scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Sandia National Laboratories

FacilityLivermore, California, United States
About: Sandia National Laboratories is a facility organization based out in Livermore, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Laser & Thin film. The organization has 21501 authors who have published 46724 publications receiving 1484388 citations. The organization is also known as: SNL & Sandia National Labs.
Topics: Laser, Thin film, Hydrogen, Combustion, Silicon


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors review the experimental procedures used in FIM surface diffusion studies and discuss the results in relation to the atomistics of crystal and epitaxial growth processes.

342 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Edoardo Aprà1, Eric J. Bylaska1, W. A. de Jong2, Niranjan Govind1, Karol Kowalski1, T. P. Straatsma3, Marat Valiev1, H. J. J. van Dam4, Yuri Alexeev5, J. Anchell6, V. Anisimov5, Fredy W. Aquino, Raymond Atta-Fynn7, Jochen Autschbach8, Nicholas P. Bauman1, Jeffrey C. Becca9, David E. Bernholdt10, K. Bhaskaran-Nair11, Stuart Bogatko12, Piotr Borowski13, Jeffery S. Boschen14, Jiří Brabec15, Adam Bruner16, Emilie Cauet17, Y. Chen18, Gennady N. Chuev19, Christopher J. Cramer20, Jeff Daily1, M. J. O. Deegan, Thom H. Dunning21, Michel Dupuis8, Kenneth G. Dyall, George I. Fann10, Sean A. Fischer22, Alexandr Fonari23, Herbert A. Früchtl24, Laura Gagliardi20, Jorge Garza25, Nitin A. Gawande1, Soumen Ghosh20, Kurt R. Glaesemann1, Andreas W. Götz26, Jeff R. Hammond6, Volkhard Helms27, Eric D. Hermes28, Kimihiko Hirao, So Hirata29, Mathias Jacquelin2, Lasse Jensen9, Benny G. Johnson, Hannes Jónsson30, Ricky A. Kendall10, Michael Klemm6, Rika Kobayashi31, V. Konkov32, Sriram Krishnamoorthy1, M. Krishnan18, Zijing Lin33, Roberto D. Lins34, Rik J. Littlefield, Andrew J. Logsdail35, Kenneth Lopata36, Wan Yong Ma37, Aleksandr V. Marenich20, J. Martin del Campo38, Daniel Mejía-Rodríguez39, Justin E. Moore6, Jonathan M. Mullin, Takahito Nakajima, Daniel R. Nascimento1, Jeffrey A. Nichols10, P. J. Nichols40, J. Nieplocha1, Alberto Otero-de-la-Roza41, Bruce J. Palmer1, Ajay Panyala1, T. Pirojsirikul42, Bo Peng1, Roberto Peverati32, Jiri Pittner15, L. Pollack, Ryan M. Richard43, P. Sadayappan44, George C. Schatz45, William A. Shelton36, Daniel W. Silverstein46, D. M. A. Smith6, Thereza A. Soares47, Duo Song1, Marcel Swart, H. L. Taylor48, G. S. Thomas1, Vinod Tipparaju49, Donald G. Truhlar20, Kiril Tsemekhman, T. Van Voorhis50, Álvaro Vázquez-Mayagoitia5, Prakash Verma, Oreste Villa51, Abhinav Vishnu1, Konstantinos D. Vogiatzis52, Dunyou Wang53, John H. Weare26, Mark J. Williamson54, Theresa L. Windus14, Krzysztof Wolinski13, A. T. Wong, Qin Wu4, Chan-Shan Yang2, Q. Yu55, Martin Zacharias56, Zhiyong Zhang57, Yan Zhao58, Robert W. Harrison59 
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory1, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory2, National Center for Computational Sciences3, Brookhaven National Laboratory4, Argonne National Laboratory5, Intel6, University of Texas at Arlington7, State University of New York System8, Pennsylvania State University9, Oak Ridge National Laboratory10, Washington University in St. Louis11, Wellesley College12, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University13, Iowa State University14, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic15, University of Tennessee at Martin16, Université libre de Bruxelles17, Facebook18, Russian Academy of Sciences19, University of Minnesota20, University of Washington21, United States Naval Research Laboratory22, Georgia Institute of Technology23, University of St Andrews24, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana25, University of California, San Diego26, Saarland University27, Sandia National Laboratories28, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign29, University of Iceland30, Australian National University31, Florida Institute of Technology32, University of Science and Technology of China33, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation34, Cardiff University35, Louisiana State University36, Chinese Academy of Sciences37, National Autonomous University of Mexico38, University of Florida39, Los Alamos National Laboratory40, University of Oviedo41, Prince of Songkla University42, Ames Laboratory43, University of Utah44, Northwestern University45, Universal Display Corporation46, Federal University of Pernambuco47, CD-adapco48, Cray49, Massachusetts Institute of Technology50, Nvidia51, University of Tennessee52, Shandong Normal University53, University of Cambridge54, Advanced Micro Devices55, Technische Universität München56, Stanford University57, Wuhan University of Technology58, Stony Brook University59
TL;DR: The NWChem computational chemistry suite is reviewed, including its history, design principles, parallel tools, current capabilities, outreach, and outlook.
Abstract: Specialized computational chemistry packages have permanently reshaped the landscape of chemical and materials science by providing tools to support and guide experimental efforts and for the prediction of atomistic and electronic properties. In this regard, electronic structure packages have played a special role by using first-principle-driven methodologies to model complex chemical and materials processes. Over the past few decades, the rapid development of computing technologies and the tremendous increase in computational power have offered a unique chance to study complex transformations using sophisticated and predictive many-body techniques that describe correlated behavior of electrons in molecular and condensed phase systems at different levels of theory. In enabling these simulations, novel parallel algorithms have been able to take advantage of computational resources to address the polynomial scaling of electronic structure methods. In this paper, we briefly review the NWChem computational chemistry suite, including its history, design principles, parallel tools, current capabilities, outreach, and outlook.

