A Distributed Algorithm for Large-Scale Graph Partitioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Balanced graph partitioning is an NP-complete problem with a wide range of applications. These applications include many large-scale distributed problems, including the optimal storage of large sets of graph-structured data over several hosts. However, in very large-scale distributed scenarios, state-of-the-art algorithms are not directly applicable because they typically involve frequent global operations over the entire graph. In this article, we propose a fully distributed algorithm called J A - BE -J A that uses local search and simulated annealing techniques for two types of graph partitioning: edge-cut partitioning and vertex-cut partitioning. The algorithm is massively parallel: There is no central coordination, each vertex is processed independently, and only the direct neighbors of a vertex and a small subset of random vertices in the graph need to be known locally. Strict synchronization is not required. These features allow J A - BE -J A to be easily adapted to any distributed graph-processing system from data centers to fully distributed networks. We show that the minimal edge-cut value empirically achieved by J A - BE -J A is comparable to state-of-the-art centralized algorithms such as Metis. In particular, on large social networks, J A - BE -J A outperforms Metis. We also show that J A - BE -J A computes very low vertex-cuts, which are proved significantly more effective than edge-cuts for processing most real-world graphs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".