Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “benchmark”

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.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

AI Model Benchmarking for Nonproliferation Applications: Steel Thread Benchmarking Task Force Technical Report (Rev. 2)

Steel Thread is a NA-22 venture that seeks to build trustworthy, reliable AI models that can be used in a wide variety of nonproliferation tasks. A key aspect of building these models is developing appropriate benchmarks and evaluation methods, which will enable the venture to identify and adapt models to provide the most value in the nonproliferation domain. Benchmarks must be relevant to key tasks in this domain, such as question answering, information retrieval, document summarization and classification, consensus analysis, and image and data analysis. This report 1) provides an overview of benchmark design, evaluation, and challenges; 2) reviews a variety of open benchmarks, with a focus on language models and tasks; and 3) identifies benchmarks that are most relevant to Steel Thread. This report is intended to serve as a basis for further efforts to classify and evaluate benchmarks and their correlation with success on nonproliferation-specific tasks. The Steel Thread venture has defined benchmarks to be a particular combination of a dataset (or datasets) and a metric (or metrics) conceptualized as representing one or more specific tasks or sets of abilities for a specific modality. It is adopted by a research community as a shared framework for comparing methods.1 It includes 1) Data: Labeled (a designated subset not used for training, which could be all the data), 2) Metric: A way to quantify performance, 3) Task/Ability: What the benchmark is testing, 4) Protocol: A structured and repeatable evaluation process, 5) Baseline/Reference Model: For comparison; could be statistical, rule-based, SME-derived, or another model, and 6) Maintenance Plan: to update with new information over time; important for long-term utility. For further clarity, the definition includes what a benchmark, in this context, is not. It is not a corpus of training data, specific to a model (it is intended to apply to a range of models), a universal evaluation of performance, a guarantee that the ‘top’ model on the leaderboard will be the best fit for every specific use case, an all-encompassing proof of a model’s universal quality, nor is it a one-size-fits-all measure of success. It does not cover every real-world constraint (like operational, ethical, or cost considerations), a systems integration test, or a unit test. This definition was inspired by and resulted from discussions within the Steel Thread Benchmarking Task Force. This group was formed to define what we would mean as a benchmark within Steel Thread but persisted as the need to develop a thorough understanding of the large and expanding existing benchmarking space. This technical report is a result of the group’s divide and conquer approach to exploring this space. The release of benchmarks might not be progressing as quickly as model development, but it is moving very fast, as many benchmarks quickly become saturated, when state-of-the-art models score so close to the benchmark’s ceiling that their results are virtually indistinguishable. At that point, the test no longer differentiates between new systems, so researchers usually stop reporting scores as the benchmark no longer informs about improvements from the next generation of models. In the OpenAI announcement of GPT-5, they reported results on six flagship public benchmarks (AIME 2025, SWE-bench Verified, Aider Polyglot, MMMU, HealthBench Hard, GPQA) but the full system-card covers roughly thirty-five separate evaluations, comprising hundreds of test task items in total. There have been some efforts to summarize benchmarks in specific fields, like for text-to-image generation, but these surveys have had a narrow methodology scope. Therefore, a comprehensive survey of all benchmarks or even all benchmarks that could be relevant to Steel Thread is outside of the scope of this report. We chose some specific benchmarks to investigate in detail.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

DOE FAIR Surrogate Benchmarks Supporting AI and Simulation Research (SBI Surrogate Benchmark Initiative) (Final Report)

Computational Science is being revolutionized by integrating AI and simulation and, in particular, by deep learning surrogate models that can replace all or part of traditional large‐scale HPC computations. Such surrogates can achieve remarkable performance improvements, as much as several orders of magnitude, and save both compute time and energy. The Surrogate Benchmark Initiative (SBI) project creates a community repository and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data ecosystem for HPC application surrogate benchmarks. The SBI team comes from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Indiana University (IU), Rutgers University, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK), and the University of Virginia(UVA). SBI repositories include data, code, and all relevant collateral artifacts, that the science and engineering community needs to use and reuse these data sets and surrogates. SBI repositories generate active research from both participants in SBI and the broader AI and domain science communities. This project develops surrogates that use several different neural nets to learn and quickly infer the results of simulations and data systems and capture them as surrogate benchmarks with a rich set of metadata, covering. Data; Model; Metrics specification; Machine specification; Science, Speed, Power Results, We research FAIR metadata for these benchmarks. We develop application surrogate examples as benchmarks across many fields (ANL, UTK, IU, UVA). We also study non Surrogate benchmarks that have many common features and similar issues regarding FAIRness. We work with MLCommons (UVA, UTK), which is a major machine learning benchmarking activity where we get metadata ontologies, software, and benchmarks, benchmarks have datasets, models, and metadata, and they need a technical framework developed by UTK and Rutgers and deployed by UVA. We study features of Surrogates, including performance, training set size, and uncertainty quantification (Rutgers, UVA and IU).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Application-level benchmarking of quantum computers using nonlocal game strategies

