MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218076943 · doi:10.1109/bigdata.2015.7363954

DISTINGER: A distributed graph data structure for massive dynamic graph processing

2015· article· en· W2218076943 on OpenAlexaff
Guoyao Feng, Meng Xiao, Khaled Ammar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityGraph databaseTheoretical computer scienceGraphAnalyticsData miningDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large and dynamic graphs with streaming updates have been gaining traction recently, along with the need for enabling graph analytics in a commodity cluster instead of a high-performance computing facility. Surprisingly, there is a lack of study on scaling out graph data structures to represent sparse dynamic graphs in a commodity cluster, and even the latest work [1] based upon the most common in-memory graph representation CSR [2] is a single-machine case. In this paper we present DISTINGER, a distributed graph representation that handles massive graph analytics with streaming updates. DISTINGER successfully extends a scale-up design to a scale-out graph data structure while maintains its efficiency and scalability. We implement our design and algorithms as a prototype, and compare it to single-site STINGER and state-of-art graph systems. Our experimental evaluation in a real cluster shows that DISTINGER can handle larger graphs than STINGER, and perform graph tasks (PageRank and edge updates) more efficiently than GraphLab and Giraph.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGraph Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207