High Performance Multilevel Graph Partitioning on GPU
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph partitioning is a common computational phase in many application domains, including social network analysis, data mining, scheduling, and VLSI design. The significant SIMT compute power of a GPU makes it an appropriate platform to exploit data parallelism in graph partitioning and accelerate the computation. However, irregular, non-uniform, and data-dependent graph partitioning sub-tasks pose multiple challenges for efficient GPU utilization. Some of these challenges include load imbalance, non-coalesced memory accesses, and warp execution inefficiency. In this paper, we describe an effective and methodological approach to enable multi-level graph partitioning on GPUs. Our solution avoids thread divergence and balances the load over GPU threads by dynamically assigning appropriate number of threads to process the graph vertices and their irregular sized neighbors. Our design is autonomous, i.e., all the steps are carried out by the GPU with minimal CPU involvement, which is required for a range of GPU applications as a pre-processing step. We show that our approach performs better and is comparable in partitioning quality with respect to the state-of-the-art CPU-based parallel graph partitioner (mtmetis). Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first autonomous approach on GPU.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it