In a nonlocal game, two noncommunicating players cooperate to convince a referee that they possess a strategy that does not violate the rules of the game. Quantum strategies allow players to optimally win some games by performing joint measurements on a shared entangled state, but computing these strategies can be challenging. We present a variational quantum algorithm to compute quantum strategies for nonlocal games by encoding the rules of a nonlocal game into a Hamiltonian. We show how this algorithm can generate a short-depth optimal quantum strategy for a graph coloring game with a quantum advantage. This quantum strategy is then evaluated on fourteen different quantum hardware platforms to demonstrate its utility as a benchmark. Finally, we discuss potential sources of errors that can explain the observed decreased performance of the executed task and derive an expression for the number of samples required to accurately estimate the win rate in the presence of noise.

nonlocal games↗
DOE OSTI2026

SCALE HTR-PROTEUS Benchmark Model

This dataset contains input and result files of computational simulations of HTR-PROTEUS benchmark with the latest version of SCALE code system. The simulations cover criticality control rod worth calculations as well as sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification. Users wanting to reproduce results from this dataset are required to obtain a license to the SCALE code system for which details on the distribution can be found here: https://www.ornl.gov/scale/releases

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2025

AI Benchmark Democratization and Carpentry

Benchmarks are a cornerstone of modern machine learning, enabling reproducibility, comparison, and scientific progress. However, AI benchmarks are increasingly complex, requiring dynamic, AI-focused workflows. Rapid evolution in model architectures, scale, datasets, and deployment contexts makes evaluation a moving target. Large language models often memorize static benchmarks, causing a gap between benchmark results and real-world performance. Beyond traditional static benchmarks, continuous adaptive benchmarking frameworks are needed to align scientific assessment with deployment risks. This calls for skills and education in AI Benchmark Carpentry. From our experience with MLCommons, educational initiatives, and programs like the DOE's Trillion Parameter Consortium, key barriers include high resource demands, limited access to specialized hardware, lack of benchmark design expertise, and uncertainty in relating results to application domains. Current benchmarks often emphasize peak performance on top-tier hardware, offering limited guidance for diverse, real-world scenarios. Benchmarking must become dynamic, incorporating evolving models, updated data, and heterogeneous platforms while maintaining transparency, reproducibility, and interpretability. Democratization requires both technical innovation and systematic education across levels, building sustained expertise in benchmark design and use. Benchmarks should support application-relevant comparisons, enabling informed, context-sensitive decisions. Dynamic, inclusive benchmarking will ensure evaluation keeps pace with AI evolution and supports responsible, reproducible, and accessible AI deployment. Community efforts can provide a foundation for AI Benchmark Carpentry.

von Laszewski, Gregor [Virginia U.]↗
DOE OSTI2025

Benchmark Tracking System for Performance Monitoring

Benchmarking is essential for high-performance software development, particularly for monitoring performance across code iterations. This project focused on enhancing the benchmarking process for Lamellar, an asynchronous runtime for High-Performance Computing (HPC) systems developed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Prior to this work, benchmark results were difficult to track and compare across code versions, presenting significant challenges in identifying performance regressions and long-term trends. The primary objective was to establish a systematic, reproducible approach for measuring performance and detecting regressions following code commits. Our methodology involved three key components: standardizing benchmark outputs, implementing data versioning, and developing analysis tools. We standardized the benchmark output format to JSON Line records containing specific fields (execution time, hardware specifications, and environmental variables). To address data management challenges, we evaluated several options and eventually chose a git repository dedicated to benchmark data. We developed a suite of Python tools that processed benchmark results, enriched them with metadata, and facilitated search in the repository. The resulting system enables more efficient filtering and comparison of performance metrics across commit histories, hardware configurations, and benchmark variants through a unified query interface. Our implementation reduces computational overhead by first checking for existing results through configuration matching before initiating new benchmark runs, thereby conserving resources. The system has been validated by Lamellar developers. It organizes results by benchmark type and build configurations for efficient retrieval. Future developments include a planned Large Language Model interface for predicting benchmark performance, incorporating the criterion package for statistical analysis, which will enable automated detection of statistically significant performance changes, and integration with continuous integration pipelines. Despite these enhancements being reserved for future work, this project has successfully provided the Lamellar development team with a framework for maintaining consistent performance standards and identifying optimization opportunities across workloads and hardware environments.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

