MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029888401 · doi:10.1109/icde48307.2020.00122

G-thinker: A Distributed Framework for Mining Subgraphs in a Big Graph

2020· article· en· W3029888401 on OpenAlexaff
Da Yan, Guimu Guo, Md Mashiur Rahman Chowdhury, M. TAMER ÖZSU, Wei‐Shinn Ku, John C. S. Lui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceParallel computingSpeedupBipartite graphScheduling (production processes)Vertex (graph theory)ComputationCacheGraphDocumentationTheoretical computer scienceDistributed computingAlgorithmOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mining from a big graph those subgraphs that satisfy certain conditions is useful in many applications such as community detection and subgraph matching. These problems have a high time complexity, but existing systems to scale them are all IO-bound in execution. We propose the first truly CPU-bound distributed framework called G-thinker that adopts a user-friendly subgraph-centric vertex-pulling API for writing distributed subgraph mining algorithms. To utilize all CPU cores of a cluster, G-thinker features (1) a highly-concurrent vertex cache for parallel task access and (2) a lightweight task scheduling approach that ensures high task throughput. These designs well overlap communication with computation to minimize the CPU idle time. Extensive experiments demonstrate that G-thinker achieves orders of magnitude speedup compared even with the fastest existing subgraph-centric system, and it scales well to much larger and denser real network data. G-thinker is open-sourced at http://bit.ly/gthinker with detailed documentation.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGraph Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207