MS-BioGraphs: Sequence Similarity Graph Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progress in High-Performance Computing in general, and High-Performance Graph Processing in particular, is highly dependent on the availability of publicly-accessible, relevant, and realistic data sets. To ensure continuation of this progress, we (i) investigate and optimize the process of generating large sequence similarity graphs as an HPC challenge and (ii) demonstrate this process in creating MS-BioGraphs, a new family of publicly available real-world edge-weighted graph datasets with up to $2.5$ trillion edges, that is, $6.6$ times greater than the largest graph published recently. The largest graph is created by matching (i.e., all-to-all similarity aligning) $1.7$ billion protein sequences. The MS-BioGraphs family includes also seven subgraphs with different sizes and direction types. We describe two main challenges we faced in generating large graph datasets and our solutions, that are, (i) optimizing data structures and algorithms for this multi-step process and (ii) WebGraph parallel compression technique. We present a comparative study of structural characteristics of MS-BioGraphs. The datasets are available online on https://blogs.qub.ac.uk/DIPSA/MS-BioGraphs .
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".