论文库

We present a systematic comparison between arbitrary precise arithmetic and integration, IEEE-754 compliant floating point arithmetic (fp16, bfp16, fp32, double precision fp64, and quadruple precision fp128), and two implementations of Posits (type III unum) for solving Newton's chaotic N-body problem. Each implementation is benchmarked with arbitrary precise calculations to objectively evaluate their performance in precision as well as speed. We rely on hardware and compiler implementations for fp64, and software implementations for arbitrary-precision arithmetic and Posits. Half precision arithmetic (fp16, bfp16, and Posits$<16,1>$) are insufficiently precise for solving Newton's equations of motion. Single precision (fp32, and Posits$<32,2>$) could be used for statistical ensemble calculations, but lead to relatively large errors in any individual strong encounter. All 64-bit implementations fp64 as well as Posits (Posits$<64,3>$) experience difficulty in our tests. One of the implementations of Posits (Universal) gives precision comparable to fp64 but is slow (by at least an orders of magnitude compared to fp64 after correcting for the more efficient hardware support for the latter). The other (CPPPosits) has a speed comparable to fp64 but has systematically larger errors (by about an order of magnitude compared to fp64 with excesses exceeding two orders of magnitude). As a consequence, this implementation leads to a systematic drift in the result space and has difficulty resolving close encounters. Posits and fp64 have difficulty when integrating a dynamical system in a moving reference frame; testing Galileo invariancy. In their current implementation, Posits do not seem to be the ideal alternative for fp64 when integrating chaotic or stiff ordinary differential equations, such as Newton's equations of motion.

The HiLumi LHC, the SKA Observatory and LOFAR 2.0 will take High Energy Physics (HEP) and Radio Astronomy (RA) towards exabyte-scale data within the next decade, beyond the capacity of today's infrastructure. The SPECTRUM project responded with two documents built on the same evidence. A Technical Blueprint describes a European compute and data continuum as a capability map, consolidates the gaps found in HEP, RA and related use cases, and recommends technical actions in eight areas. A Strategic Research, Innovation and Deployment Agenda (SRIDA) organises thirteen priorities in four pillars, maps them to investment areas and European funding instruments, and phases them over a roadmap set against the timelines of the three instruments. This paper, by editors and contributors of both documents, summarises them, their consultative method and the impact the SRIDA expects.

How many latent variables are needed to fit the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature and polarisation power spectra when a neural network is given no cosmological model, and to what extent do they map onto the standard cosmological parameters? We use multi-task learning with variational autoencoders trained on CLASS-generated spectra (TT, TE, EE) over $2\le\ell\le2500$. No cosmological model is built into the network, and the number of latent variables, $L$, is varied over $L=5$, $6$ and $7$. Their fits are compared to the Planck 2018 data using $\hatχ^2$, AIC, BIC and Bayesian evidence. Their correspondence with cosmological parameters is measured with normalised mutual information post-training. The loss weights are set within a single training run by uncertainty weighting, with the weight of the disentanglement term either fixed (semi-automated, SA) or learned (completely automated, CA). The reconstruction loss is split over multipole ranges in three configurations that separate the roles of temperature and polarisation and of the low- and high-$\ell$ ranges. In four of the six combinations of configuration and strategy, the fit improves from $L=5$ to $L=6$ and not beyond, and $L=6$ is the best, or close to the best, in five of the six cases. So, six latent variables are needed, as many as the free parameters of the standard, model-dependent approach. SA gives clearer disentanglement, while CA needs no a priori choice of the disentanglement weight and has the higher evidence at $L=5$ and $6$: the two strategies are points on a trade-off between interpretability and fit to the data. Notably, the latent variables for $τ$ and $A_s$ share almost no information in any model, consistent with large-scale polarisation separating the two, as in standard analyses. A deep-learning approach can thus give a compact, data-driven parametrisation of the CMB spectra.