Efficient parallel branch-and-bound approaches for exact graph edit distance problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph Edit Distance (GED) is a well-known measure used in the graph matching to measure the similarity/dissimilarity between two graphs by computing the minimum cost of edit operations needed to transform one graph into another. This process, Which appears to be simple, is known NP-hard and time consuming since the search space is increasing exponentially. One way to optimally solve this problem is by using Branch and Bound (B&B) algorithms, Which reduce the computation time required to explore the whole search space by performing an implicit enumeration of the search space instead of an exhaustive one based on a pruning technique. nevertheless, They remain inefficient when dealing with large problem instances due to the impractical running time needed to explore the whole search space. To overcome this issue, We propose in this paper three parallel B&B approaches based on shared memory to exploit the multi-core CPU processors: First, a work-stealing approach where several instances of the B&B algorithm explore a single search tree concurrently achieving speedups up to 24 × faster than the sequential version. Second, a tree-based approach where multiple parts of the search tree are explored simultaneously by independent B&B instances achieving speedups up to 28 × . Finally, Due to the irregular nature of the GED problem, two load-balancing strategies are proposed to ensure a fair workload between parallel processes achieving impressive speedups up to 300 × . all experiments have been carried out on well-known datasets
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".