AI & ML
Benchmarking CPU, GPU, and ML Power-Flow Solvers from 14 to 70,000 Buses
arXiv cs.DC0 views
arXiv:2610.27930v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Learned surrogates for power-flow (PF) computation are usually motivated by speed, compared against a single CPU-based baseline. We show this comparison is fragile: across 7 open-source CPU-based solvers evaluated on identical inputs, throughput varies by roughly 2.5-3 orders of magnitude, so the choice of baseline alone can flip the conclusion. We build a benchmark spanning 9 physics-based solvers: 7 CPU-based and 2 GPU-based, including a new batched GPU solver, gumsim2grid - and 3 published ML surrogates, evaluated under a shared, independently implemented KCL-mismatch check across 15 grids from 14 to 70,000 buses. On the PF task itself, a sufficiently parallelized CPU solver or gpusim2grid matches or exceeds the throughput of the ML surrogates we test while remaining orders of magnitude more accurate; we find no evidence that these GNN-style surrogates are yet competitive for PF specifically, though prior work reports genuine gains on related but more combinatorial tasks such as optimal power flow or power grid control. Beyond this finding, we hope the benchmark suite, code and reference evaluator released at https://github.com/Grid2op/gpusim2grid helps close a broader reproducibility gap in this space, where batched GPU-based PF solvers are rarely open-sourced or evaluated against a common set of baselines.
Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27930PreviousEvaluating Runtime Prediction and Conservative Walltime Policies in HPC SystemsNextKPage: Cross-Block Page Compaction for Hardware-Efficient Sparse Attention
Related posts
Your AI agent got an HTTP error. Should it retry?
0dev.to Discuss
Is AI dangerous, or just misunderstood?
0dev.to Discuss
Why we price a developer tool per fix instead of per seat
0dev.to Productivity
My LLM-Powered Sidekick for Painless PR Descriptions
0dev.to Productivity
Reward-Adaptive Backtracking GFlowNet: A Technique Worth Understanding
0dev.to Productivity
We checked three LLM-written paper explainers against the PDFs. Two had numbers the papers never report.
0dev.to Machine Learning