With sponsorship from hardware and software vendor partners, competing student teams design and build small clusters, learn scientific applications, and apply optimization techniques for their chosen architectures in a non-stop, 48-hour challenge.
Student Cluster Competition ScheduleMonday–Wednesday, November 17–19, 2025
Student Cluster Competition ChairLe Mai Weakley, Indiana University
Student Cluster Competition Vice ChairAbhinav Thota, Indiana University
Teams selected to participate in the SCC at SC25:
ETH Zürich, Switzerland
Clemson University, United States
Texas A&M University, United States
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
National Taiwan University, Taiwan
National University of Singapore, Singapore
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
University of California San Diego, United States
Getting Started with SCC & IndySCC
Recorded 7 Apr 2025
Exascale Climate Emulator
Recorded 29 Jul 2025
Structural Simulation Toolkit (SST)
Recorded 12 Aug 2025
SCC Benchmarks
Recorded 27 Aug 2025
The Reproducibility Challenge
Recorded 19 Sep 2025
The Final Approach
Recorded 31 Oct 2025
1 MAR 2025
Applications Open
16 MAY 2025
Applications Close
16 JUN 2025
Notifications Sent
Teams are composed of six students, an advisor, and vendor partners. The advisor provides guidance and recommendations, the vendor provides the resources (hardware and software), and the students provide the skill and enthusiasm. Students work with their advisors to craft a proposal that describes the team, the suggested hardware, and their approach to the competition. The SCC committee reviews each proposal, ranks, and selects the team roster for the competition. The requirements for teams, the selection process, and what makes a good proposal are described more completely below.
Team clusters should be able to run the competition’s applications and exercises without exceeding a fixed power limit. More specific details regarding hardware requirements and other rules will be made available by the time team applications open. Refer to the last year’s rule set to get an idea of what the rules will look like for this year; however, power limits and other rules may change.
The IndySCC is a virtual companion competition to the SCC that shares many of the same goals. Each year, far more team applications are received than can possibly be brought to the conference. It takes a significant amount of time and effort to put a team together, so the IndySCC was formed to provide additional opportunities for these teams to apply their hard work, gain experience, and come back stronger the next year and make it into the SCC.
Teams applying to the SCC may indicate they would like to be considered for IndySCC if they are not selected to the SCC. Teams who do not indicate they are interested in the IndySCC will not be considered if not selected for the SCC. Indicating you would like to be considered for the IndySCC is not a guarantee to be selected for the competition.
Teams may also apply directly to the IndySCC, without being considered for the SCC. This serves as a lower bar for entry for teams that may not have existing strong vendor relationships or sufficient funding to travel to the conference, or who are looking to gain a footing in the cluster competition world before applying to the SCC. The goal for teams participating in the IndySCC is that they are able to travel to the conference and compete in the SCC in a later year.
The IndySCC is intended for less experienced teams, and final selections will be made considering the strength of the application, motivations as they relate to the goals of IndySCC, and the team’s level of experience within prior cluster competitions.
Students, with the guidance of their advisor, will craft a proposal that describes their team, the proposed hardware and software, their approach to the competition, and what they hope to get out of the experience. This proposal is submitted as a team application for review by the SCC committee. The application consists of several prompts detailed below.
Your proposal will describe your team members, their strengths and weaknesses, and how everyone will work together in order to successfully compete. A good proposal will describe how the team members have different strengths and skills (i.e., academic studies and inclusion of non-STEM majors) and how they will work together and contribute to a strong team. This should not be a simple list of each team member’s qualifications–the reviewing committee will want to see how you will work together as a team.
Additionally, you will need to describe your team’s diversity. This does not mean academic diversity, but rather diversity in other areas such as underrepresented groups in your home region and institution. Diversity is relative to where you are from, so it can be helpful to describe what diversity means to your team and institution. You should also describe what efforts you made to recruit a diverse team – this is especially important if your team is not as diverse as you would have liked.
Your applications should describe in detail the hardware you propose to bring, and the software you plan to install (such as OS, resource managers, compilers, etc). A good proposal will provide sufficient detail to the reviewing committee that your proposed hardware and software meet the requirements outlined in the rules, and that you have thought through a plan on how to build and run your cluster. While listing technical specs is important, you should go further and explain how and why the hardware you chose will give your team an advantage.
You will then need to describe the team’s relationship with your institution and vendor. Describe any financial support your institution and/or vendor is providing, such as travel expenses, cluster shipping, meals, etc. You should also describe any training or resources they are providing to help you prepare. It takes a village to build a team, so we want to see that you have a village backing you.
Next you will describe how your team will prepare for the competition. We are looking for evidence that you have a plan to prepare. This could include things like meeting regularly to work on the cluster, explore topics, practice, attend guest lectures, etc. Mentioning any classes the team members are taking that directly relate to the competition may also be helpful, but be sure to explain how they will benefit the team rather than listing a course catalog.
Finally, you will describe your team’s educational goals and what your team hopes to gain by participating in the competition. You should be as specific as possible with your goals rather than listing vague high level goals – we want to know what makes your team unique!
