=20

PROPOSAL NO.: 0122483 INSTITUTION: Florida State = University NSF=20 PROGRAM: ITR LARGE GRANTS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Furbish, = David J=20 TITLE: ITR/AP: A consortium for advanced computing in Earth = surface=20 dynamics RATING:Good

REVIEW: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? = The=20 intellectual merit is high, and is a strength of the proposal. This = effort would=20 bring together surface-process and computational scientists in = collaborative=20 effort to address landscape modeling. The multidisciplinary, = multi-university=20 interaction is a challenge and a strength of the proposal. The = challenges posed=20 in numerical solvers, adaptive meshes, data structures, visualization, = and=20 parallel computation are high. The fusing of all these areas in a = collaborative=20 infrastructure has high intellectual merit. What are the broader impacts = of the=20 proposed activity? The collaborative infrastructure developed would be = valuable=20 beyond the application focus of this effort, and would contribute to=20 computational science in general. There is also a strong educational = element=20 targeting multidisciplinary graduate education and post-docs, as well as = a good=20 outreach program to K-12 and the public. Summary Statement This proposal = has=20 strong intellectual merit, addresses an important and challenging area = of=20 multidisciplinary science, shows good understanding of the relevant = science and=20 the literature thereon, and puts forth a strong and balanced = cross-disciplinary=20 team of investigators from several universities. The statement of the = scientific=20 and technological challenges to be met is good. The three stated = objectives in=20 the Preamble - a tools library, a computational model, and a = collaborative=20 laboratory - are well-conceived and appropriate. All these aspects are=20 strengths. But the management plan is vague and weak, and would appear = to be=20 inadequate to achieve the coordinated effort needed. It is not at all = clear how=20 the needed research elements will be planned, staffed, and implemented = according=20 to a strategic plan. Rather the intention seems to be more an enablement = of=20 individual groups following their own dictates and interests in research = - with=20 only workshops, seminars, and visiting researchers to tie it all = together. None=20 of the four Core Programs clearly includes strategically planned = research: one=20 addresses the definition of year-long focuses for seminars and = conferences, two=20 address visiting researchers, and the fourth addresses education and = outreach.=20 The Scientific Steering Group is to set the directions in these four = Core=20 Programs, but no provision for strategic planning of research components = is=20 evident. Rather the SSG and the PCDs all appear to operate at too high a = level,=20 leaving the actual research projects to be executed to be determined = locally by=20 the various investigators. This otherwise noteworthy proposal thus comes = across=20 as a request for funding of an unresricted distributed center of = excellence=20 without strategic research planning. But without effective strategic = planning=20 and direction, the end result cannot be expected to exceed that of = separate and=20 uncoordinated funding for the various research groups involved - nor can = the=20 stated objectives be expected to be reached.

REVIEW: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? = This is=20 an ambitious project to create an integrated environment to to model = landscape=20 dyanmics. The project involves model coupling, space/time issues, = algorithms,=20 adaptive techniques, data management, user interfaces, collaborative = techniques,=20 etc. coupled with field based studies. The project is a bold step = forward. There=20 may be some major hurdles but with good management many of the project=20 objectives should be achievable especially since the project team is = well=20 qualified to perform the tasks that are identified. I expect that this = project=20 will identify some problems that require additional work outside the = scope of=20 this project. This will be ok so long as the framework is developed so = that when=20 these problems are resolved the new software can be easily incorporated = into the=20 framework. This project will certainly benefit earth scientists, = geophysicists=20 and others plus will result in an excellent testbed for computational = scientists=20 and others. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? The=20 framework, computational tools, multiscale process solutions, = algorithms, and=20 visualization results may have potential use in other application = domains. The=20 proposed environment has the potential for becoming the framework on = which=20 future work in the modeling of earth surface dynamics will be based. = Summary=20 Statement Excellent project but may be trying to do too much.

