Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-6487
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-6487
04 Nov 2026
 | 04 Nov 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).

A controlled protocol for synchronized advancement cost in GPU shallow-water models: scoped comparisons and implementation decisions with RapidFlow v0.1

Shuo Wang, Qinlu Zhang, and Yang Zhang

Abstract. We present a protocol for comparing synchronized advancement cost in GPU shallow-water models while holding local discrete evolution and absolute selected work fixed. Advancement includes host scheduling, selection, state maintenance and synchronization, and excludes construction and downloads. Its first gate checks sparse execution against the complete discrete operator. A non-flat Thacker candidate demonstrates why this matters: filtered and compacted paths agree with each other while both omit a nonzero momentum update. Changing only selection restores dense agreement through two periods. A default Thacker application passes its declared dense-stage, dry-extension and analytical-accuracy checks, with maximum strict 1 mm wet-set discrepancy of 5.15 % on a fixed common domain. Flat-domain experiments on RTX 4090 and RTX 5090 platforms then quantify implementation choices, with explicitly weaker dense-validation coverage. Across eight stored sizes, the conditional timing comparison finds filtering faster and its relative advantage generally narrows. Restoring omitted work confirms growing savings that the current compaction design does not convert into a net advantage. Preparation fusion helps small cases, but slows the largest flat case on the RTX 4090; its direction there is unresolved on the RTX 5090. The contribution is a reusable rejection and comparison procedure demonstrated by failure, repair and a successful application; flat timing matrices remain conditional implementation comparisons outside the audited representative endpoints. Numerical front failures and same-day timing sessions bound its use for model development and prevent general flood-accuracy or cross-date performance claims.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Shuo Wang, Qinlu Zhang, and Yang Zhang

Status: open (until 30 Dec 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Shuo Wang, Qinlu Zhang, and Yang Zhang

Data sets

RapidFlow v0.1: inputs and experimental evidence Shuo Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23477888

Model code and software

RapidFlow v0.1: research software Shuo Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23477886

Shuo Wang, Qinlu Zhang, and Yang Zhang
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 04 Nov 2026
Download
Short summary
We examine how to compare the computing time of water-flow models fairly. Our checks reveal an error that agreement between two faster implementations failed to detect, and show how to correct it. Tests also show that doing less work does not always make a model faster. The approach helps researchers evaluate implementation choices while keeping the simulated problem unchanged and making the limits of accuracy and performance clear.
Share