342 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
05 Jan 2009
TL;DR: Performance of PCE and SC is shown to be very similar, although when differences are evident, SC is the consistent winner over traditional PCE formulations, and this performance gap can be reduced, and in some cases, eliminated.
Abstract: Non-intrusive polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) and stochastic collocation (SC) methods are attractive techniques for uncertainty quantification (UQ) due to their strong mathematical basis and ability to produce functional representations of stochastic variability PCE estimates coefficients for known orthogonal polynomial basis functions based on a set of response function evaluations, using sampling, linear regression, tensor-product quadrature, or Smolyak sparse grid approaches SC, on the other hand, forms interpolation functions for known coefficients, and requires the use of structured collocation point sets derived from tensor-products or sparse grids When tailoring the basis functions or interpolation grids to match the forms of the input uncertainties, exponential convergence rates can be achieved with both techniques for general probabilistic analysis problems In this paper, we explore relative performance of these methods using a number of simple algebraic test problems, and analyze observed differences In these computational experiments, performance of PCE and SC is shown to be very similar, although when differences are evident, SC is the consistent winner over traditional PCE formulations This stems from the practical difficulty of optimally synchronizing the formof the PCE with the integration approach being employed, resulting in slight over- or under-integration of prescribed expansion form With additional nontraditional tailoring of PCE form, it is shown that this performance gap can be reduced, and in some cases, eliminated

341 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that computer analysis of mammograms can provide a substantial and statistically significant increase in radiologist screening efficacy.
Abstract: PURPOSE: To study the use of a computer vision method as a second reader for the detection of spiculated lesions on screening mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An algorithmic computer process for the detection of spiculated lesions on digitized screen-film mammograms was applied to 85 four-view clinical cases: 36 cases with cancer proved by means of biopsy and 49 cases with negative findings at examination and follow-up. The computer detections were printed as film with added outlines that indicated the suspected cancers. Four radiologists screened the 85 cases twice, once without and once with the computer reports as ancillary films. RESULTS: The algorithm alone achieved 100% sensitivity, with a specificity of 82%. The computer reports increased the average radiologist sensitivity by 9.7% (P = .005), moving from 80.6% to 90.3%, with no decrease in average specificity. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that computer analysis of mammograms can provide a substantial and statistically significant increase ...

341 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
22 Feb 2004
TL;DR: This paper examines the impact of Moore's Law on the peak floating-point performance of FPGAs and results show that peak FPGA floating- point performance is growing significantly faster than peak CPU performance for a CPU.
Abstract: Moore's Law states that the number of transistors on a device doubles every two years; however, it is often (mis)quoted based on its impact on CPU performance. This important corollary of Moore's Law states that improved clock frequency plus improved architecture yields a doubling of CPU performance every 18 months. This paper examines the impact of Moore's Law on the peak floating-point performance of FPGAs. Performance trends for individual operations are analyzed as well as the performance trend of a common instruction mix (multiply accumulate). The important result is that peak FPGA floating-point performance is growing significantly faster than peak floating-point performance for a CPU.

341 citations


Authors

Showing all 21652 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Lily Yeh Jan16246773655
Jongmin Lee1502257134772
Jun Liu13861677099
Gerbrand Ceder13768276398
Kevin M. Smith114171178470
Henry F. Schaefer111161168695
Thomas Bein10967742800
David Chandler10742452396
Stephen J. Pearton104191358669
Harold G. Craighead10156940357
Edward Ott10166944649
S. Das Sarma10095158803
Richard M. Crooks9741931105
David W. Murray9769943372
Alán Aspuru-Guzik9762844939
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Los Alamos National Laboratory
74.6K papers, 2.9M citations

94% related

Argonne National Laboratory
64.3K papers, 2.4M citations

94% related

Oak Ridge National Laboratory
73.7K papers, 2.6M citations

93% related

Georgia Institute of Technology
119K papers, 4.6M citations

93% related

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
98.2K papers, 4.3M citations

91% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202340
2022245
20211,510
20201,580
20191,535
20181,514