BRGP: a balanced RDF graph partitioning algorithm for cloud storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The continuous growth of resource description framework (RDF) data poses an important challenge on RDF data partitioning that is a vital technique for effective cloud storage. Recently, many partitioning algorithms for large RDF data have been developed, and most of them are based on graph partitioning. However, existing graph partitioning methods could not partition asymmetric RDF data effectively, resulting in a lower performance for cloud storage. This paper proposes a balanced RDF graph partitioning algorithm for storing massive RDF data on cloud. We first devise a modularity‐based multi‐level label propagation algorithm (MMLP) to partition RDF graph roughly and then use a balanced K‐mediods clustering algorithm for finalk‐way partitioning. Balanced RDF graph partitioning algorithm designs an effective label update rule and a balanced modification strategy to achieve a high quality coarsening result and make the partition as equilibrium as possible. Experiments are carried on two representative RDF benchmarks and one real RDF dataset by comparison with two representative graph partitioning methods, that is, METIS and MLP+METIS. Results demonstrate that our proposed scheme can produce a high‐quality partition for massive RDF data storage on cloud. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".