Maximizing edge connectivity in graph partitioning using hotspots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graphs have long been used to model relationships between entities. For some applications, a single graph is sufficient; for other problems, a collection of graphs may be more appropriate to represent the underlying data. Many contemporary problem domains, for which graphs are an ideal data model, contain an enormous amount of data (e.g., social networks). Hence, researchers frequently employ parallelized or distributed processing. The graph data must first be partitioned and assigned to the multiple processors in a way that the workload is balanced and inter-processor communication is minimized. The latter problem may be complicated by the existence of edges between vertices in a graph that have been assigned to different processors. Herein we introduce a strategy that combines vocabulary-based summarization of graphs (VoG) and detection of hotspots (i.e., vertices of high degree) to determine how a single undirected graph should be partitioned to optimize multi-processor load balancing and minimize the number of edges that exist between the partitioned subgraphs. We benchmark our method against another well-known partitioning algorithm (METIS) to demonstrate the benefits of our approach.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".