Panel Summary Panel Summary Description ======= The proposal intends to build a next-generation visualization system- a seven-sided CAVE (called the HepCAVE) to provide advanced visualization capabilities for a variety of domain science and computer science research, education and outreach. Intellectual Merit =========== Strengths ------- The proposal team has a proven record with excellent research contributions. CAVEs and other large-scale visualization environments are the Computer Science (CS) equivalent of large microscopes, telescopes, satellites, etc for other disciplines. As such it is important that these instruments are refreshed with the latest technologies to enhance their resolution so that they can continue to keep up with the growing scale of scientific research and associated data. Furthermore it is important for the US to continue to build instruments that are on par or preferably exceed the capabilities of our foreign competitors to facilitate great leaps in transformative science. This proposal outlines a variety of compelling applications that can benefit from the use of a high-resolution immersive environment, and also highlights the CS challenges that must be overcome. Issues ----- None Broader Impact ========== Strengths ------- The instrument will be used in a variety of compelling research and applications that will benefit from 3D visualization: visualization of 3D confocal microscopy imagery; computational arterial modeling; kinematics and fluid dynamics of bat flight; systems biology to understand how cells communicate; functional mapping of the cell; white matter anatomy analytics; planetary geology; scientific visualization and user interaction; physical rehabilitation. In all these cases their contribution to Computer Science were clearly articulated. An NSF-funded outreach program for middle and high school students is already in place that will leverage this technology. Issues ----- The impact of this technology could be even further magnified by considering in the future how this technology could be migrated to the average scientist's office. Management Plan =========== Strengths ------- The team is well fully qualified to build the instrument. Laidlaw has extensive experience in software development for scientific visualization. Hesthaven is in charge of the Center for Computation and Visualization (CCV) in which the HepCAVE will be housed. The staff are experienced in managing large scale equipment. The management plan is well thought out and includes the design, acquisition and implementation of the instrument over 3/4 years before going operational. Issues ----- None Transformative ========== The increased resolution of the HepCAVE will have transformative impact on a variety of domain sciences that benefit from three-dimensional visualization to accelerate the creation of new discoveries. The Computer Science research will have truly transformative impact. Its long-term goal is in the development of a human-computer partner that allows the human to guide the computer to identify potentially interesting features in a visualization. This will ultimately make advanced visualization technologies more intelligent and easier for domain scientists to use. The panel places this proposal in the Highly Competitive Category. PANEL RECOMMENDATION: Highly Competitive Review 1 Rating: Very Good Review: Summary What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? Strengths Builds visualization instrument that overcomes the limitations of high display resolution, brightness, contrast, and size; fast,responsive tracking with high accuracy and low latency; ease of use in working with new kinds of data; and reliability. It integrates commodity projectors to develop an immersive stereo display.The instrument(s) will better enable scientific discovery. They propose to create novel,useful, and dynamic user model interactions through visualization to focus models on areas of interest. These tools and analysis techniques will be distributed to community. Weaknesses (intellectual merit) It has been historically rare that scientists have made discoveries through the use of advanced computational instruments that could not have been done at their desktop. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? Strengths Expected advances to occur in most of the proposed scientific domain applications. It should produce a new generation of scientists who through collaboration with computer scientists in the use of sophisticated scientific visualization can better analyze the results of computational research. It should also help accelerate the design process by using the immersive scientific visualization tools. Quantifying expected visualization useage based on a specific applications indicates system might meet science expectations. Weaknesses (broader impacts) Not enough emphasis on migrating these vis tools to the desktop for easy use by the scientists. Clearly the cave will be hard to migrate but the use of 3D projectors in the user office under normal light and vis tools could be extremely helpful though not adequately described. Is management plan appropriate? For instrument acquisition proposals: Evaluate whether the plan: 1) includes sufficient infrastructure and technical expertise to allow effective usage of the instrument; and 2) provides organizational commitments for operations and maintenance. For instrument development proposals: Evaluate whether the plan has a realistic schedule and mechanisms to deal with potential risks. In addition, evaluate the availability of appropriate technical expertise to design and construct the instrument and the cost of the new technology. Strengths Carefully thought out plan that designs acquires and implements the instrument over 3/4 years before going operational. The housing, system build and integration is under management of Co-I who heads their current Cave center, CCV. The PI focuses