Selected teams receive full conference registration for each team member and one advisor. Each team is also provided with lodging for the students and advisor. As the competition is part of the Students@SC program, students can also participate in mentoring and networking events like the Mentor–Protégé Matching program as well as the full slate of student programming. Travel to the conference, shipping for your cluster, and per diem are not provided.
One of the applications presented to the student teams is the Reproducibility Challenge, in which students attempt to reproduce results from an accepted paper from the prior year’s Technical Program.
Students have the opportunity to interact directly with the paper’s authors as they attempt to reproduce specific results and conclusions from the paper. As part of this challenge, each student team writes a reproducibility report detailing their experience in reproducing the results from the paper. Authors of the most highly rated reproducibility reports may be invited to submit their reports to a reproducibility special issue.
High-Performance Linpack (HPL)
The HPL benchmark solves a (random) dense linear system in double precision (FP64) arithmetic. It is often used to measure the peak performance of a computer or that of a high-performance computing (HPC) cluster. The ranking of the TOP500 Supercomputers in the world is determined by their performances with the HPL benchmark.
Read more: https://netlib.org/benchmark/hpl/
HPL Mixed Precision (HPL-MxP)
While traditional HPC algorithms mostly require double-precision (64-bit) arithmetic, modern HPC workloads such as artificial intelligence (AI) can achieve desired results with lower precision (32 bit or lower). This shift in workloads and the advancement in novel accelerator architectures have led to the development of the mixed-precision HPL benchmark (HPL-MxP). HPL-MxP allows the traditional HPL solver to use reduced precision datatypes for LU factorization and couples this with an iterative refinement phase to ensure no loss in accuracy from a 64-bit solution. The outcome is a significant speedup compared to the FP64 implementation. Optimized implementation of HPL-MxP can be downloaded from respective vendor distribution channels (AMD and NVIDIA).
Read more: https://hpl-mxp.org/
MLPerf Inference
Machine Learning (ML) is increasingly being used in many scientific domains for making groundbreaking innovations. MLPerf Inference is a benchmark suite for measuring how fast systems can run models in a variety of deployment scenarios. The key motivations behind this benchmark is to measure ML-system performance in an architecture-neutral, representative, and reproducible manner.
Read more: https://mlcommons.org/benchmarks/inference-datacenter/
Conventional climate models solve PDEs representing the interactions in Earth’s systems, a task whose computational and storage requirements increase dramatically with increasing resolution. Climate emulators alleviate those requirements to predict the results of a more-complex conventional climate model.
One such emulator, trained on 318 billion hourly and 31 billion daily data points of surface temperature, generates hourly climate emulations that are statistically consistent with simulations, and was awarded the 2024 Gordon Bell Prize for Climate Modelling. The emulator utilizes the spherical harmonic transform to statistically model spatio-temporal variations in climate data and the PaRSEC runtime system to support efficient parallel matrix operations on exascale systems. SCC teams will demonstrate some aspects of the climate emulator on their own clusters.
The Gordon Bell paper is at https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1109/SC41406.2024.00008. This application is supported by Qinglei Cao, Sameh Abdulah, and Zubair Khalid.
The Structural Simulation Toolkit (SST) is a parallel discrete-event simulator used to model large-scale and high-performance computing platforms. It was developed to explore innovations in highly concurrent systems where the ISA, microarchitecture, and memory system interact with the programming model and communications system. SST enables this through a modular design, allowing for interoperability between various simulation components. Scalable simulation of large systems is supported through both MPI and multithreading.
While many high-profile applications are suited to GPU acceleration, many important applications — including SST — are not, and SCC teams should take this into consideration while designing their clusters.
The SST web page is at https://sst-simulator.org/. SST and SCC25 are supported by Patrick Lavin, Shannon Kinkead, Clay Hughes, Gwen Voskuilen, and Scott Hemmert.
The Student Cluster Competition (SCC) was developed in 2007 to provide an immersive high performance computing experience to undergraduate and high school students.
For more information about SCC in past years, including team profiles, photos, winners, and more:
Q: Can we recruit alternate team members? Do we include their names on the application? Can alternate team members attend SC and participate in Students@SC even if they do not participate in the cluster competition?
A: You are welcome to recruit alternates, however, only the 6 team members are considered part of the team. They do not receive any support from the conference through the SCC (like registration or hotel). It wouldn’t hurt to mention you have alternatives in your application text, but that is not required (and we don’t need all their details). They are certainly more than welcome at the conference and in the Students@SC program (it is open to all students), they will just need to secure arrangements through other means.
Q: How much can we modify software for the competition, such as the kernel, slurm/job runner, libraries, and benchmark code?
A: You can modify software as needed for the competition, including the kernel, slurm/job runner, libraries, and benchmark code. The only requirement is that the software must be publicly available (free or otherwise) and not subject to non-disclosure agreements. Any modifications must be shared with the committee, especially for application codes, at least 2 weeks before the competition. Teams are encouraged to share any improvements upstream to benefit the wider community.
Q: What is the judging process like for the finals?
