ByteBoost: A National Cybertraining Program for Cyberinfrastructure Testbed Adoption and Enhanced Research Utilizing Cutting-Edge, Specialized Computing Technologies
Emerging cyberinfrastructure (CI) testbeds offer research communities early access to novel computing architectures, but researchers often lack structured pathways for evaluating and adopting these technologies within their own workflows. ByteBoost 2.0, a National Science Foundation Cybertraining award led by the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC) at Carnegie Mellon University in partnership with Texas A&M University and Stony Brook University, builds on a successful two-year pilot to establish a national, centralized training program spanning three NSF-funded testbed systems: Neocortex at PSC, ACES at Texas A&M, and Ookami at Stony Brook. The program combines an annual virtual webinar series with an in-person "Bring Your Own Science" workshop, giving early-career researchers, including graduate students, postdoctoral associates, and assistant professors, hands-on experience porting real research workflows onto novel architectures under the guidance of platform mentors. A dedicated educator track supports the development of modular, portable curriculum materials, extending the program's impact into the classroom. By delivering instruction through a single learning management system across a broad set of CI testbeds and architectures, ByteBoost 2.0 helps participants critically evaluate the advantages, disadvantages, and key considerations of each technology so they can select and use the most appropriate computing solution for their research goals. The program's objectives are to broaden adoption of cutting-edge CI technologies, build durable evaluation and deployment skills within the research workforce, strengthen computational education through reusable curricular materials, and scale a proven pilot into a sustained, interdisciplinary national training program.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The perception of the impact of agile methods is predominantly positive, and several challenge areas were discovered, but based on this study, agile methods are here to stay.
M. Laanti, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson· Information and Software Tec...· 260 citations· ⚡20
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 8, 2026
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.