REVIEW: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? = I liked=20 this proposal. It promises significant scientific impact with = substantial=20 relevance to human needs. It strikes me as an ambitious program, perhaps = too=20 ambitious. The modeling questions (multi-scale parametric modeling) are = hard,=20 the numerics are hard, the visualization is hard, and portals take a lot = of=20 work. However, in addition to laying out ambitious goals, it proposes = concrete=20 first steps (adapting averaging of underlying equations to erosion=20 sedimentation, diffusional models of fluvial profile evolution, moving = boundary=20 formalism, tying cellular models to PDE approaches for fan deltas). But = are the=20 underlying equations well enough understood? Another innovative and = strong point=20 is the close tie to the experimental facility (XES). It shows why = progress can=20 be expected now. The proposal has good relevance to high performance = computing.=20 I am concerned that there is not enough manpower dedicated to this = project. As I=20 said above, the problems are both hard, and hard work. What are the = broader=20 impacts of the proposed activity? The proposers make a good case for why = understanding earth surface dynamics is socially important, and that = 'society ……=20 is required to embrace an increasing level of stewardship of Earth's = natural=20 resources and ecosystems', and that this requires 'access to predictive = modeling=20 capabilities of unprecedented sophistication'. I find the training = mundane.=20 There are no new courses or degree programs planned. In the lead = institution=20 (Florida State), there are only 4 graduate students/year and 2 = postdocs/year=20 being supported. Of course there are analogous numbers in the affiliate=20 institutions. I question how feasible the mentorship is. I do think that = the=20 teacher program is innovative, and the focus topics are worthwhile and = feasible.=20 Summary Statement I find this proposal more a series of research = projects than a=20 fully coordinated project. I wonder why, since the budget is so modest = (in=20 comparison with others in this category), that the training program was = not more=20 ambitious, and why the PI is not spending 2months/year on this, or why = Fox's=20 effort is less than 1 month/year.

REVIEW: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? = This=20 project focuses on modeling the earth's dynamic surface, which is = defined as the=20 interface between the fluid and solid earth. While not an unimportant = area of=20 research, it does not seem like a particularly important one either. At = least,=20 it is not apparent on the surface (no pun intended), and the = investigators do=20 not make a strong case for its importance either. The CS research = focuses mainly=20 in two areas: advanced algorithms, and large data sets and advanced=20 visualization in landscape modeling. The algorithm research appears to = be=20 narrowly focused and it is unclear how generalizable the results would = be. The=20 project appears to be more oriented towards research in the earth's = surface=20 dynamics than in CS, which raises a question about its relative = appropriateness=20 for the ITR program. It is not that it is inappropriate; it just seems = less=20 appropriate than other projects reviewed. The research consortium, while = admirable in scope, appears large and unwieldy with much apparent = overlap in the=20 areas of research that each member of the consortium will conduct. For = example,=20 most of the 10 research areas proposed have two insitutions (more in = some cases)=20 listed as having primary responsibility for the area. This could lead to = confusion, duplicate effort and wasted time. The management plan focuses = on=20 describing all of the participants rather than focusing on how they will = be=20 coordinated and their efforts integrated. The principal investigators do = not=20 appear to have a broad research record, strong funding record, or record = of=20 managing large scale projects such as the one proposed. They do appear = to be=20 competent within their fields. What are the broader impacts of the = proposed=20 activity? I do not see broad impacts resulting from this proposed = project. This=20 project will lead to training of earth surface scientists, engineeers = and some=20 computer scientists. It will not make a large contribution to the IT = workforce,=20 which I define in terms of the computer science and information science=20 communities. The project's education, mentorship and science for = teachers=20 programs are good efforts at reaching an extended community. Summary = Statement=20 This is a nice effort in an area that is appropriate for ITR support, = but this=20 project simply does not stack up as well as others reviewed for reasons = related=20 to the subject matter, the amount of CS contribution, the research = consortium=20 and the research team.