A: The final scoring is a combination of various competition components, including benchmark scores, completion of challenges, judging interviews, and possibly posters and other activities. The final score is based on a holistic evaluation of the team’s performance across these areas.
Q: How important is the vendor relationship for being accepted? (SCC-only)
A: Having a vendor or institution committed to providing hardware is essential for your application. While the final hardware configuration may change over time, you should have a solid plan in place for what you intend to bring to the competition at this stage.
Note: In IndySCC, the organizing committee provides the necessary cloud-based HPC hardware to all accepted teams. IndySCC teams are welcome and encouraged to solicit vendors to support them with optional travel to the conference, provide meals during training, the competition, training, etc; however, this is not a consideration during team application review/selection for IndySCC teams.
Q: How should I brand and represent my team if it includes students from multiple universities?
A: Consider geographical or national affiliations if your team comprises students from your region or country.. The team’s name and branding can be adjusted as needed without affecting the team’s qualification or composition. If another team from your region/country joins the competition separately, it does not impact your team’s qualification or status in the competition. Each team’s identity and qualification are based on their actual composition of students, vendors, and support, regardless of geographical or national affiliations.
Q: Can we have cluster components sitting on the floor or on a palette?
A: No. Anything that is intended to be rackable needs to be in the rack. No cardboards/wooden palettes/bare floor.
Q: Our cluster consists of servers + desktop computers. Since we cannot put the desktop computer on the rack, we have to put it on the floor. Is this allowed?
A: As a desktop computer is intended to just sit on a surface, it is fine for it to sit on the floor. Please make sure it is not a trip hazard.
The Student Cluster Competition (SCC) began in 2007 to provide an immersive high performance computing experience to undergraduate and high school students. The goal of the competition is to foster interest and experience in HPC for students. The SCC includes components that reflect current, real-world considerations and challenges encountered by HPC professionals.
Violation of any rule may result in point penalization or team disqualification, at the discretion of the SCC committee. Any unsafe, unprofessional, or unethical conduct not otherwise covered in these rules will also be penalized at the discretion of the SCC Committee. All decisions are the sole discretion of the SCC committee, and SCC committee decisions concerning the rules in a given situation are final.
Equipment configurations, booth layout, and booth occupancy are always subject to safety as first consideration. If a task cannot be done safely, then it is unacceptable. When in doubt, ask an SCC committee member or team liaison. Any team operating in an unsafe manner may be subject to point penalties or disqualification.
When the exhibition is not open (after hours, before Monday opening Gala, after closing on Thursday) teams are not permitted in areas outside of the SCC booth, except to enter/exit the exhibit hall, or to use the restroom. Teams are never permitted to enter “off-limits” areas, such as staging areas used by the convention center staff. Teams that enter off-limits areas will be subject to point penalties or disqualification.
Teams are composed of six students, an advisor, and vendor partners:
Teams can optionally nominate up to two “logistics coordinators” who are secondary advisors or other support staff who should receive a copy of any communications sent to the primary advisor.
Teams will be invited to participate based on their Team Application, submitted via the SC Submission System. The Team Application includes a description of the team, the proposed hardware and software that will make up their cluster, and their approach to the competition, their diversity, and several other considerations. The SCC Committee reviews each proposal and provides comments for all submissions. The team composition and proposed hardware and software must all conform to the rules described below.
Student Team Members must:
Team Makeup
Teams are encouraged to include diverse participation including new participants, under-represented groups, and a breadth of academic backgrounds. Teams will be gaining experience with a variety of scientific computing codes, so teams are also encouraged to recruit members with varying academic backgrounds. To encourage new participants and help new teams participate, teams that did not participate last year and teams comprised of more than 50% new students will be given preference at the discretion of the SCC Committee.
During preparation for the competition, the Team Advisor, vendor partners, and other supporters are encouraged to help the team train for the competition. However, only the six registered team members will have access to any resources that may be provided during the training period.
No External Assistance
Resource Access
Teams must conduct themselves professionally and adhere to the Code of Conduct. Students must compete fairly and ethically.
Teams must adhere to all posted warnings, signs, and follow all instructions given by SC/ SCC committee members, convention center security/safety staff, and other officials. Teams may not attempt to bypass any security or safety devices or directives. Teams in violation of this rule may be subject to point penalties, disqualification, or expulsion from the convention center.
The two fundamental hardware requirements for team clusters are that they are able to run the applications and exercises of the competition, and that they can operate within the power draw limits described below. Hardware must also meet the following constraints:
In the interest of safety, the committee wishes to prevent team exposure to noise levels greater than 85 dBA for an extended amount of time. All team cluster hardware must make an effort to not emit noise greater than 85 dBA, measured at the team booth table and neighboring team booth tables. Teams are encouraged to work with their vendor partners to determine the noise specifications in advance, consider alternative cooling solutions, controls to limit fan speed/noise, and soundproofing/dampening solutions
Further mandatory events will be announced at a later date.
Create an account in the online submission system and complete the form. A sample form can be viewed before signing in.
If you have questions about SCC applications, please contact the program committee.
A cluster competition with the intent to create a more inclusive and education-focused track of the Student Cluster Competition.