High-Level Expert Group on European HPC

High-Level Expert Group on European HPC
Name	High-Level Expert Group on European HPC
Formation	2012
Type	Advisory panel
Headquarters	Brussels
Region served	European Union
Leader title	Chair

High-Level Expert Group on European HPC

The High-Level Expert Group on European HPC convened as an advisory panel to shape strategic direction for petascale and exascale computing across the European Union, informing policy frameworks tied to the Horizon 2020 programme, the European Commission executive, and agencies engaged in digital research infrastructure. Its work interfaced with other initiatives such as the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking, and national ministries in capitals like Berlin, Paris, and Rome. Prominent stakeholders from institutes and consortia including CERN, Fraunhofer Society, CEA (France), EPCC (Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre), and PRACE contributed expertise.

Background and Establishment

The group was established against a backdrop of rising competition from actors such as the United States Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the China National Supercomputing Center network, and followed dialogues at forums including the G8 and workshops hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Initial impetus traced to policy coordination efforts led by the European Commission Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology and consultations with research bodies like the Max Planck Society and CNRS. Founding announcements occurred during events in Brussels and engagements with legislators from the European Parliament and ministers assembled through the Council of the European Union.

Mandate and Objectives

The mandate tasked the panel to define strategic priorities for European high-performance computing (HPC) investments, advise on procurement models, and recommend governance modalities aligned with funding streams such as Horizon 2020 and later Horizon Europe. Objectives targeted capabilities to serve communities centered at facilities like PRACE (Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe), computational science users associated with EMBL-EBI, and energy modelling consortia linked to IRENA. The group sought interoperability with standards bodies including ISO stakeholders and coordination with programmes overseen by the European Investment Bank and national research councils like the Science and Technology Facilities Council.

Membership and Governance

Membership comprised senior technologists, academic directors, and industry executives drawn from institutions including ETH Zurich, Technical University of Munich, Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Siemens, IBM, Atos, and research centres such as CEA. Chairs and rapporteurs held profiles comparable to leaders in organizations like EuroHPC JU and advisory panels of the European Research Council. Governance followed advisory committee norms seen in bodies like the Scientific Advice Mechanism and engaged with parliamentary committees of the European Parliament for stakeholder hearings. Working groups paralleled consortia arrangements such as those in PRACE and EUDAT.

Key Reports and Recommendations

The group produced white papers and roadmaps that recommended a pan-European approach to exascale procurement, federated data centres, and co-design partnerships between vendors and laboratories. Reports echoed technical priorities familiar from projects at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, and collaborations with vendors like Intel, NVIDIA, and ARM. Recommendations covered funding structures akin to instruments used by the European Investment Bank, public-private partnership templates evident in InnovFin schemes, and workforce-development proposals referencing training models at CERN and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory.

Impact on European HPC Policy and Infrastructure

Its recommendations informed the creation and direction of the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking, shaped investment choices that impacted procurement of systems at sites such as the Jülich Research Centre and Barcelona Supercomputing Center, and influenced roadmap alignments with programmes like Digital Europe Programme. National facilities in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain adopted strategies that referenced the group’s emphasis on federated architecture and user access models similar to those promoted by PRACE and ELIXIR. The group’s work contributed to dialogues with technology firms including Atos and Cray during procurement cycles.

Criticism and Controversies

Critics pointed to potential biases from industry-affiliated members, drawing comparisons with debates that arose around procurement in projects involving IBM and HPE. Commentators raised concerns about transparency and stakeholder representation in a manner reminiscent of controversies at other EU-level advisory bodies such as panels advising the European Medicines Agency. Some national actors argued that centralised procurement recommendations risked crowding out national champions in countries like Poland and Hungary. Debates on intellectual property and data sovereignty referenced positions taken in negotiations with entities including Microsoft and cloud providers debated in the European Commission.

Legacy and Follow-up Initiatives

The group’s legacy is visible in successor mechanisms like the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking and continued policy work in Horizon Europe clusters, as well as in national roadmaps maintained by ministries in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. Follow-up initiatives involved collaboration with research infrastructures such as PRACE, ELIXIR, and CINECA, and ongoing engagement with vendors and laboratories including CEA, Fraunhofer Society, and CERN. Its recommendations remain referenced in strategic documents of the European Commission and in procurement and research strategies across EU member states.

Category:Supercomputing Category:European Union advisory bodies Category:Research policy