REVIEW: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? = This=20 would integrate and greatly enhance activities in understanding the = dynamics of=20 Earth's surface. As they state, quantitative analysis of such is a = fairly=20 undeveloped field, but one which is of increasing importance as we = become more=20 concerned about natural resources, water supplies etc. What are the = broader=20 impacts of the proposed activity? Knowledge and tools to address=20 societally-important issues. Useful educational tools (maybe) Summary = Statement=20 Useful, but I don't give this top rating due to a couple of concerns. = Firstly, a=20 lot of the proposed work seems to be applied mathematics (pertaining to=20 numerical modeling) rather than IT. Namely, they spend a lot of time = discussing=20 mesh generation, solution of PDEs etc. The IT aspect seems limited to = the data=20 management and assimilation protocols, and web-based e-collabatory. = Secondly,=20 they seem mostly interested in investigating models, rather than linking = models=20 to data. Yes they do mention the importance of data but it seems like an = afterthought.

REVIEW: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? = The=20 proposed project would be valuable and important, although hardly a=20 breakthrough, in the disciplinary field of computational landscape = modeling. The=20 impacts on solving scale-related theoretical and computational issues, = creating=20 new collaborative infrastructure and providing immediately useful=20 problem-solving tools are less clear. What are the broader impacts of = the=20 proposed activity? The chances that the multi-disciplinary web-based=20 collaboratory outlined is implemented as proposed seem small to this = reviewer.=20 If implemented, it would enhance research and education greatly. The = educational=20 part of the proposal is well laid out and convincing. Summary Statement = Overall,=20 I see this proposal as a solid one with two important shortcomings. The = project=20 description provides a lot of detail on the engineering and algorithmic = aspects.=20 The team has an excellent track record and there is no doubt in my mind = that the=20 team can develop and test the algorithms they propose (that is, in fact, = what=20 they have been doing all along, and much text in the proposal is taken = from=20 published material). The validation and field component appears strong, = with the=20 proposed use of the Experimental Earthscape facility and three = well-studied and=20 diversified experimental systems. While not carrying particular CS = innovation=20 (not required under the the Applied Science and Engineering section of = the ITR=20 program), the study would certainly produce useful techniques that would = benefit=20 the field of computational landscape modeling at large. What disappoints = me is=20 the vagueness and lack of clear direction in the two areas where the = study would=20 bring real innovation. These are: 1) The proposed plan for addressing = scale=20 issues is unconvincing at best. The PIs correctly point out that scaling = landscape dynamics up and down is one of the most crucial challenges.=20 Unfortunately their plan to address the issue is very vague and seems to = suggest=20 that they have little clue on how to proceed. Most of the discussion = focuses on=20 engineering details on coupling models and generic strategies = (continuous=20 modelling) that carry, as explained, a very low signal-to-noise ratio. = Most of=20 the relevant literature is ignored and many essential issues are left = untouched.=20 As an example, the PIs do not seem to consider important to explain how = they=20 plan to deal with aggregation error. This part strikes me as too vague = and=20 disappointing to make anyone want to invest 8+ million on it. 2) A = consistent=20 part of the proposal is devoted to the development of a web-based = collaboratory=20 and a simulation laboratory geared to technical as well as non-technical = users.=20 When the buzzwords and the mandatory fashionable technologies are masked = out,=20 too little detail remains to indicate how the goals would be achieved. = The=20 abstractions that the PIs indicate (p. 10) as a starting point for a=20 component-based model of the simulation environment are extreme=20 oversimplifications, and the semantics is, to say the least, weak. These = abstractions embody many of the implementation details for the whole = project,=20 and saying, as they do, that "extensive discussion between physical = modellers=20 and library builders" will shape them is certainly not enough to = convince me=20 that the investment is worthwile. These PIs should know better from the = first=20 stage. Overall, this part of the proposal is vague and disappointing, = and leaves=20 me with little reason to believe that it would bring to the generic and = very=20 ambitious results laid out in the summary - data integration, automatic=20 algorithm selection and tuning, and particularly user friendliness. = Also, much=20 of this part is based on Fox's work who is also a PI in the NPACI = initiative -=20 and in fact, the visualization, computational, and collaborative = infrastructure=20 that this proposal aims to develop is likely to be already very well = funded that=20 way. The management plan appears well laid out, although its complexity = and the=20 delocalization of the research team could turn out to be a drawback - = there is a=20 visible tendency for such big project to get bogged down in internal = politics.=20 The outreach and education part is good enough for a project this size. = Overall,=20 I think the proposal needs a much better articulated plan for the two=20 fundamental aspects I indicate above before it can be considered worth = the=20 investment.

