Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Computer algebra system”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

399 records · Page 23
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

Initial CEED API (CEED-MS10)

Key components of CEED software development involve fast finite element operator storage and evaluation, architecture optimizations, performant algorithms for all orders, global kernels for finite element operators, efficient use of the memory sub-system, optimal data locality and motion, enhanced scalability and parallelism, and fast tensor contractions. As ultimate goals of the project, CEED is exploring and identifying the best algorithms for the full range of discretizations and applying algorithmic and software development to support ECP applications’ needs. In this milestone, we initiated the development and implementation of a common CEED API consisting of two main components: low-level and high-level APIs. We accomplished the goal of having the low-level component ready for the release of CEED v1.0 in the next quarter, see CEED-MS13. In this report we also provide a highlight from CEED’s integration with the MARBL app and the corresponding Laghos miniapp. A main theme in this work has been the systematic transition of advanced algorithms, developed and tested in Laghos, to the large-scale multi-physics settings of the MARBL code. The low-level CEED API provides a set of FE kernels and components for writing new low-level kernels. Examples include: vector and sparse linear algebra, element matrix assembly over a batch of elements, partial assembly and action for efficient high-order operators like mass, diffusion, advection, etc. The main goal of the low-level API is to establish the basis for the high-level API. Also, identifying such low-level kernels and providing a reference implementation for them serves as the basis for collaboration with vendors and STs. Another goal for the low-level API is to make it easy for applications with their own discretization infrastructure, who do not want to switch directly to using the high-level CEED API, to still evaluate and use the core operations provided by the low-level API. One of the challenges with high-order methods is that a global sparse matrix is no longer a good representation of a high-order linear operator, both with respect to the FLOPs needed for its evaluation, as well as the memory transfer needed for a matvec. Thus, another important question we tried to address while developing the low-level API is: is it possible to abstract out in a natural and efficient way the different implementations and data structures that arise when dealing with various computational device types: CPUs, GPUs, etc. Fully answering this question is beyond the scope of this particular milestone, since that requires longer time as we develop and expand the devices we support. The future high-level API will be the frontend provided by CEED consisting of high-level abstractions such as meshes, finite element spaces and solutions, bilinear forms, solvers, etc. At this high-level, an important aspect of the API will be to provide a uniform abstraction layer for writing code in a portable manner. To achieve that, we plan to utilize the MPI programming model combined with a device abstraction layer (DAL) for finite element computations that we will develop. The DAL will serve as the bridge between the low- and the high-level APIs, allowing a variety of programming models to be used for the low-level kernel implementations. The software artifacts delivered as part of this milestone include an initial CEED API software implementation (libCEED) provided through the CEED website, http://ceed.exascaleproject.org and the CEED GitHub organization, http://github.com/ceed. In addition to details and results from the above R&D efforts, in this document we are also reporting on other project-wide activities performed in Q1 of FY18, including: the Nek5000 v17.0 MFEM v3.3.2 and PETSc v3.8 releases, collaborations with ECP/ST and SciDAC projects, the inaugural Nek5000 hackathon and various outreach activities.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Machine-Learning Assisted Identification of Battery Life Models

Predictive battery life models are commonly utilized to extrapolate degradation trends observed during accelerated aging tests for simulation of degradation in real-world applications. Thus, fitting accelerated aging data as accurately as possible and with low uncertainty is crucial for making believable projections of battery lifetime, but it is challenging to identify algebraic expressions that accurately fit multivariate degradation trends. A review of models published in literature reveal some common expressions for fitting calendar aging data, which is only dependent on temperature and state-of-charge, but no consistency across many models for fitting cycle aging data, indicating the need for a statistically rigorous data driven approach for developing empirical models. This talk will describe a machine-learning assisted method for identification of predictive battery life models utilizing bilevel optimization and symbolic regression. Bilevel optimization with cross-validation is used to statistically determine cell- and stress-dependent model parameters, while symbolic regression identifies both linear and multiplicative candidate expressions to predict stress-dependent degradation rates by selecting low-order subsets of features from a generated feature library. Because model expressions are identified empirically, it is crucial to ensure resulting models behave according to physical expectations, so the stability of models for interpolation or extrapolation is interrogated qualitatively through simulation and quantitatively through cross-validation and uncertainty quantification via bootstrap resampling. This model identification approach substantially improves upon models identified purely using expert judgement in terms of both accuracy and uncertainty. Model simulation and validation is then conducted by deriving a state-equation form of the predictive model, enabling simulation of battery aging under dynamic stresses. This enables validation of the predictive battery model on lab-based tests with varying conditions or on drive-cycle or application-cycle testing protocols. Parameter uncertainty can be carried forward into model simulation, giving lifetime estimates and confidence windows for cell- or system-level lifetime. The financial impact of battery model uncertainty can be estimated by incorporating uncertainty into a technoeconomic model.

battery↗
DOE OSTI2026

Optimal Transfer Operators in Algebraic Two-Level Methods for Nonsymmetric and Indefinite Problems

Consider an algebraic two-level method applied to the 𝑛-dimensional linear system 𝐴⁢𝒙 = 𝒃 using fine-space preconditioner (i.e., “relaxation” or “smoother”) 𝑀, with 𝑀 ≈ 𝐴, restriction and interpolation 𝑅 and 𝑃, and algebraic coarse-space operator 𝐴 𝑐 : = 𝑅 ∗ ⁢𝐴⁢𝑃. Then, what are the best possible transfer operators 𝑅 and 𝑃 of a given dimension 𝑛 𝑐 < 𝑛? Brannick et al. [12] showed that when 𝐴 and 𝑀 are Hermitian positive definite (HPD), the optimal interpolation is such that its range contains the 𝑛 𝑐 smallest generalized eigenvectors of the matrix pencil (𝐴, 𝑀). Recently, in Ali et al. [5] we generalized this framework to the non-HPD setting, by considering both right (interpolation) and left (restriction) generalized eigenvectors of (𝐴, 𝑀) and defining corresponding nonsymmetric transfer operators {𝑅#, 𝑃#}. Tight convergence bounds for {𝑅#, 𝑃#} are derived in spectral radius, as well as a proof of pseudo-optimality. Note, {𝑅#, 𝑃#} are typically complex valued, which is not practical for real-valued problems. Here, in this work, we build on [5], first characterizing all inner products in which the coarse-space correction defined by {𝑅#, 𝑃#} is orthogonal. We then develop tight two-level convergence bounds in these norms, and prove that the underlying transfer operators {𝑅#, 𝑃#} are genuinely optimal. As a special case, our theory both recovers and extends the HPD results from [12]. Finally, we show how to construct optimal, real-valued transfer operators in the case of that 𝐴 and 𝑀 are real valued, but are not HPD. Numerical examples arising from a discretized advection-reaction equation, wave-equation, and Stokes equations are used to verify and illustrate the theory.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