3.1 Algorithmic Differentiation

Participants: Laurent Hascoët.

Algorithmic Differentiation (AD) differentiates programs. The input of AD is a source program $P$ that, given some $X\in {ℝ}^n$, returns some $Y=F\left(X\right)\in {ℝ}^m$, for a differentiable $F$. AD generates a new source program $P^{\text{'}}$ that, given $X$, computes some derivatives of $F$ 4.

Any execution of $P$ amounts to a sequence of instructions, which is identified with a composition of vector functions. Thus, if

where each $f_k$ is the elementary function implemented by instruction $I_k$. AD applies the chain rule to obtain derivatives of $F$. Calling $X_k$ the values of all variables after instruction $I_k$, i.e. $X_0=X$ and $X_k=f_k\left(X_{k-1}\right)$, the Jacobian of $F$ is

which can be mechanically written as a sequence of instructions $I_k^{\text{'}}$. This can be generalized to higher level derivatives, Taylor series, etc. Combining the $I_k^{\text{'}}$ with the control of $P$ yields $P^{\text{'}}$, and therefore this differentiation is piecewise.

The above computation of $F^{\text{'}}\left(X\right)$, albeit simple and mechanical, can be prohibitively expensive on large codes. In practice, many applications only need cheaper projections of $F^{\text{'}}\left(X\right)$ such as:

• Sensitivities, defined for a given direction $\dot{X}$ in the input space as:

  $$F^{\text{'}}\left(X\right).\dot{X}=f_p^{\text{'}}\left(X_{p-1}\right).f_{p-1}^{\text{'}}\left(X_{p-2}\right).\cdots .f_1^{\text{'}}\left(X_0\right).\dot{X}.$$ 3

  This expression is easily computed from right to left, interleaved with the original program instructions. This is the tangent mode of AD.

• Adjoints, defined after transposition ($F^{\text{'}*}$), for a given weighting $\overline{Y}$ of the outputs as:

  $$F^{\text{'}*}\left(X\right).\overline{Y}=f_1^{\text{'}*}\left(X_0\right).f_2^{\text{'}*}\left(X_1\right).\cdots .f_{p-1}^{\text{'}*}\left(X_{p-2}\right).f_p^{\text{'}*}\left(X_{p-1}\right).\overline{Y}.$$ 4

  This expression is most efficiently computed from right to left, because matrix$\times$vector products are cheaper than matrix$\times$matrix products. This is the adjoint mode of AD, most effective for optimization, data assimilation  35, adjoint problems  28, or inverse problems.

Adjoint AD builds a very efficient program  30, which computes the gradient in a time independent from the number of parameters $n$. In contrast, computing the same gradient with the tangent mode would require running the tangent differentiated program $n$ times.

However, the $X_k$ are required in the inverse of their computation order. If the original program overwrites a part of $X_k$, the differentiated program must restore $X_k$ before it is used by $f_{k+1}^{\text{'}*}\left(X_k\right)$. Therefore, the central research problem of adjoint AD is to make the $X_k$ available in reverse order at the cheapest cost, using strategies that combine storage, repeated forward computation from available previous values, or even inverted computation from available later values.

Another research issue is to make the AD model cope with the constant evolution of modern language constructs. From the old days of Fortran77, novelties include pointers and dynamic allocation, modularity, structured data types, objects, vectorial notation and parallel programming. We keep developing our models and tools to handle these new constructs.

3.2 Static Analysis and Transformation of programs

Participants: Laurent Hascoët.

The most obvious example of a program transformation tool is certainly a compiler. Other examples are program translators, that go from one language or formalism to another, or optimizers, that transform a program to make it run better. AD is just one such transformation. These tools share the technological basis that lets them implement the sophisticated analyses  21 required. In particular there are common mathematical models to specify these analyses and analyze their properties.

An important principle is abstraction: the core of a compiler should not bother about syntactic details of the compiled program. The optimization and code generation phases must be independent from the particular input programming language. This is generally achieved using language-specific front-ends, language-independent middle-ends, and target-specific back-ends. In the middle-end, analysis can concentrate on the semantics of a reduced set of constructs. This analysis operates on an abstract representation of programs made of one call graph, whose nodes are themselves flow graphs whose nodes (basic blocks) contain abstract syntax trees for the individual atomic instructions. To each level are attached symbol tables, nested to capture scoping.

