National Academies Press: OpenBook

The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security (2012)

Chapter: Appendix B: Identifying Hubs of Research Activity in Key Areas of S&T Critical to this Study

« Previous: Appendix A: Committee Member Biographies
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Identifying Hubs of Research Activity in Key Areas of S&T Critical to this Study." National Research Council. 2012. The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13472.
×

B


Identifying Hubs of Research Activity in Key Areas of S&T Critical to this Study

As a data-gathering experiment, the committee solicited input from experts on their sense of where innovation and engagement are taking place related to the power and performance challenges for sustaining growth in computing performance. In particular, the committee asked experts to identify leading researchers around the globe focused on the challenges of sustaining growth in computer performance in (1) semiconductor device scaling, (2) power efficiency in computing hardware, (3) parallel programming and models to leverage multicore and other novel architecture, (4) chip architectures, and (5) runtime and software infrastructure for power-efficient and scalable computing.

Approximately 170 leading researchers were identified, based on input solicited from a dozen computer scientists, engineers, and recommendations by the committee.1 Approximately three-quarters of those identified were based in the United States. Individuals who were identified by at least three people were deemed to be “hubs” of concentrated research activity for the purposes of the committee’s analysis. Publication data (for the years 2001–2011) for each of these individuals, or hubs, was collected using SciVerse Scopus2 (resulting in a total number of 1,081 publications and 5,685 authors, 1,368 of which are unique authors).

Using this publication data, the committee generated a coauthor publication network map that includes all identified hubs of research activity in semiconductor scaling, architecture, and parallel programming.3,4 A visualization of the publication network for these advanced research areas critical to the computing performance challenge is shown in Figure B-1. The goal of this exercise is not to highlight individually-identified researchers, but rather to present a methodology that allows gleaning, at least in a rough, qualitative sense, of potential insights from the connectedness between the hubs of research activity, as well as between U.S. and international research communities.

Figure B-1 shows a map of highly connected circles. Each circle represents an individual researcher, and each line between two circles represents a coauthored publication. The size5 of each circle corresponds approximately to the total number of papers that researcher has authored, and the width of each line corresponds to the number of coauthored papers shared between two researchers. Hubs of research activity are colored in yellow and labeled with letters corresponding to their institutional affiliation.6 All other circles are

_______________

1The following noncommittee members contributed to this data-collection exercise: Alex Aiken (Stanford University), Mark Bohr (Intel), Robert Colwell (DARPA), Bob Doering (Texas Instruments), Bryan Ford (Yale University), David Patterson (University of California-Berkeley); David Srolovitz (A*STAR), and Dennis Sylvester (University of Michigan).

2See www.scopus.com. Last accessed on August 11, 2012.

3Coauthor publication network maps are not shown for advanced research in power efficiency in computing hardware or in runtime and software infrastructure for power-efficient and scalable computing due to limited overlap in researcher nominations.

4Coauthor publication network maps were generated using the Science of Science (Sci2) Tool, available at http://sci2.cns.iu.edu.

5The size of each node is calculated as a fraction of the largest number of papers authored and/or coauthored by a single individual.

6Affiliations associated with each hotspot are as follows: (A) The University of California, Berkeley; (B) Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (C) Stanford University; (D) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; and (E) Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Identifying Hubs of Research Activity in Key Areas of S&T Critical to this Study." National Research Council. 2012. The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13472.
×
images/img-76-1.jpg

FIGURE B-1 Coauthorship networks of hubs of research activity in three areas of advanced computing research.

colored according to the geographic location of that researcher, as indicated in the figure.7 Three large circles marked by dotted lines are used to bin the hubs of research activity by each of their associated areas of research (e.g., semiconductor scaling, architecture, and parallel programming).

It is worth noting that this mapping approach differs from traditional bibliometric analyses of coauthored publication data because the primary nodes (hubs) examined were identified based on the committee’s data input solicitations (as opposed to selecting hubs on the basis of total number of publications or of most cited

_______________

7Color coding by region (e.g., U.S., Asia, Europe, Other) was determined by using each authors’ geographic location listed on his or her conference publication. Addresses were not mapped using Sci2 software.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Identifying Hubs of Research Activity in Key Areas of S&T Critical to this Study." National Research Council. 2012. The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13472.
×

publications). While the sampling size of the data solicitations is small, Figure B-1 reveals several interesting features that may be useful for subsequent analysis.

