukita , author T

    author author R. Susukita , author T. Ebisuzaki , author B. G. \ Elmegreen , author H. Furusawa , author K. Kato , author A. Kawai , author Y. Kobayashi , author T. Koishi , author G. D. \ McNiven , author T. Narumi , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Computer Physics Communicat...

    2003

  17. [25]

    Lindorff-Larsen , author S

    author author K. Lindorff-Larsen , author S. Piana , author R. O. \ Dror , \ and\ author D. E. \ Shaw ,\ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 334 ,\ pages 517 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  18. [26]

    author author D. E. \ Shaw , author P. J. \ Adams , author A. Azaria , author J. A. \ Bank , author B. Batson , author A. Bell , author M. Bergdorf , author J. Bhatt , author J. A. \ Butts , author T. Correia , author R. M. \ Dirks , author R. O. \ Dror , author M. P. \ Eastwo...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Verlet ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review \ volume 159 ,\ pages 98 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    author author L. Verlet ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review \ volume 159 ,\ pages 98 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    1964

  20. [28]

    author author W. F. V. \ Gunsteren , author H. J. C. \ Berendsen , author J. Hermans , author W. G. J. \ Hol , \ and\ author J. P. M. \ Postma ,\ http://www.jstor.org/stable/14017 journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America \...

    1983

  21. [29]

    author author W. F. \ Van Gunsteren , author H. J. C. \ Berendsen , author R. G. \ Geurtsen , \ and\ author H. R. J. \ Zwinderman ,\ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb20962.x journal journal Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences \ volume 482 ,\ pages 287 ( year 1...

    1986

  22. [30]

    author author S. J. \ Plimpton \ and\ author B. A. \ Hendrickson ,\ @noop journal journal MRS Proceedings \ volume 291 ,\ pages 37 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993

  23. [31]

    Plimpton ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Computational Physics \ volume 117 ,\ pages 1 ( year 1995 a ) NoStop

    author author S. Plimpton ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Computational Physics \ volume 117 ,\ pages 1 ( year 1995 a ) NoStop

    1995

  24. [32]

    author author K. J. \ Bowers , author E. Chow , author H. Xu , author R. O. \ Dror , author M. P. \ Eastwood , author B. A. \ Gregersen , author J. L. \ Klepeis , author I. Kolossvary , author M. A. \ Moraes , author F. D. \ Sacerdoti , et al. ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Proceeding...

    2006

  25. [33]

    author author J. N. \ Glosli , author D. F. \ Richards , author K. J. \ Caspersen , author R. E. \ Rudd , author J. A. \ Gunnels , \ and\ author F. H. \ Streitz ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Proceedings of the 2007 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing \ ( year 2007 )\ pp.\ pages 1--...

    2007

  26. [34]

    author author D. E. \ Shaw , author M. M. \ Deneroff , author R. O. \ Dror , author J. S. \ Kuskin , author R. H. \ Larson , author J. K. \ Salmon , author C. Young , author B. Batson , author K. J. \ Bowers , author J. C. \ Chao , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Communication...

    2008

  27. [35]

    Hess , author C

    author author B. Hess , author C. Kutzner , author D. Van Der Spoel , \ and\ author E. Lindahl ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 4 ,\ pages 435 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  28. [36]

    Thompson , author C

    author author A. Thompson , author C. Trott , author L. Swiler , author G. Tucker , author S. Foiles , \ and\ author S. Plimpton ,\ https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1661293 journal journal https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1661293 \ ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  29. [37]

    author author LAMMPS ,\ @noop howpublished https://www.lammps.org/bench.html ,\ note [Online; Benchmark from June 2012] NoStop

    2012

  30. [38]

    author author S. G. \ Moore \ and\ author P. S. \ Crozier ,\ 10.1063/1.4883695 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 140 ,\ pages 234112 ( year 2014 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4883695/15477989/234112\_1\_...

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    author author D. E. \ Shaw , author J. Grossman , author J. A. \ Bank , author B. Batson , author J. A. \ Butts , author J. C. \ Chao , author M. M. \ Deneroff , author R. O. \ Dror , author A. Even , author C. H. \ Fenton , et al. ,\ in\ @noop booktitle SC'14: Proceedings of ...

    2014

  32. [40]

    author author N. P. \ Bailey , author T. S. \ Ingebrigtsen , author J. S. \ Hansen , author A. A. \ Veldhorst , author L. Bøhling , author C. A. \ Lemarchand , author A. E. \ Olsen , author A. K. \ Bacher , author L. Costigliola , author U. R. \ Pedersen , author H. Larsen , a...

    doi

  33. [41]

    Pall , author A

    author author S. Pall , author A. Zhmurov , author P. Bauer , author M. Abraham , author M. Lundborg , author A. Gray , author B. Hess , \ and\ author E. Lindahl ,\ 10.1063/5.0018516 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 153 ,\ pages 134110 ( year 2020 ) ,\ ...

    doi

  34. [43]

    Li , author T

    author author J. Li , author T. Zhao , author Z. Guo , author S. Shi , author L. Liu , author G. Tan , author W. Jia , author G. Yuan , \ and\ author Z. Wang ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage ...