Static program analysis can be defined on this internal representation, which is largely language independent. The simplest analyses on trees can be specified with inference rules  24, 31, 22. But many data-flow analyses are more complex, and better defined on graphs than on trees. Since both call graphs and flow graphs may be cyclic, these global analyses will be solved iteratively. Abstract Interpretation  25 is a theoretical framework to study complexity and termination of these analyses.

Data flow analyses must be carefully designed to avoid or control combinatorial explosion. At the call graph level, they can run bottom-up or top-down, and they yield more accurate results when they take into account the different call sites of each procedure, which is called context sensitivity. At the flow graph level, they can run forwards or backwards, and yield more accurate results when they take into account only the possible execution flows resulting from possible control, which is called flow sensitivity.

Even then, data flow analyses are limited, because they are static and thus have very little knowledge of actual run-time values. Far before reaching the very theoretical limit of undecidability, one reaches practical limitations to how much information one can infer from programs that use arrays  39, 26 or pointers. Therefore, conservative over-approximations must be made, leading to derivative code less efficient than ideal.

3.3 Algorithmic Differentiation and Scientific Computing

Participants: Alain Dervieux, Laurent Hascoët, Bruno Koobus, Stephen Wornom.

Scientific Computing provides reliable simulations of complex systems. For example it is possible to simulate the steady or unsteady 3D air flow around a plane that captures the physical phenomena of shocks and turbulence. Next comes optimization, one degree higher in complexity because it repeatedly simulates and applies gradient-based optimization steps until an optimum is reached. The next sophistication is robustness, that detects undesirable solutions which, although maybe optimal, are very sensitive to uncertainty on design parameters or on manufacturing tolerances. This makes second derivatives come into play. Similarly Uncertainty Quantification can use second derivatives to evaluate how uncertainty on the simulation inputs imply uncertainty on its outputs.

To obtain this gradient and possibly higher derivatives, we advocate adjoint AD (cf3.1) of the program that discretizes and solves the direct system. This gives the exact gradient of the discrete function computed by the program, which is quicker and more sound than differentiating the original mathematical equations  28. Theoretical results  27 guarantee convergence of these derivatives when the direct program converges. This approach is highly mechanizable. However, it requires careful study and special developments of the AD model  32, 37 to master possibly heavy memory usage. Among these additional developments, we promote in particular specialized AD models for Fixed-Point iterations  29, 23, efficient adjoints for linear algebra operators such as solvers, or exploitation of parallel properties of the adjoint code.

4.1 Algorithmic Differentiation

Algorithmic Differentiation of programs gives sensitivities or gradients, useful for instance for :

• optimum shape design under constraints, multidisciplinary optimization, and more generally any algorithm based on local linearization,
• inverse problems, such as parameter estimation and in particular 4Dvar data assimilation in climate sciences (meteorology, oceanography),
• first-order linearization of complex systems, or higher-order simulations, yielding reduced models for simulation of complex systems around a given state,
• adaptation of parameters for classification tools such as Machine Learning systems, in which Adjoint Differentiation is also known as backpropagation.
• mesh adaptation and mesh optimization with gradients or adjoints,
• equation solving with the Newton method,
• sensitivity analysis, propagation of truncation errors.

4.2 Multidisciplinary optimization

A CFD program computes the flow around a shape, starting from a number of inputs that define the shape and other parameters. On this flow one can define optimization criteria e.g. the lift of an aircraft. To optimize a criterion by a gradient descent, one needs the gradient of the criterion with respect to all inputs, and possibly additional gradients when there are constraints. Adjoint AD is the most efficient way to compute these gradients.

4.3 Inverse problems and Data Assimilation

Inverse problems aim at estimating the value of hidden parameters from other measurable values, that depend on the hidden parameters through a system of equations. For example, the hidden parameter might be the shape of the ocean floor, and the measurable values of the altitude and velocities of the surface. Figure 1 shows an example of an inverse problem using the glaciology code ALIF (a pure C version of ISSM  34) and its AD-adjoint produced by Tapenade.