on the software integration which itself is a challenge. Both PI and Co-I have required expertise and experience. Allows technology to evolve over next year or more before committing to hardware buy. Weaknesses (management plan) Lacks near term impressive milestones toward either building the software, performing challenging hardware/software integration. Mot clear to this reviewer that commercially available system or other not invented here well tested research system would not be available sooner to have similar science visualization analysis impact. Rationale for rating Knowledge and experience with a 1998 cave that clearly needs to move forward with advanced technology. Review 2 Rating: Very Good Review: Summary What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? Strengths The proposal team has a proven record with excellent research contributions. The project on development of interactive visual display environment is timely and important and proposed sub-projects fit well under a coherent theme. Weaknesses (intellectual merit) The needs for bright, high-contrast imagery is emphasized numerous times throughout the proposal. The proposal could be stronger by describing in greater detail the "development" aspects of the proposed project. The bright, high-contrast imagery comes from hardware functions and obviously these functions are critical in the proposed research. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? Strengths Broader impacts are based on advancing scientific disciplines and use of the instrumentation in three classes. Weaknesses (broader impacts) The broader impacts portion of the proposal could be made stronger. Past outreach activities by Professor Karniadakis using the 1998 Cave are mentioned. Are similar plans being made for the proposed instrumentation? Is management plan appropriate? For instrument acquisition proposals: Evaluate whether the plan: 1) includes sufficient infrastructure and technical expertise to allow effective usage of the instrument; and 2) provides organizational commitments for operations and maintenance. For instrument development proposals: Evaluate whether the plan has a realistic schedule and mechanisms to deal with potential risks. In addition, evaluate the availability of appropriate technical expertise to design and construct the instrument and the cost of the new technology. Strengths Staff support appears to be largely in place already from the existing CAVE. Institutional commitment to the project is in place. The schedule and timetable for installation of the equipment seems appropriate. Weaknesses (management plan) The described development portion of the project seems to be largely equipment installation and testing, with some feature enhancement additions planned in year 4. Rationale for rating Strong research group that will likely put the display equipment to good use. Review 3 Rating: Very Good Review: Summary What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? Strengths This proposal blends innovative development of a visualization facility and has an excellent set of potential users who have convincingly justified the need for this facility. The PI has put together a detailed and realistic management plan. The personnel involved are well-qualified. Weaknesses (intellectual merit) None that are evident. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? Strengths I believe this project will have a significant impact on non-computing scientific research by permitting high quality visualization of results. The willingness of the researchers to publish the results to facilitate the ability of others to use/install similar facilities is important. Weaknesses (broader impacts) Broader impacts could be improved. While the PI discusses education and training in section a.3, he could expand on the outreach elements of his proposal. Is management plan appropriate? For instrument acquisition proposals: Evaluate whether the plan: 1) includes sufficient infrastructure and technical expertise to allow effective usage of the instrument; and 2) provides organizational commitments for operations and maintenance. For instrument development proposals: Evaluate whether the plan has a realistic schedule and mechanisms to deal with potential risks. In addition, evaluate the availability of appropriate technical expertise to design and construct the instrument and the cost of the new technology. Strengths The management plan is well-considered and realistic. It has the commitment of the institution. Weaknesses (management plan) None that are evident. Rationale for rating In spite of some deficiencies on the broader impacts, I believe the impact of the proposed facility and associated research on computing and non-computing science promises to be great. The proposing personnel are highly qualified. Review 4 Rating: Multiple Rating: (Excellent/Very Good) Review: Summary What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? Strengths The proposal intends to build a 7-sided CAVE (HepCAVE) consisting of over 80 Megapixels in resolution. It will be used in a variety of compelling applications that will benefit from 3D visualization: visualization of 3D confocal microscopy imagery; computational arterial modeling; kinematics and fluid dynamics of bat flight; systems biology to understand how cells communicate; functional mapping of the cell; white matter anatomy analytics; planetary geology; scientific visualization and user interaction; physical rehabilitation. How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? CAVEs and other large-scale visualization environments are the CS equivalent of large microscopes, telescopes or MRI machines for other disciplines. As such it is important that these instruments are refreshed with the latest technologies to enhance their resolution so that it can continue to keep up with the growing scale of scientific data. Furthermore it is important for the