MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7038043379

Fast Partitioning for Distributed Graph Learning using Multi-level Label Propagation

2024· dissertation· en· W7038043379 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrthoptera Research and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraph partitionPreprocessorPartition (number theory)GraphLeverage (statistics)TraverseInference
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are a popular class of machine learning models that allow scientists to leverage machine learning techniques to perform inference on unstructured data. However, when graphs become too large, partitioning becomes necessary to allow for distributed computation. Standard graph partitioning methods for GNNsinclude Random partitioning and the state-of-the-art METIS. Whereas METIS produces partitions of high-quality, its preprocessing overheads make it impractical for extremely large graphs. Conversely, random partitioning is cheap to compute, but results in poor partition quality that causes GNN training to be bottlenecked by communication. In my thesis, I seek to prove that it is possible to reduce the data preprocessing overhead on small machines for large graph datasets used in ML while maintaining partition quality. In support of this goal, I design and implement a hierarchical label-propagation-based graph partitioning system known as PLaTE (Propagating Labels to Train Efficiently), partially based on the paper “How to Partition a Billion Node Graph” [18]. PLaTE runs 5.6x faster than METIS on the Open Graph Benchmark’s papers100M dataset, while consuming 4.9x less memory. PLaTE produces partitions that are equally balanced to METIS with comparable communication volumes under certain conditions. In real GNN training experiments, PLaTE has comparable average epoch times to METIS.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.294
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)Same topicOrthoptera Research and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207