Six plots of fields of physical values on Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica, showing resolution of an inverse problem

One particular case of inverse problems is data assimilation  35 in weather forecasting or in oceanography. The quality of the initial state of the simulation conditions the quality of the prediction. But this initial state is not well known. Only some measurements at arbitrary places and times are available. A good initial state is found by solving a least squares problem between the measurements and a guessed initial state which itself must verify the equations of meteorology. This boils down to solving an adjoint problem, which can be done though AD  38. The special case of 4Dvar data assimilation is particularly challenging. The 4th dimension in “4D” is time, as available measurements are distributed over a given assimilation period. Therefore the least squares mechanism must be applied to a simulation over time that follows the time evolution model. This process gives a much better estimation of the initial state, because both position and time of measurements are taken into account. On the other hand, the adjoint problem involved is more complex, because it must run (backwards) over many time steps. This demanding application of AD justifies our efforts in reducing the runtime and memory costs of AD adjoint codes.

4.4 Linearization

Simulating a complex system often requires solving a system of Partial Differential Equations. This can be too expensive, in particular for real-time simulations. When one wants to simulate the reaction of this complex system to small perturbations around a fixed set of parameters, there is an efficient approximation: just suppose that the system is linear in a small neighborhood of the current set of parameters. The reaction of the system is thus approximated by a simple product of the variation of the parameters with the Jacobian matrix of the system. This Jacobian matrix can be obtained by AD. This is especially cheap when the Jacobian matrix is sparse. The simulation can be improved further by introducing higher-order derivatives, such as Taylor expansions, which can also be computed through AD. The result is often called a reduced model.

4.5 Mesh adaptation

Some approximation errors can be expressed by an adjoint state. Mesh adaptation can benefit from this. The classical optimization step can give an optimization direction not only for the control parameters, but also for the approximation parameters, and in particular the mesh geometry. The ultimate goal is to obtain optimal control parameters up to a precision prescribed in advance.

5.1 Impact of research results

Our research has an impact on environmental research: in Earth sciences, our gradients are used in inverse problems, to determine key properties in oceanography, glaciology, or climate models. For instance they determine basal friction coefficients of glaciers that are necessary to simulate their future evolution. Another example is to locate sources and sinks of CO2 by coupling atmospheric models and remote measurements.

6.1 New software

7.1 Algorithmic Differentiation of OpenMP

Participants: Laurent Hascoët, Jan Hueckelheim [Argonne National Lab. (Illinois, USA)].

For multithreaded parallel applications that use OpenMP, it is desirable to also compute the gradients in parallel. Last year we started extension of the AD model of Tapenade (source transformation, association by address, storage on tape of intermediate values) towards correct and efficient differentiation of OpenMP parallel worksharing loops. These loops are the most common idiom in OpenMP programs. This extension concerns the relatively easy tangent-linear mode of AD, but also the more sophisticated adjoint mode where the most interesting problems lie.

The major issue raised by the adjoint mode is the transformation of variable reads into adjoint variable overwrites, more accurately into increments. While there is no parallel conflict between two reads, two concurrent increments can cause a data race, unless they are both atomic. Classical automated detection of independence, for instance through the polyhedral methods used in parallelizing compilers, is as always limited. This year we have pushed forward the idea of extracting information about the memory access patterns of the original code (which we may assume correct and therefore free of data races) and of feeding this information to a theorem prover to which we then ask questions about independence of access patterns of the adjoint code. As a side benefit, we point out that the thorem prover can very well use other clues to answer the question, and can in particular implement its own polyhedral approach like in a parallellizing compiler. Therefore this approach nicely blends two sources of improvement.

Technically, all the information extraction phase is implemented inside Tapenade, as well as gathering the list of independence questions to be asked. The theorem proving part is delegated to a plugin of the Z3 tool, which is now systematically added into Tapenade. The issues of interfacing between different API's are thus reduced to a minimum. This new functionality is available in all distributions of Tapenade.

This extension was presented this year as a poster at the PPoPP'22 conference 20, and later as a full paper at the ICPP'22 conference 12.

7.2 Algorithmic Differentiation of CUDA

Participants: Laurent Hascoët, Sébastien Bourasseau [ONERA], Cedric Content [ONERA], Bruno Maugars [ONERA].

We continued this year our collaboration with ONERA on differentiation of CUDA source. More generally we extended our AD model towards integration of AD as a fundamental component of SoNice. SoNice is the new CFD platform developed at ONERA by Bourasseau, Maugars, Content and colleagues, as a successor to Elsa. This work is supported by a contract between ONERA and INRIA. This contract officially completed in July 2022 but collaboration continues.

