Distributed evaluation of subgraph queries using worst-case optimal low-memory dataflows
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
We study the problem of finding and monitoring fixed-size subgraphs in a continually changing large-scale graph. We present the first approach that (i) performs worst-case optimal computation and communication, (ii) maintains a total memory footprint linear in the number of input edges, and (iii) scales down per-worker computation, communication, and memory requirements linearly as the number of workers increases, even on adversarially skewed inputs. Our approach is based on worst-case optimal join algorithms, recast as a data-parallel dataflow computation. We describe the general algorithm and modifications that make it robust to skewed data, prove theoretical bounds on its resource requirements in the massively parallel computing model, and implement and evaluate it on graphs containing as many as 64 billion edges. The underlying algorithm and ideas generalize from finding and monitoring subgraphs to the more general problem of computing and maintaining relational equi-joins over dynamic relations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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