MLCommons Science Benchmarks

Benchmarks are a cornerstone of modern machine learning practice, providing standardized eval- uations that enable reproducibility, comparison, and scientific progress. Yet, as AI systems particularly deep learning models become increasingly dynamic, traditional static benchmarking approaches are losing their relevance. Models rapidly evolve in architecture, scale, and capability; datasets shift; and deployment contexts continuously change, creating a moving target for evaluation. Without adaptive benchmarking frame- works, both scientific assessment and real-world de- ployment risk becoming misaligned with actual system behavior. Drawing on our experience from MLCommons, educa- tional initiatives, and government programs such as the DOE s Million Parameter Consortium, we identify key barriers that hinder the broader adoption and utility of benchmarking in AI. These include substantial resource demands, limited access to specialized hardware, lack of expertise in benchmark design, and uncertainty among practitioners about how to relate benchmark results to their own application domains. Moreover, current benchmarks often emphasize peak performance on leadership-class hardware, offering limited guidance for more diverse, real-world deployment scenarios. We argue that benchmarking itself must become dy- namic in order to incorporate evolving models, updated data, and heterogeneous computational platforms while maintaining transparency, reproducibility, and inter- pretability. Democratizing this process requires not only technical innovation, but also systematic educational efforts spanning undergraduate to professional levels to develop sustained expertise in benchmark design and use. Finally, benchmarks should be framed and com- municated to support application-relevant comparisons, enabling both developers and users to make informed, context-sensitive decisions. Advancing dynamic and inclusive benchmarking practices will be essential to ensure that evaluation keeps pace with the evolving AI landscape and supports responsible, reproducible, and accessible AI deployment.

Hawks, Benjamin G. [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2025

An MLCommons Scientific Benchmarks Ontology

Scientific machine learning research spans diverse domains and data modalities, yet existing benchmark efforts remain siloed and lack standardization. This makes novel and transformative applications of machine learning to critical scientific use-cases more fragmented and less clear in pathways to impact. This paper introduces an ontology for scientific benchmarking developed through a unified, community-driven effort that extends the MLCommons ecosystem to cover physics, chemistry, materials science, biology, climate science, and more. Building on prior initiatives such as XAI-BENCH, FastML Science Benchmarks, PDEBench, and the SciMLBench framework, our effort consolidates a large set of disparate benchmarks and frameworks into a single taxonomy of scientific, application, and system-level benchmarks. New benchmarks can be added through an open submission workflow coordinated by the MLCommons Science Working Group and evaluated against a six-category rating rubric that promotes and identifies high-quality benchmarks, enabling stakeholders to select benchmarks that meet their specific needs. The architecture is extensible, supporting future scientific and AI/ML motifs, and we discuss methods for identifying emerging computing patterns for unique scientific workloads. The MLCommons Science Benchmarks Ontology provides a standardized, scalable foundation for reproducible, cross-domain benchmarking in scientific machine learning. A companion webpage for this work has also been developed as the effort evolves: https://mlcommons-science.github.io/benchmark/

Hawks, Ben [Fermilab] (ORCID:0000000157000288)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Informing Robust Functional Relationship Benchmarks: An Evaluation of the Temperature Sensitivity of Ecosystem Respiration Across the Arctic-Boreal Region

During land model development, simulated carbon dynamics are often benchmarked against observational data sets to evaluate model performance. Functional relationship benchmarks are the relationship between a driving variable (e.g., temperature) and a response variable (e.g., ecosystem respiration) and are a promising tool for assessing model performance by evaluating modeled sensitivities to changing environmental conditions. However, observed functional relationships can be influenced by choices made during data collection and throughout the benchmarking process, impacting the inferred skill of land models. To avoid misrepresenting a model's true performance, it is necessary to systematically evaluate best practices when constructing functional relationship benchmarks. We developed a set of guidelines for constructing functional relationship benchmarks, considering the choice of data set, number of daily observations, temporal extent, and temporal resolution across Alaska and Canada over a 20-year period from 2001 to 2020. The temperature sensitivity of ecosystem respiration from observations, evaluated through an apparent Q 10 , is highly variable both spatially and as a result of the data processing approach applied in the benchmark formation. When benchmarking 13 models from the Warming Permafrost Model Intercomparison Project (WrPMIP), the range in inferred model skill is substantially impacted by the choices applied in constructing functional relationship benchmarks. The inferred performance of a given model is most sensitive to the number of daily observations and temporal extent, followed by choice of benchmark data set and temporal averaging. Results from this analysis can guide the development of consistent and robust functional relationships for future model evaluation studies.