This year, we delivered to ONERA a version of Tapenade that can differentiate most of the test cases provided by ONERA, in tangent as well as adjoint mode.

On the issue of differentiation of the CUDA kernels of SoNice, we continued the work by investigating the interest of the formal methods studied in 7.1. This approach can bring the same benefits for CUDA code as for OpenMP, as we showed on example codes with regular array accesses. However, SoNice favors unsructured grids and therefore irregular array indices that do not lend themselves to this approach. The alternative approach is a mesh coloring technique. Unlike a classical mesh coloring that assigns colors to avoid read-write and write-write conflicts inside a given color, the adapted coloring also avoids read-read situations in the original source. This may slightly increase the number of colors, but in return guarantees the absence of conflicts in the adjoint code, and therefore avoids atomic pragmas in the adjoint CUDA code. The reason is that adjoint AD turns reads into increments, and thus read-read situations into write-write conflicts.

Still on the CUDA aspect, we improved the adjoint AD model to further reduce the need for storage of intermediate values in the adjoint CUDA kernels. Adjoint code reuses intermediate values from the primal computation in reverse order, and this is often arranged for through storage. However, CUDA storage capacity is limited and costly. One workaround is to promote recomputation instead of storage. We pushed the capacity of Tapenade to detect possible recomputation, to a level that is sufficient for SoNice. Still, finding an optimal mix of recomputation and storage is an open question.

Other developments required for SoNice have been:

• a better handling by the AD tool of fpp directives in Fortran source, similar to the existing handling of cpp directives in C source,
• a labeling mechanism to exactly identify the derivative counterpart of any source code fragment,
• an experimental variant of the multi-directional modes of AD where the needed extra dimension is added to arrays in first position instead of last,
• a variant of the tangent mode of AD that automates the manual preparation of a code, needed to apply the popular “complex step” tangent AD method  36.

A joint article has been presented at the ECCOMAS'22 conference in Oslo 13.

7.3 Application to large industrial codes

Participants: Laurent Hascoët, Shreyas Gaikwad [U. of Texas, Austin, USA], Sri Hari Krishna Narayanan [Argonne National Lab. (Illinois, USA)], Daniel Goldberg [University of Edinburgh, UK], Michael Vossbeck [The Inversion Lab, Hamburg, Germany].

We support users with their first experiments of Algorithmic Differentiation of large codes. This concerned several Earth Science codes this year.

One set of target applications was addressed by Shreyas Gaikwad, University of Texas at Austin, PhD student supervised by Patrick Heimbach. His goal is to produce the adjoint of glaciology codes. Last year, Shreyas differentiated the SICOPOLIS code in adjoint mode with Tapenade. After some polishing this year, this work is now described in the main documentation of SICOPOLIS, hosted by readthedocs.io. An article was written and submitted to JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software).

This year, Shreyas successfuly differentiated the MIT GCM code, in tangent and adjoint mode, with Tapenade. All these codes are Fortran90 codes that have been previously differentiated with OpenAD, the former AD tool developed by Argonne National Lab. Krishna Narayanan provided crucial help and expertise, as he had been in charge of the previous differentiation with OpenAD. Indeed, differentiation with Tapenade did not encounter bugs in the AD tool itself. It also substantially simplified the tool chain that was necessary with OpenAD, a consequence of the different user interface choices of the two AD tools. The new tool chain was verified on most of the standard test cases of the MIT GCM.

A “pull request” of these new developments was submitted in December to the MIT GCM github repository, and is waiting for approval before final integration in the GCM. Documentation of this work was also prepared and submitted in the main documentation of the MIT GCM, hosted by readthedocs.io.

Shreyas Gaikwad presented this work at the Fall meeting of American Geophysical Union, 12-16 December 2022, in Chicago.

A sequel to this work is just starting, with Dan Goldberg, about differentiation of the STREAMICE package of the GCM, with Tapenade.

