Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph analytics elicits insights from large graphs to inform critical decisions for business, safety and security. Several large-scale graph processing frameworks feature efficient runtime systems; however, they often provide programming models that are low-level and subtly different from each other. Therefore, end users can find implementation and specially optimization of graph analytics error-prone and time-consuming. This paper regards the abstract interface of the graph processing frameworks as the instruction set for graph analytics, and presents Grafs, a high-level declarative specification language for graph analytics and a synthesizer that automatically generates efficient code for five high-performance graph processing frameworks. It features novel semantics-preserving fusion transformations that optimize the specifications and reduce them to three primitives: reduction over paths, mapping over vertices and reduction over vertices. Reductions over paths are commonly calculated based on push or pull models that iteratively apply kernel functions at the vertices. This paper presents conditions, parametric in terms of the kernel functions, for the correctness and termination of the iterative models, and uses these conditions as specifications to automatically synthesize the kernel functions. Experimental results show that the generated code matches or outperforms handwritten code, and that fusion accelerates execution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".