Poe, Jeralyn [Northern Arizona University, Flagsta↗
DOE OSTI2025

Benchmarking quantum computers

The rapid pace of development in quantum computing technology has sparked a proliferation of benchmarks to assess the performance of quantum computing hardware and software. However, not all benchmarks are of equal merit. Good ones empower scientists, engineers, programmers and users to understand the power of a computing system, whereas bad ones can misdirect research and inhibit progress. In this Perspective, we survey the science of quantum computer benchmarking. Here, we discuss the role of benchmarks and benchmarking and how good benchmarks can drive and measure progress towards the long-term goal of useful quantum computations, known as quantum utility. We explain how different kinds of benchmark quantify the performance of different parts of a quantum computer, discuss existing benchmarks, examine recent trends in benchmarking, and highlight important open research questions in this field.

Proctor, Timothy James [Sandia National Laboratori↗
DOE OSTI2025

FAIR Surrogate Benchmarks Supporting AI and Simulation Research (Final Report)

Computational Science is being revolutionized by integrating AI and simulation and, in particular, by deep learning surrogate models that can replace all or part of traditional large‐scale HPC computations. Such surrogates can achieve remarkable performance improvements, as much as several orders of magnitude, and save both compute time and energy. The Surrogate Benchmark Initiative (SBI) project creates a community repository and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data ecosystem for HPC application surrogate benchmarks. The SBI team comes from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Indiana University (IU), Rutgers University, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK), and the University of Virginia (UVA). SBI repositories include data, code, and all relevant collateral artifacts that the science and engineering community need to use and reuse these data sets and surrogates. SBI repositories generate active research from both the participants in SBI and the broad community of AI and domain scientists. This project develops surrogates that use several different neural nets to learn and quickly infer the results of simulations and data systems and captures them as surrogate benchmarks with a rich set of metadata covering: Data; Model; Metrics specification; Machine specification; and Science, Speed, and Power Results. We research FAIR metadata for these benchmarks. We develop application surrogate examples as benchmarks across many fields (ANL, UTK, IU, UVA). We also study non-Surrogate benchmarks that have many common features and similar issues as regards FAIRness. We work with MLCommons (UVA, UTK), which is a major machine learning benchmarking activity where we get metadata ontologies, software, and benchmarks, Benchmarks have datasets, models, and metadata and they need a technical framework developed by UTK and Rutgers and deployed by UVA. We study features of Surrogates including performance, training set size, and uncertainty quantification (Rutgers, UVA and IU).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Impacts of benchmarking choices on inferred model skill of the Arctic–Boreal terrestrial carbon cycle

Abstract Land surface models require continuous validation against observations to improve and reduce simulation uncertainty. However, inferred model performance can be heavily influenced by subjective choices made in the selection and application of observational data products. A key area often misrepresented by models is the Arctic–Boreal region, which is a potential tipping point region in Earth’s climate system due to large permafrost carbon stocks that are vulnerable to release with climate warming. We use the International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMB) framework to evaluate how the model skill of TRENDY-v9 models varies based on the choice of observational-based benchmark and how benchmarks are applied in model evaluation. This analysis uses global datasets integrated into ILAMB and new, regionally-specific observational products from the Arctic–Boreal Vulnerability Experiment. Our results cover the overall time period of 1979–2019 and show that model scores can vary substantially depending on the data product applied, with higher model scores indicating better model performance against observations. The lowest model scores occur when benchmarked against regional, compared to global, datasets. We also evaluate observed and modeled functional relationships between ecosystem respiration and air temperature and between gross primary production and precipitation. Here, we find that the magnitude and shape of the responses are strongly impacted by the choice of observational dataset and the approach used to construct the functional relationship benchmark. These results suggest that model evaluation studies could conclude a false sense of model skill if only using a single benchmark data product or if not applying regional data products when performing a regional model analysis. Collectively, our findings highlight the influence of benchmarking choices on model evaluation and point to the need for benchmarking guidelines when assessing model skill.