REVIEW: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? = This is=20 an excellent proposal involving a very broad and diverse set of = excellent=20 researchers. There is a very healthy mix of earth scientists, applied=20 mathematicians/computational scientists, and computer scientists. There = are=20 members of the team who bridge these areas in each university site who = should be=20 able to facilitate communication within the team. The project is = relatively=20 clearly defined and well thought out. Each aspect of the proposal = appears to be=20 an integral part of the whole---it is not merely a set of disjoint = projects.=20 Moreover, the overall project would appear to allow for enough synergism = that it=20 exceeds the sum of the parts. The earth science aspects appear to be = first rate,=20 and includes modeling and validation with experimental results. The = experimental=20 studies are conducted at one of the participating sites, so should be = easily=20 accessible for the proposed validation studies. This should produce a=20 scientifically sound set of physical modeling modules in the ESSL. This = is=20 critical for acceptance of the IT system by the larger society. = Designing the=20 ESSL for extensibility is also key in this regard. The proposed numerics = is very=20 well thought out, and appropriate for a project of this sort. The = methods to be=20 used are cutting edge, and yet well enough studied that one can be = confident=20 that they will succeed. Many unresolved issues remain, and will be = addressed in=20 the research, especially dynamic meshing issues to follow free = boundaries and=20 internal interfaces, and multi-scale aspects of the modeling. It is = particularly=20 intriguing that the project will investigate the coupling of discrete = and=20 continuum models. The IT work in eCollaboration, visualization, and data = manipulation appears to be first rate, and it is an integral part of the = research effort. The level of technology leveraging is admirable. A = healthy=20 amount of existing software will be used as appropriate, so the project = will=20 focus on the novel aspects of the research and not on duplication of = well=20 researched parts. The management plan appears to be sound. It should = allow the=20 project both to refocus resources as needs arise or individual = subprojects prove=20 unfruitful, and to coordinate research efforts effectively. The project = appears=20 to be driven by the scientific investigation, rather than by abstract IT = questions. This is needed in this type of project, where the IT = technology=20 developed needs to be accepted and used by the scientific community. = What are=20 the broader impacts of the proposed activity? The successful = demonstration of=20 the eCollaboratory and ESSL could have an impact on the scientific = community,=20 providing a blueprint for similar endeavors in other disciplines. The = impact is=20 potentially very great and profound on environmental studies and earth = sciences=20 both in terms of everyday practice and in terms of training students in = the use=20 and proper design of interdisciplinary computational tools. More = broadly,=20 advances in IT (visualization and handling large data sets), meshing, = and=20 multi-scale modeling can be valuable in a large number of other = scientific=20 disciplines. The project includes community-extending programs in = undergraduate=20 education activities and K-12 teacher training. The proposal is to make = the ESSL=20 user-friendly down to the novice level. This is a challenge not without = risk,=20 but should indeed revolutionize the way earth science is viewed by High = school=20 and undergraduate students. The project addresses plans for distributing = the=20 software, and for making is usable. The dissemination part of the = proposal may=20 be a bit weak, as it is targeted somewhat narrowly. Summary Statement = This is an=20 excellent proposal, with an excellent and diverse team of researchers = spanning=20 the experimental, modeling, numerical, IT, computer science, and = educational=20 aspects of the project. The proposal is innovative and risky, but likely = to=20 succeed in many important ways. It could revolutionize the way earth = scientists=20 view their field by facilitating the use of computational simulation. = The=20 educational component of the proposal is strong, and spans high school = through=20 postdoctoral training.

Panel Summary #1