MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377099260 · doi:10.1145/3597428

The Evolution of Distributed Systems for Graph Neural Networks and Their Origin in Graph Processing and Deep Learning: A Survey

2023· review· en· W4377099260 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDeep learningCategorizationScalabilityArtificial intelligenceGraphArtificial neural networkDeep neural networksMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceData scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graph neural networks (GNNs) are an emerging research field. This specialized deep neural network architecture is capable of processing graph structured data and bridges the gap between graph processing and deep learning. As graphs are everywhere, GNNs can be applied to various domains including recommendation systems, computer vision, natural language processing, biology, and chemistry. With the rapid growing size of real-world graphs, the need for efficient and scalable GNN training solutions has come. Consequently, many works proposing GNN systems have emerged throughout the past few years. However, there is an acute lack of overview, categorization, and comparison of such systems. We aim to fill this gap by summarizing and categorizing important methods and techniques for large-scale GNN solutions. Additionally, we establish connections between GNN systems, graph processing systems, and deep learning systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it