Poe, Jeralyn (ORCID:0000000318495278)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Results of a Geant4 benchmarking study for bio‐medical applications, performed with the G4‐Med system

Geant4, a Monte Carlo Simulation Toolkit extensively used in bio-medical physics, is in continuous evolution to include newest research findings to improve its accuracy and to respond to the evolving needs of a very diverse user community. In 2014, the G4-Med benchmarking system was born from the effort of the Geant4 Medical Simulation Benchmarking Group, to benchmark and monitor the evolution of Geant4 for medical physics applications. The G4-Med system was first described in our Medical Physics Special Report published in 2021. Results of the tests were reported for Geant4 10.5. Purpose In this work, we describe the evolution of the G4-Med benchmarking system. Methods The G4-Med benchmarking suite currently includes 23 tests, which benchmark Geant4 from the calculation of basic physical quantities to the simulation of more clinically relevant set-ups. New tests concern the benchmarking of Geant4-DNA physics and chemistry components for regression testing purposes, dosimetry for brachytherapy with a 125 I source, dosimetry for external x-ray and electron FLASH radiotherapy, experimental microdosimetry for proton therapy, and in vivo PET for carbon and oxygen beams. Regression testing has been performed between Geant4 10.5 and 11.1. Finally, a simple Geant4 simulation has been developed and used to compare Geant4 EM physics constructors and physics lists in terms of execution times. Results In summary, our EM tests show that the parameters of the multiple scattering in the Geant4 EM constructor G4EmStandardPhysics_option3 in Geant4 11.1, while improving the modeling of the electron backscattering in high atomic number targets, are not adequate for dosimetry for clinical x-ray and electron beams. Therefore, these parameters have been reverted back to those of Geant4 10.5 in Geant4 11.2.1. The x-ray radiotherapy test shows significant differences in the modeling of the bremsstrahlung process, especially between G4EmPenelopePhysics and the other constructors under study (G4EmLivermorePhysics, G4EmStandardPhysics_option3, and G4EmStandardPhysics_option4). These differences will be studied in an in-depth investigation within our Group. Improvement in Geant4 11.1 has been observed for the modeling of the proton and carbon ion Bragg peak with energies of clinical interest, thanks to the adoption of ICRU90 to calculate the low energy proton stopping powers in water and of the Linhard–Sorensen ion model, available in Geant4 since version 11.0. Nuclear fragmentation tests of interest for carbon ion therapy show differences between Geant4 10.5 and 11.1 in terms of fragment yields. In particular, a higher production of boron fragments is observed with Geant4 11.1, leading to a better agreement with reference data for this fragment. Conclusions Based on the overall results of our tests, we recommend to use G4EmStandardPhysics_option4 as EM constructor and QGSP_BIC_HP with G4EmStandardPhysics_option4, for hadrontherapy applications. The Geant4-DNA physics lists report differences in modeling electron interactions in water, however, the tests have a pure regression testing purpose so no recommendation can be formulated.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2026

A New Shutdown Dose Rate Benchmark Problem for Representative Fusion Applications

Here, this work introduces a new benchmark problem for calculating shutdown dose rates (SDDRs) aimed at fusion reactor applications. The model is designed to represent a simplified version of a typical ITER port plug. The responses of interest include neutron flux, gamma flux, and gamma SDDR at 12 different locations scattered throughout the port. This article outlines the geometry specifications of the problem, provides material definitions for the components, specifies the required responses to be calculated, and presents the source definition information. The need for this benchmark arises from the limited availability of publicly accessible references, with only one benchmark representing the typical dimensions and materials found in fusion systems. This existing benchmark has been cited extensively, reflecting the demand within the scientific community to test both established and novel workflows for SDDR calculations. However, since its presentation at a conference in 2011, the results have become increasingly well known. Moreover, the absence of formal publication and peer review has led to the details of this benchmark being extracted from secondary sources, such as subsequent studies that reference it. As a result, analysts are left with significant flexibility in interpreting the key parameters, which can be adjusted to account for unknown systematic errors, ultimately reproducing the already well-known responses. This new benchmark serves as an updated version of that earlier work, with the aim of providing a more reliable description of the materials and their impurities, which is crucial for assessing activation and subsequent gamma emission. Additionally, it seeks to provide a geometry that more closely represents an ITER port plug. The improvements in the problem definition will lead to a more reproducible benchmark problem, while also presenting the radiation transport community with a completely new challenge. The results will be published in a future article to allow analysts adequate time to analyze this problem independently.