US to continue to build instruments that are at least on par, and preferably exceeding the capabilities of our foreign competitors to facilitate great leaps in transformative science. This proposal outlines a variety of compelling applications that can benefit from the use of a high resolution immersive environment, and also highlights the CS challenges that must be overcome. How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) The team is well qualified to build the instrument. Laidlaw has extensive experience in software development for scientific visualization. Hesthaven is in charge of the the Center for Computation and Visualization (CCV) in which the HepCAVE will be housed. The staff appear to have the experience in managing large scale equipment (Fullcomer and Huffman). To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? The applications appear to be compelling in that they will benefit from a high resolution immersive environment. The transformative Computer Science research is in the long term goal of developing a human-computer partner that allows the human to guide the computer to identify potentially interesting features in a visualization. How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources? Much of the resources are in place including adequate match from the university. The institution has built a CAVE before and are well qualified to create this system. Weaknesses (intellectual merit) None What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? Strengths How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? The instrument will provide a resource for broad collaboration across a wide variety of disciplines that will benefit students greatly. How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? Karniadakis is in charge of an ongoing NSF funded outreach program for middle and high school kids- though it is not clear how it impacts underrepresented groups. To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? It will allow Brown to create an infrastructure on par with those that are developed at other top universities in the US and around the world. E.g. CALIT2 and KAUST. Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? Brown proposes to release software in open source form and papers to detail how to construct the system. What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society? Certainly the domain science research derived from the use of this device will impact society. The construction of such a device will no doubt help stimulate the economy due to the sizeable hardware procurement necessary. Weaknesses (broader impacts) There does not be much in the way of involving underrepresented minorities in this project. Is management plan appropriate? For instrument acquisition proposals: Evaluate whether the plan: 1) includes sufficient infrastructure and technical expertise to allow effective usage of the instrument; and 2) provides organizational commitments for operations and maintenance. For instrument development proposals: Evaluate whether the plan has a realistic schedule and mechanisms to deal with potential risks. In addition, evaluate the availability of appropriate technical expertise to design and construct the instrument and the cost of the new technology. Strengths The budget is appropriate for this scale of project. The staffing level is also appropriate. The schedule is realistic. Weaknesses (management plan) It really would have helped to include an actual diagram of the HepCAVE. Rationale for rating I would give this proposal an Excellent rating if it had a stronger commitment to supporting underrepresented groups beyond just hosting tours and visits. Review 5 Rating: Very Good Review: Summary What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? Strengths This proposal is for a Cave at Brown University. The listing of users at the beginning of the proposal is impressive. The listing of research activities with clear impact and the CS challenge makes it clear what the funding of this proposal will accomplish. A number of research activities will benefit from the proposed Cave. The researchers have prior experience with a Cave. Software access at three levels will address ease-of-use impediments and will allow the Cave to be used by a broad community. Weaknesses (intellectual merit) It would be helpful to know in the project description if the projects that will use the instrument are already funded, particularly if funded b y NSF. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? Strengths The software will be packaged into a distribution that can be used to develop semi-custom applications, speeding up the design and realization of new analysis tools. The Cave will be used in teaching of scientific visualization and analysis applications. Weaknesses (broader impacts) The broader impacts of the science are described. A stronger description of outreach, particularly outreach or education to underrepresented groups, could be included. Is management plan appropriate? For instrument acquisition proposals: Evaluate whether the plan: 1) includes sufficient infrastructure and technical expertise to allow effective usage of the instrument; and 2) provides organizational commitments for operations and maintenance. For instrument development proposals: Evaluate whether the plan has a realistic schedule and mechanisms to deal with potential risks. In addition, evaluate the availability of appropriate technical expertise to design and construct the instrument and the cost of the new technology. Strengths The technology choices and description appear to be satisfactory. I have confidence that the investigators can spend this money wisely. The timeline is reasonable. There is sufficient expertise to carry out the project. The organizational commitment is good. Weaknesses (management plan) None. Rationale for rating Overall this is a very good proposal that should be funded if possible.