Independently from the above, we supported adjoint differentiation of the BEPS  33 code, a “biosphere” Earth Science simulation model taking vegetation into accout. This code is developed in part by the small company The Inversion Lab in Hamburg, Germany. We collaborate with Michael Vossbeck, engineer with The Inversion Lab, to provide the adjoint of BEPS by Tapenade. This year, we improved the algorithms and differentiation options of Tapenade to simplify the work chain that produces the adjoint of BEPS. This significantly simplifies future maintenance of the system. This work required extensions of Tapenade towards Fortran 2003 features that were not supported before. Differentiation with Tapenade is becoming a strategic part of the business of The Inversion Lab. Michael Vossbeck is progressively getting acquainted with the source of Tapenade, with the objective of contributing to Tapenade development, and of being able to maintain it.

7.4 Aeroacoustics

Participants: Alain Dervieux, Bastien Sauvage, Bruno Koobus [IMAG, U. of Montpellier], Florian Miralles [IMAG, U. of Montpellier], Stephen Wornom [IMAG, U. of Montpellier], Tanya Kozubskaya [CAALAB, Moscow].

The progress in highly accurate schemes for compressible flows on unstructured meshes (together with advances in massive parallelization of these schemes) allows to solve problems previously out of reach. The four-years programme Norma, associating:

• IMAG of Montpellier University (B. Koobus, coordinator),
• Computational AeroAcoustics Laboratory (CAALAB) of Keldysh Institute of Moscow (T. Kozubskaya, head), and
• Ecuador of INRIA Sophia-Antipolis.

is supported by the French ANR and by the Russian Science Foundation. Norma is a cooperation on the subject of extending Computational AeroAcoustics methods to simulate the noise emited by rotating machines (helicopters, aerial vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, wind turbines...). A detailed description with progress reports is available at this location.

Sections 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 describe the 2022 contributions of Ecuador to the Norma programme.

7.5 Turbulence models

Participants: Alain Dervieux, Bruno Koobus [IMAG, U. of Montpellier], Florian Miralles [IMAG, U. of Montpellier], Stephen Wornom [IMAG, U. of Montpellier], Tanya Kozubskaya [CAALAB, Moscow].

Modelling turbulence is an essential aspect of CFD. The purpose of our work in hybrid RANS/LES (Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes / Large Eddy Simulation) is to develop new approaches for industrial applications of LES-based analyses. In the applications targeted (aeronautics, hydraulics), the Reynolds number can be as high as several tens of millions, far too high for pure LES models. However, certain regions in the flow can be predicted better with LES than with usual statistical RANS (Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes) models. These are mainly vortical separated regions as assumed in one of the most popular hybrid models, the Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) model. Here, “hybrid” means that a blending is applied between LES and RANS. An important difference between a real life flow and a wind tunnel or basin is that the turbulence of the flow upstream of each body is not well known. The development of hybrid models, in particular DES in the litterature, has raised the question of the domain of validity of these models. According to theory, these models should not be applied to flows involving laminar boundary layers (BL). But industrial flows are complex flows and often combine in a single flow regions of laminar BL, regions of fully developed turbulent BL, and regions of non-equilibrium vortical BL. It is then mandatory for industrial use that the new hybrid models give a reasonable prediction for all these types of flow. We concentrated on evaluating the behavior of hybrid models for laminar BL and for vortical wakes. While less predictive than pure LES on laminar BL, some hybrid models still give reasonable predictions for rather low Reynolds numbers.

During 2022, several advances have been obtained. B. Sauvage developed a study of the NACA0021 test case at high angle of attack, an unsteady flow adressed with a DDES model and mesh adaptation. He also focused on the new test case chosen by the Norma consortium, the flow past a NACA0018 at various angles of attack, for which several measurements are available in the literature. A part of the work of B. Sauvage has been presented in CMMF'22 in Budapest and in DLES13 in Udine 15. B. Sauvage also made studies on approximation, with comparison of several Riemann solvers such as Roe flux difference splitting (FDS), HLLC flux vector splitting (FVS), and a new variant of the Toro-Vazquez FVS. For pure advection, the Toro-Vazquez FVS proved to be less diffusive than HLLC, of comparable diffusion to Roe, while being much more robust than Roe FDS. These properties are important when mesh adaptation algorithms are applied, since these algorithms are more challenging for the approximation.

7.6 Rotating machines

Participants: Alain Dervieux, Didier Chargy [Lemma, Sophia-Antipolis], Bastien Sauvage, Bruno Koobus [IMAG, U. of Montpellier], Florian Miralles [IMAG, U. of Montpellier], Tanya Kozubskaya [CAALAB, Moscow].