Benchmark↗
DOE OSTI2025

An HPC benchmark survey and taxonomy for characterization

The field of High-Performance Computing (HPC) is defined by providing computing devices with highest performance for a variety of demanding scientific users. The tight co-design relationship between HPC providers and users propels the field forward, paired with technological improvements, achieving continuously higher performance and resource utilization. A key device for system architects, architecture researchers, and scientific users are benchmarks, allowing for well-defined assessment of hardware, software, and algorithms. Many benchmarks exist in the community, from individual niche benchmarks testing specific features, to large-scale benchmark suites for whole procurements. We survey the available HPC benchmarks, summarizing them in table form with key details and concise categorization, also through an interactive website. For categorization, we present a benchmark taxonomy for well-defined characterization of benchmarks.

Benchmarking↗
DOE OSTI2025

Verification of the Uniformly-Ordered Binary Decision Algorithm in Correlated-Benchmark Whisper Calculations

Whisper is a nuclear criticality safety code package that aids analysts in validation exercises by computing upper subcritical limits (USL) for applications of interest. To obtain statistically meaningful, significant, and conservative USLs, the analyst must ensure that Whisper selects a sufficient number of benchmarks that are neutronically similar to the application. Many of the available benchmarks are correlated but are currently treated as independent, leading to an artificially small sample size, as their individual information contributions will be overestimated. To aid the analyst in obtaining a sufficient sample size, prior work [2] demonstrated application of the Uniformly-Ordered Binary Decision (UOBD) algorithm in adjusting benchmark weights to account for benchmark correlations. This work provides verification of the Whisper implementation and considers the impact of updated benchmark correlations compared to those available previously. We demonstrate that the UOBD algorithm performs as expected with an analytic example. With HEU-SOL-THERM-001 cases 1 through 10 as the applications, we compare the USLs computed with benchmark correlations available in the Whisper 1.1 release only to those computed with additional benchmark correlations from DICE 2023 and demonstrate substantive differences.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Systematic Benchmarking of Climate Models: Methodologies, Applications, and New Directions

As climate models become increasingly complex, there is a growing need to comprehensively and systematically assess model performance with respect to observations. Given the increasing number and diversity of climate model simulations in use, the community has moved beyond simple model intercomparison and toward developing methods capable of benchmarking a large number of simulations against a suite of climate metrics. Here, we present a detailed review of evaluation and benchmarking methods and approaches developed in the last decade, focusing primarily on scientific implications for Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) simulations and CMIP6 results that contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Based on this review, we explain the resulting contemporary philosophy of model benchmarking, and provide clear distinctions and definitions of the terms model verification, process validation, evaluation, and benchmarking. While significant progress has been made in model development based on systematic evaluation and benchmarking efforts, some climate system biases still remain. The development of open‐source community software packages has played a fundamental role in identifying areas of significant model improvement and bias reduction. We review the key features of several software packages that have been commonly used over the past decade to evaluate and benchmark global and regional climate models. Additionally, we discuss best practices for the selection of evaluation and benchmarking metrics and for interpreting the obtained results, the importance of selecting suitable sources of reference data and accurate uncertainty quantification.

Environmental sciences↗
DOE OSTI2024

Ecological Benchmark for Chemicals

The Ecological Benchmark Tool dataset serves as a comprehensive repository of benchmarks designed to assess ecological risks at contaminated sites. This tool facilitates the evaluation of various environmental media and contaminants, supporting regulatory compliance and ecological protection. Benchmarks are available for air, biota, sediment, soil, and surface water. The dataset also provides species-specific benchmarks for fish, plants, birds, mammals, and invertebrates. Users can select benchmark sources, media, individual chemicals, and retrieve results in tabular or spreadsheet formats for analysis. Benchmarks are derived from authoritative sources, including government agencies, scientific councils, and academic publications. The dataset supports ecological risk assessments, regulatory decision-making, and environmental planning, with tools for benchmarking against chemical thresholds, sensitive species protection, and habitat impact evaluations. This structured approach ensures a robust evaluation of ecological risks tailored to site-specific and regulatory needs.

Stewart, Debra [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORN↗