Large-scale graph processing systems: a survey

• Abou-Rjeili A, Karypis G, 2006. Multilevel algorithms for partitioning power-law graphs. Proc 20^th IEEE Int Parallel and Distributed Processing Symp, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPDPS.2006.1639360

• Ajwani D, Dementiev R, Meyer U, 2006. A computational study of external-memory BFS algorithms. Proc 17^th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp on Discrete Algorithm, p.601–610.

• Ajwani D, Meyer U, Osipov V, 2007. Improved external memory BFS implementations. Proc Meeting on Algorithm Engineering and Expermiments, p.3–12.

• Arge L, Brodal GS, Toma L, 2000. On external-memory MST, SSSP, and multi-way planar graph separation. Proc 7^th Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory, p.433–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44985-X_37

• Atwood J, Towsley D, 2016. Diffusion-convolutional neural networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.02136

• Avery C, 2011. Giraph: large-scale graph processing infrastructure on Hadoop. Proc Hadoop Summit, p.5–9.

• Awerbuch B, Gallager RG, 1985. Distributed BFS algorithms. 26^th Annual Symp on Foundations of Computer Science, p.250–256. https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1985.20

• Bader DA, Cong G, 2006. Fast shared-memory algorithms for computing the minimum spanning forest of sparse graphs. J Parall Distr Comput, 66(11): 1366–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2006.06.001

  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Bader DA, Madduri K, 2006. Parallel algorithms for evaluating centrality indices in real-world networks. Int Conf on Parallel Processing, p.539–550. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPP.2006.57

• Bao NT, Suzumura T, 2013. Towards highly scalable pregel-based graph processing platform with x10. Proc 22^nd Int Conf on World Wide Web, p.501–508. https://doi.org/10.1145/2487788.2487984

• Batarfi O, El Shawi R, Fayoumi AG, et al., 2015. Large scale graph processing systems: survey and an experimental evaluation. Clust Comput, 18(3): 1189–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-015-0472-6

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Baumes J, Goldberg M, Magdon-Ismail M, 2005. Efficient identification of overlapping communities. IEEE Int Conf on Intelligence and Security Informatics, p.27–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/11427995_3

• Becchetti L, Boldi P, Castillo C, et al., 2008. Efficient semi-streaming algorithms for local triangle counting in massive graphs. Proc 14^th ACM SIGKDD Int Conf on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p.16–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/1401890.1401898

• Belkin M, Niyogi P, 2001. Laplacian eigenmaps and spectral techniques for embedding and clustering. Proc 14^th Int Conf on Neural Information Processing Systems, p.585–591.

• Binnig C, Crotty A, Galakatos A, et al., 2016. The end of slow networks: it’s time for a redesign. Proc VLDB Endowm, 9(7): 528–539. https://doi.org/10.14778/2904483.2904485

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Borgelt C, Berthold MR, 2002. Mining molecular fragments: finding relevant substructures of molecules. IEEE Int Conf on Data Mining, p.51–58. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2002.1183885

• Brandes U, 2001. A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. J Math Sociol, 25(2): 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249

  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Bruna J, Zaremba W, Szlam A, et al., 2014. Spectral networks and locally connected networks on graphs. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6203

• Bu YY, Howe B, Balazinska M, et al., 2010. HaLoop: efficient iterative data processing on large clusters. Proc VLDB Endowm, 3(1-2): 285–296. https://doi.org/10.14778/1920841.1920881

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bu YY, Borkar V, Jia J, et al., 2014. Pregelix: big(ger) graph analytics on a dataflow engine. Proc VLDB Endowm, 8(2): 161–172. https://doi.org/10.14778/2735471.2735477

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bulug A, Madduri K, 2011. Parallel breadth-first search on distributed memory systems. Proc Int Conf for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, Article 65. https://doi.org/10.1145/2063384.2063471

• Bulug A, Meyerhenke H, Safro I, et al., 2016. Recent advances in graph partitioning. In: Kliemann L, Sanders P (Eds.), Algorithm Engineering. Springer, Cham, p.117–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49487-6_4

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Chan TM, 2010. More algorithms for all-pairs shortest paths in weighted graphs. SIAM J Comput, 39(5): 2075–2089. https://doi.org/10.1137/08071990X

  Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Chang LJ, Lin XM, Zhang WJ, et al., 2015. Optimal enumeration: efficient top-k tree matching. Proc VLDB Endowm, 8(5): 533–544. https://doi.org/10.14778/2735479.2735486

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Chen R, Weng X, He B, et al., 2010. Large graph processing in the cloud. Proc ACM SIGMOD Int Conf on Management of Data, p.1123–1126. https://doi.org/10.1145/1807167.1807297

• Chen R, Ding X, Wang P, et al., 2014. Computation and communication efficient graph processing with distributed immutable view. Proc 23^rd Int Symp on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing, p.215–226. https://doi.org/10.1145/2600212.2600233

• Chen R, Shi J, Chen Y, et al., 2015. PowerLyra: differentiated graph computation and partitioning on skewed graphs. 10^th European Conf on Computer Systems, Article 1.