In 2022, B. Sauvage continued his study of mesh adaptive calculation of rotation flows. He developed a Multiple Reference Frame method 18 satisfying the Discrete Geometric Conservation Law. The new scheme together with the Chimera scheme are compared 19 with the calculation of the Caradonna rotor, both with mesh adaptation. The results have been presented in two communications, at ECCOMAS 14 in Oslo and CMFF22 16 in Budapest. B. Sauvage and Didier Chargy made progresses in the computation of the Caradonna-Tung rotor, with a new adapted calculation on 3 million vertices.

Image of an adapted mesh and of the flow computed on the mesh

7.7 High order approximations

Participants: Alain Dervieux, Bastien Sauvage.

In 2022, the consolidation and validation of the fourth-order accurate CENO in LEMMA's code NiceFlow has been advanced further. Alain Dervieux's article 11 on approximation on unstructured meshes has been finally published this year.

7.8 Control of approximation errors

Participants: Alain Dervieux, Bastien Sauvage, Adrien Loseille [Gamma3 team, INRIA-Saclay], Frédéric Alauzet [Gamma3 team, INRIA-Saclay].

Reducing approximation errors as much as possible by modifying the mesh is a particular kind of optimal control problem. We formulate it exactly this way when we look for the optimal metric of the mesh, which minimizes a user-specified functional (goal-oriented mesh adaptation). In that case, the usual methods of optimal control apply, using adjoint states that can be produced by Algorithmic Differentiation.

The first volume of the book 17 on mesh adaptation by Alauzet, Loseille, Koobus and Dervieux has been published by Wiley this year.

B. Sauvage and A. Dervieux made advances in the theory of space-and-time mesh adaptation with the transient fixed point algorithm, in cooperation with F. Alauzet. Adapting the time step is an important issue for aerodynamic LES and hybrid RANS-LES calculations since implicit time advancing with large time steps is used for efficiency reasons while time truncation errors have to be mastered by identifying the best time step.

8.1 Bilateral contracts with industry

Participants: Laurent Hascoët, Sébastien Bourasseau [ONERA], Cedric Content [ONERA], Bruno Maugars [ONERA].

The team has a contract with ONERA to assist in the Algorithmic Differentiation of ONERA's new CFD platform “SoNICS”. The main objective is adjoint AD of the CUDA parts of the SoNICS source. The contract also includes support to the ONERA development team on advanced use of AD, e.g., fixed-point adjoints and binomial checkpointing. The contract ended formally in July this year.

9.1 International initiatives

10.1 Major publications

• 1 articleF.F. Courty, A.A. Dervieux, B.B. Koobus and L.L. Hascoët. Reverse automatic differentiation for optimum design: from adjoint state assembly to gradient computation.Optimization Methods and Software1852003, 615-627
• 2 inproceedingsB.B. Dauvergne and L.L. Hascoët. The Data-Flow Equations of Checkpointing in reverse Automatic Differentiation.International Conference on Computational Science, ICCS 2006, Reading, UK2006
• 3 articleD.Daniel Goldberg, S. H.Sri Hari Krishna Narayanan, L.Laurent Hascoët and J.Jean Utke. An optimized treatment for algorithmic differentiation of an important glaciological fixed-point problem.Geoscientific Model Development952016, 27
  HAL
• 4 incollectionL.L. Hascoët. Adjoints by Automatic Differentiation.Advanced data assimilation for geosciencesOxford University Press2014, URL: https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01109881
  back to text
• 5 articleL.L. Hascoët, U.U. Naumann and V.V. Pascual. ``To Be Recorded'' Analysis in Reverse-Mode Automatic Differentiation.Future Generation Computer Systems2182004
• 6 articleL.L. Hascoët and V.V. Pascual. The Tapenade Automatic Differentiation tool: Principles, Model, and Specification.ACM Transactions On Mathematical Software3932013, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2450153.2450158
• 7 articleL.L. Hascoët, J.J. Utke and U.U. Naumann. Cheaper Adjoints by Reversing Address Computations.Scientific Programming1612008, 81--92
• 8 articleL.Laurent Hascoët and J.Jean Utke. Programming language features, usage patterns, and the efficiency of generated adjoint code.Optimization Methods and Software312016, 885--903
  HALDOI
• 9 articleL.L. Hascoët, M.M. Vázquez, B.B. Koobus and A.A. Dervieux. A Framework for Adjoint-based Shape Design and Error Control.Computational Fluid Dynamics Journal1642008, 454-464
• 10 articleJ. C.Jan Christian Hueckelheim, L.Laurent Hascoët and J.-D.Jens-Dominik Müller. Algorithmic differentiation of code with multiple context-specific activities.ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software2016
  HAL

