A topological sorting algorithm for large graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an I/O-efficient algorithm for topologically sorting directed acyclic graphs, called IterTS. In the worst case, our algorithm is extremely inefficient and performs O( n ċ sort( m )) I/Os. However, our experiments show that IterTS achieves good performance in practice. To evaluate IterTS, we compared its running time to those of three competitors: PeelTS, an I/O-efficient implementation of the standard strategy of iteratively removing sources and sinks; ReachTS, an I/O-efficient implementation of a recent parallel divide-and-conquer algorithm based on reachability queries; and SeTS, a standard DFS-based topological sorting built on top of a semiexternal DFS algorithm. In our evaluation on various types of input graphs, IterTS consistently outperformed PeelTS and ReachTS by at least an order of magnitude in most cases. SeTS outperformed IterTS on most graphs whose vertex sets fit in memory. However, IterTS often came close to the running time of SeTS on these inputs and, more importantly, SeTS was not able to process graphs whose vertex sets were beyond the size of main memory, while IterTS was able to process such inputs efficiently.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".