• Chen YZ, Wei XD, Shi JX, et al., 2016. Fast and general distributed transactions using RDMA and HTM. Proc 11^th European Conf on Computer Systems, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901318.2901349

• Cheung TY, 1983. Graph traversal techniques and the maximum flow problem in distributed computation. IEEE Trans Softw Eng, 9(4): 504–512. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.1983.234958

  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Chi Y, Dai G, Wang Y, et al., 2016. NXgraph: an efficient graph processing system on a single machine. IEEE 32^nd Int Conf on Data Engineering, p.409–420. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.2016.7498258

• Da Z, Mhembere D, Burns R, et al., 2015. FlashGraph: processing billion-node graphs on an array of commodity SSDS. Proc 13^th USENIX Conf on File and Storage Technologies, p.45–58.

• Dean J, Ghemawat S, 2008. MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Commun ACM, 51(1): 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1145/1327452.1327492

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Defferrard M, Bresson X, Vandergheynst P, 2016. Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.09375

• Desikan P, Pathak N, Srivastava J, et al., 2005. Incremental page rank computation on evolving graphs. Special Interest Tracks and Posters of the 14^th Int Conf on World Wide Web, p.1094–1095. https://doi.org/10.1145/1062745.1062885

• Doekemeijer N, Varbanescu AL, 2014. A Survey of Parallel Graph Processing Frameworks. Technical Report No. PDS-2014–003, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.

  Google Scholar 

• Dragojević A, Narayanan D, Hodson O, et al., 2014. FaRM: fast remote memory. Proc 11^th USENIX Conf on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, p.401–414.

• Duvenaud D, Maclaurin D, Aguilera-Iparraguirre J, et al., 2015. Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints. Proc 28^th Int Conf on Neural Information Processing Systems, p.2224–2232.

• Ekanayake J, Li H, Zhang B, et al., 2010. Twister: a runtime for iterative MapReduce. Proc 19^th ACM Int Symp on High Performance Distributed Computing, p.810–818.

• Farkas IJ, Abel D, Palla G, et al., 2007. Weighted network modules. New J Phys, 9(6): 180. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/9/6/180

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Garey MR, Johnson DS, Stockmeyer L, 1974. Some simplified NP-complete problems. Proc 6^th Annual ACM Symp on Theory of Computing, p.47–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/800119.803884

• Gonzalez JE, Low Y, Gu H, et al., 2012. PowerGraph: distributed graph-parallel computation on natural graphs. Proc 10^th USENIX Conf on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p.17–30.

• Gonzalez JE, Xin RS, Dave A, et al., 2014. GraphX: graph processing in a distributed dataflow framework. Proc 11^th USENIX Conf on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p.599–613.

• Han WS, Lee J, Lee JH, 2013a. TurboISO: towards ultrafast and robust subgraph isomorphism search in large graph databases. Proc Int Conf on Management of Data, p.337–348.

• Han WS, Lee S, Park K, et al., 2013b. TurboGraph: a fast parallel graph engine handling billion-scale graphs in a single PC. Proc 19^th ACM SIGKDD Int Conf on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p.77–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/2487575.2487581

• Harish P, Vineet V, Narayanan P, 2009. Large graph algorithms for massively multithreaded architectures. Technical Report No. IIIT/TR/2009/74. Centre for Visual Information Technology, University of Hyderabad, India.

  Google Scholar 

• Hirschberg DS, Chandra AK, Sarwate DV, 1979. Computing connected components on parallel computers. Commun ACM, 22(8): 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1145/359138.359141

  Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Ho LY, Li TH, Wu JJ, et al., 2013. Kylin: an efficient and scalable graph data processing system. IEEE Int Conf on Big Data, p.193–198. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2013.6691574

• Holder LB, Cook DJ, Djoko S, 1994. Substructure discovery in the SUBDUE system. Proc 3^rd Int Conf on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p.169–180.

• Huan J, Wang W, Prins J, 2003. Efficient mining of frequent subgraphs in the presence of isomorphism. 3^rd IEEE Int Conf on Data Mining, p.549–552. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2003.1250974

• Huan J, Wang W, Prins J, et al., 2004. SPIN: mining maximal frequent subgraphs from graph databases. 10^th Int Conf on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p.581–586. https://doi.org/10.1145/1014052.1014123

• Huang J, Abadi DJ, 2016. Leopard: lightweight edge oriented partitioning and replication for dynamic graphs. Proc VLDB Endowm, 9(7): 540–551. https://doi.org/10.14778/2904483.2904486

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Inokuchi A, Washio T, Motoda H, 2000. An Apriori-based algorithm for mining frequent substructures from graph data. European Conf on Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, p.13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45372-5_2

• Jain N, Liao G, Willke TL, 2013. GraphBuilder: scalable graph ETL framework. 1^st Int Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences and Systems, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1145/2484425.2484429

• Kalavri V, Liagouris J, Hoffmann M, et al., 2018. Three steps is all you need: fast, accurate, automatic scaling decisions for distributed streaming dataflows. 13^th USENIX Symp on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p.783–798.