10.2 Publications of the year

10.3 Cited publications

• 21 bookA.A. Aho, R.R. Sethi and J.J. Ullman. Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools.Addison-Wesley1986
  back to text
• 22 techreportI.I. Attali, V.V. Pascual and C.C. Roudet. A language and an integrated environment for program transformations.3313INRIA1997, URL: http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00073376
  back to text
• 23 articleB.B. Christianson. Reverse accumulation and implicit functions.Optimization Methods and Software941998, 307--322
  back to text
• 24 articleD.D. Clément, J.J. Despeyroux, L.L. Hascoët and G.G. Kahn. Natural semantics on the computer.Proceedings, France-Japan AI and CS Symposium, ICOTAlso, Information Processing Society of Japan, Technical Memorandum PL-86-6. Also INRIA research report # 4161986, 49-89URL: http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00076140
  back to text
• 25 articleP.P. Cousot. Abstract Interpretation.ACM Computing Surveys2811996, 324-328
  back to text
• 26 articleB.B. Creusillet and F.F. Irigoin. Interprocedural Array Region Analyses.International Journal of Parallel Programming2461996, 513--546
  back to text
• 27 articleJ.J.C. Gilbert. Automatic differentiation and iterative processes.Optimization Methods and Software11992, 13--21
  back to text
• 28 inproceedingsM.-B.M.-B. Giles. Adjoint methods for aeronautical design.Proceedings of the ECCOMAS CFD ConferenceSwansea, U.K.2001
  back to textback to text
• 29 articleA.A. Griewank and C.C. Faure. Reduced Gradients and Hessians from Fixed Point Iteration for State Equations.Numerical Algorithms30(2)2002, 113--139
  back to text
• 30 bookA.A. Griewank and A.A. Walther. Evaluating Derivatives: Principles and Techniques of Algorithmic Differentiation.SIAM, Other Titles in Applied Mathematics2008
  back to text
• 31 phdthesisL.L. Hascoët. Transformations automatiques de spécifications sémantiques: application: Un vérificateur de types incremental.Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis1987
  back to text
• 32 techreportP.P. Hovland, B.B. Mohammadi and C.C. Bischof. Automatic Differentiation of Navier-Stokes computations.MCS-P687-0997Argonne National Laboratory1997
  back to text
• 33 articleW.W.M. Ju, J.J.M. Chen, T.T.A. Black, A.A.G. Barr, J.J. Liu and B.B.Z. Chen. Modelling multi-year coupled carbon and water fluxes in a boreal aspen forest.Agric. For. Meteorol.1401-42006, 136--151
  DOIback to text
• 34 articleE.E. Larour, J.J. Utke, B.B. Csatho, A.A. Schenk, H.H. Seroussi, M.M. Morlighem, E.E. Rignot, N.N. Schlegel and A.A. Khazendar. Inferred basal friction and surface mass balance of the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream using data assimilation of ICESat (Ice Cloud and land Elevation Satellite) surface altimetry and ISSM (Ice Sheet System Model).Cryosphere862014, 2335-2351URL: http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/2335/2014/
  DOIback to text
• 35 articleF.-X.F.-X. Le Dimet and O.O. Talagrand. Variational algorithms for analysis and assimilation of meteorological observations: theoretical aspects.Tellus38A1986, 97-110
  back to textback to text
• 36 bookJ.J.R.R.A. Martins and A.A. Ning. Engineering design optimization.Cambridge University press2021
  DOIback to text
• 37 articleB.B. Mohammadi. Practical application to fluid flows of automatic differentiation for design problems.Von Karman Lecture Series1997
  back to text
• 38 phdthesisN.N. Rostaing. Différentiation Automatique: application à un problème d'optimisation en météorologie.université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis1993
  back to text
• 39 inproceedingsR.R. Rugina and M.M. Rinard. Symbolic Bounds Analysis of Pointers, Array Indices, and Accessed Memory Regions.Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN'00 Conference on Programming Language Design and ImplementationACM2000
  back to text