GNNMark: A Benchmark Suite to Characterize Graph Neural Network Training on GPUs
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 Neural Networks (GNNs) have emerged as a promising class of Machine Learning algorithms to train on non-euclidean data. GNNs are widely used in recommender systems, drug discovery, text understanding, and traffic forecasting. Due to the energy efficiency and high-performance capabilities of GPUs, GPUs are a natural choice for accelerating the training of GNNs. Thus, we want to better understand the architectural and system-level implications of training GNNs on GPUs. Presently, there is no benchmark suite available designed to study GNN training workloads. In this work, we address this need by presenting GNNMark, a feature-rich benchmark suite that covers the diversity present in GNN training workloads, datasets, and GNN frameworks. Our benchmark suite consists of GNN workloads that utilize a variety of different graph-based data structures, including homogeneous graphs, dynamic graphs, and heterogeneous graphs commonly used in a number of application domains that we mentioned above. We use this benchmark suite to explore and characterize GNN training behavior on GPUs. We study a variety of aspects of GNN execution, including both compute and memory behavior, highlighting major bottlenecks observed during GNN training. At the system level, we study various aspects, including the scalability of training GNNs across a multi-GPU system, as well as the sparsity of data, encountered during training. The insights derived from our work can be leveraged by both hardware and software developers to improve both the hardware and software performance of GNN training on GPUs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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