    2023

  35. [44]

    Santos , author S

    author author K. Santos , author S. Moore , author T. Oppelstrup , author A. Sharifian , author I. Sharapov , author A. Thompson , author D. Z. \ Kalchev , author D. Perez , author R. Schreiber , author S. Pakin , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07898...

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    author author Wikipedia ,\ @noop howpublished https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor_chronology ( a ),\ note [Online; Last updated 8-September-2024] NoStop

    2024

  37. [46]

    author author Wikipedia ,\ @noop howpublished https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Tesla ( b ),\ note [Online; Last updated 28-September-2024] NoStop

    2024

  38. [47]

    author author D. Wales ,\ @noop title Energy Landscapes: Applications to Clusters, Biomolecules and Glasses ,\ Cambridge Molecular Science\ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004

  39. [48]

    Rocki , author D

    author author K. Rocki , author D. V. \ Essendelft , author I. Sharapov , author R. Schreiber , author M. Morrison , author V. Kibardin , author A. Portnoy , author J. Dietiker , author M. Syamlal , \ and\ author M. James ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Proceedings of the International...

    2020

  40. [49]

    Lie ,\ @noop journal journal IEEE Micro \ volume 43 ,\ pages 18 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    author author S. Lie ,\ @noop journal journal IEEE Micro \ volume 43 ,\ pages 18 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  41. [50]

    author author Message Passing Interface Forum ,\ https://www.mpi-forum.org/docs/mpi-4.1/mpi41-report.pdf title MPI : A Message-Passing Interface Standard Version 4.1 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  42. [51]

    Woo , author T

    author author M. Woo , author T. Jordan , author R. Schreiber , author I. Sharapov , author S. Muhammad , author A. Koneru , author M. James , \ and\ author D. V. \ Essendelft ,\ @noop journal journal CoRR \ volume abs/2209.13768 ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.1376...

    2022 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Ltaief , author Y

    author author H. Ltaief , author Y. Hong , author L. Wilson , author M. Jacquelin , author M. Ravasi , \ and\ author D. E. \ Keyes ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC 2023, Denv...

    2023

  44. [53]

    author author M. S. \ Daw , author S. M. \ Foiles , \ and\ author M. I. \ Baskes ,\ @noop journal journal Materials Science Reports \ volume 9 ,\ pages 251 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993

  45. [54]

    Li , author D

    author author Y. Li , author D. J. \ Siegel , author J. B. \ Adams , \ and\ author X.-Y. \ Liu ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 67 ,\ pages 125101 ( year 2003 a ) NoStop

    2003

  46. [55]

    Zhou , author H

    author author X. Zhou , author H. Wadley , author R. A. \ Johnson , author D. Larson , author N. Tabat , author A. Cerezo , author A. Petford-Long , author G. Smith , author P. Clifton , author R. Martens , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Acta materialia \ volume 49 ,\ pages 4...

    2001

  47. [56]

    author author K. J. \ Bowers , author R. O. \ Dror , \ and\ author D. E. \ Shaw ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 124 ,\ pages 184109 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  48. [57]

    author author S. J. \ Plimpton \ and\ author B. A. \ Hendrickson ,\ @noop journal journal MRS Online Proceedings Library \ volume 291 ,\ pages 37 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992

  49. [58]

    Plimpton ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Computational Physics \ volume 117 ,\ pages 1 ( year 1995 b ) NoStop

    author author S. Plimpton ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Computational Physics \ volume 117 ,\ pages 1 ( year 1995 b ) NoStop

    1995

  50. [59]

    author author A. P. \ Thompson , author H. M. \ Aktulga , author R. Berger , author D. S. \ Bolintineanu , author W. M. \ Brown , author P. S. \ Crozier , author P. J. \ in 't Veld , author A. Kohlmeyer , author S. G. \ Moore , author T. D. \ Nguyen , author R. Shan , author M...

  51. [60]

    author author C. R. \ Trott , author D. Lebrun-Grandié , author D. Arndt , author J. Ciesko , author V. Dang , author N. Ellingwood , author R. Gayatri , author E. Harvey , author D. S. \ Hollman , author D. Ibanez , author N. Liber , author J. Madsen , author J. Miles , autho...

    2022

  52. [61]

    author author H. C. \ Edwards , author C. R. \ Trott , \ and\ author D. Sunderland ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing \ volume 74 ,\ pages 3202 ( year 2014 ) ,\ note domain-Specific Languages and High-Level Frameworks for High-Performance Co...

    2014

  53. [62]

    author author S. M. \ Foiles , author M. I. \ Baskes , \ and\ author M. S. \ Daw ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.33.7983 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 33 ,\ pages 7983 ( year 1986 ) NoStop

    1986 doi

  54. [63]

    Li , author D

    author author Y. Li , author D. J. \ Siegel , author J. B. \ Adams , \ and\ author X.-Y. \ Liu ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 67 ,\ pages 125101 ( year 2003 b ) NoStop

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.