MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299020861 · doi:10.1007/s10619-017-7196-y

TAPER: query-aware, partition-enhancement for large, heterogenous graphs

2017· article· en· W2299020861 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hugo Firth, Paolo Missier

Bibliographic record

VenueDistributed and Parallel Databases · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNewcastle University
KeywordsComputer scienceGraph partitionScalabilityPartition (number theory)WorkloadSpace partitioningHash functionParallel computingUSableTheoretical computer scienceGraphAlgorithmDatabaseMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graph partitioning has long been seen as a viable approach to addressing Graph DBMS scalability. A partitioning, however, may introduce extra query processing latency unless it is sensitive to a specific query workload, and optimised to minimise inter-partition traversals for that workload. Additionally, it should also be possible to incrementally adjust the partitioning in reaction to changes in the graph topology, the query workload, or both. Because of their complexity, current partitioning algorithms fall short of one or both of these requirements, as they are designed for offline use and as one-off operations. The TAPER system aims to address both requirements, whilst leveraging existing partitioning algorithms. TAPER takes any given initial partitioning as a starting point, and iteratively adjusts it by swapping chosen vertices across partitions, heuristically reducing the probability of inter-partition traversals for a given path queries workload. Iterations are inexpensive thanks to time and space optimisations in the underlying support data structures. We evaluate TAPER on two different large test graphs and over realistic query workloads. Our results indicate that, given a hash-based partitioning, TAPER reduces the number of inter-partition traversals by $$\sim $$ 80%; given an unweighted Metis partitioning, by $$\sim $$ 30%. These reductions are achieved within eight iterations and with the additional advantage of being workload-aware and usable online.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDistributed and Parallel DatabasesSame topicGraph Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207