For example, all hubs are located in the United States, and all but one of these hubs are U.S. research universities. The coauthorship network maps show that some areas of research (and some researchers specifically) tend to collaborate on a nation- or region-specific basis or both. For example, chip architecture and parallel programming networks are primarily U.S. based with limited participation by Europe and Asia. In contrast, semiconductor device-scaling networks show a significant number of collaborations with Asia. In particular, Taiwan holds the vast majority share of Asia’s representation, followed by Singapore and Japan (data not shown).

While the individual hubs do not generally show a significant degree of connectivity with one another (with exception to two hubs in the semiconductor scaling networks), the semiconductor scaling and chip architecture networks appear to be highly interconnected. In fact, both of these networks share a common hub. In contrast, researchers within the parallel programming networks display much less connectivity.

Increasing circle size, increasing connectedness between researchers, and widening lines between researchers may all be useful indicators for identifying emerging hubs of research activity. For instance, a small circle with many connections might suggest an individual who publishes less but collaborates frequently and is thereby more intimately connected to the global knowledge network. In addition, a wide line between a small circle and an established research hub might suggest a promising early-career researcher who hails from a strong research lineage. This analysis could also be extended by observing how coauthored publication networks change over time.

In summary, this methodology presents a unique approach for identifying emerging, as well as established, hubs of research activity in three areas of science and technology. However, given the small sampling size of the data solicitations, this experiment is not intended to provide any assessment or interpretation of the hubs themselves (or of trends apparent in the network maps). Rather, the goal of this experiment is to demonstrate an approach that could be extended and/or modified (e.g., to include statistically valid data-gathering methodologies) for subsequent in-depth exploration in any number of research areas.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Identifying Hubs of Research Activity in Key Areas of S&T Critical to this Study." National Research Council. 2012. The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13472.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Identifying Hubs of Research Activity in Key Areas of S&T Critical to this Study." National Research Council. 2012. The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13472.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Identifying Hubs of Research Activity in Key Areas of S&T Critical to this Study." National Research Council. 2012. The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13472.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Identifying Hubs of Research Activity in Key Areas of S&T Critical to this Study." National Research Council. 2012. The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13472.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Identifying Hubs of Research Activity in Key Areas of S&T Critical to this Study." National Research Council. 2012. The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13472.
×
Page 64
Next: Appendix C: Contributors to the Study »
The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $41.00 Buy Ebook | $32.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Computing and information and communications technology (ICT) has dramatically changed how we work and live, has had profound effects on nearly every sector of society, has transformed whole industries, and is a key component of U.S. global leadership. A fundamental driver of advances in computing and ICT has been the fact that the single-processor performance has, until recently, been steadily and dramatically increasing year over years, based on a combination of architectural techniques, semiconductor advances, and software improvements. Users, developers, and innovators were able to depend on those increases, translating that performance into numerous technological innovations and creating successive generations of ever more rich and diverse products, software services, and applications that had profound effects across all sectors of society. However, we can no longer depend on those extraordinary advances in single-processor performance continuing. This slowdown in the growth of single-processor computing performance has its roots in fundamental physics and engineering constraints--multiple technological barriers have converged to pose deep research challenges, and the consequences of this shift are deep and profound for computing and for the sectors of the economy that depend on and assume, implicitly or explicitly, ever-increasing performance. From a technology standpoint, these challenges have led to heterogeneous multicore chips and a shift to alternate innovation axes that include, but are not limited to, improving chip performance, mobile devices, and cloud services. As these technical shifts reshape the computing industry, with global consequences, the United States must be prepared to exploit new opportunities and to deal with technical challenges. The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for U.S. Competitiveness and National Security outlines the technical challenges, describe the global research landscape, and explore implications for competition and national security.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!