• Kamvar SD, Haveliwala TH, Manning CD, et al., 2003. Extrapolation methods for accelerating PageRank computations. Proc 12^th Int Conf on World Wide Web, p.261–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/775152.775190

• Kang U, Tsourakakis CE, Faloutsos C, 2009. PEGASUS: a peta-scale graph mining system implementation and observations. 9^th IEEE Int Conf on Data Mining, p.229–238. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2009.14

• Kelley S, 2009. The existence and discovery of overlapping communities in large-scale networks. PhD Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA.

  Google Scholar 

• Kipf TN, Welling M, 2016a. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02907

• Kipf TN, Welling M, 2016b. Variational graph auto-encoders. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.07308

• Kolountzakis MN, Miller GL, Peng R, et al., 2012. Efficient triangle counting in large graphs via degree-based vertex partitioning. Int Math, 8(1-2): 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427951.2012.625260

  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Kuramochi M, Karypis G, 2003. GREW: a scalable frequent subgraph discovery algorithm. 4^th IEEE Int Conf on Data Mining, p.439–442. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2004.10024

• Kuramochi M, Karypis G, 2004. An efficient algorithm for discovering frequent subgraphs. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 16(9): 1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2004.33

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kutzkov K, Pagh R, 2014. Triangle counting in dynamic graph streams. Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory, p.306–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08404-6_27

• Kyrola A, Blelloch GE, Guestrin C, 2012. GraphChi: large-scale graph computation on just a PC. Proc USENIX Symp on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p.31–46.

• Lancichinetti A, Fortunato S, Kertész J, 2009. Detecting the overlapping and hierarchical community structure in complex networks. N J Phys, 11(3): 19–44.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lang K, 2004. Finding good nearly balanced cuts in power law graphs. Yahoo Research Labs, CA, USA. http://www.optimization-online.org/db_file/2004/12/1023.pdf [Assessed on Sept. 16, 2019].

  Google Scholar 

• Lee C, Reid F, Mcdaid A, et al., 2010. Detecting highly overlapping community structure by greedy clique expansion. 4^th SNA-KDD Workshop on Social Network Mining and Analysis, p.1–10.

• Leiserson CE, Schardl TB, 2010. A work-efficient parallel breadth-first search algorithm (or how to cope with the nondeterminism of reducers). Proc 22^nd Annual ACM Symp on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, p.303–314. https://doi.org/10.1145/1810479.1810534

• Liu H, Huang HH, 2017. Graphene: fine-grained IO management for graph computing. Proc 15^th USENIX Conf on File and Storage Technologies, p.285–300.

• Lotker Z, Patt-Shamir B, Peleg D, 2006. Distributed MST for constant diameter graphs. Distr Comput, 18(6): 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-005-0127-6

  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Low Y, Gonzalez JE, Kyrola A, et al., 2010. GraphLab: a new framework for parallel machine learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2041

• Low Y, Bickson D, Gonzalez J, et al., 2012. Distributed GraphLab: a framework for machine learning and data mining in the cloud. Proc VLDB Endowm, 5(8): 716–727. https://doi.org/10.14778/2212351.2212354

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ma H, Yang H, Lyu MR, et al., 2008. Mining social networks using heat diffusion processes for marketing candidates selection. Proc 17^th ACM Conf on Information and Knowledge Management, p.233–242. https://doi.org/10.1145/1458082.1458115

• Maass S, Min C, Kashyap S, et al., 2017. Mosaic: processing a trillion-edge graph on a single machine. Proc 20^th European Conf on Computer Systems, p.527–543. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064176.3064191

• Maheshwari A, Zeh N, 2001. I/O-efficient algorithms for graphs of bounded treewidth. Proc 12^th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp on Discrete Algorithms, p.89–90.

• Malewicz G, Austern MH, Bik AJ, et al., 2010. Pregel: a system for large-scale graph processing. Proc ACM SIGMOD Int Conf on Management of Data, p.135–146.

• Matsumoto K, Nakasato N, Sedukhin SG, 2011. Blocked all-pairs shortest paths algorithm for hybrid CPU-GPU system. IEEE 13^th Int Conf on High Performance Computing and Communications, p.145–152. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCC.2011.28

• McCune RR, Weninger T, Madey G, 2015. Thinking like a vertex: a survey of vertex-centric frameworks for large-scale distributed graph processing. ACM Comput Surv, 48(2): 25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818185

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Miao X, 2015. DynaDiffuse: a dynamic diffusion model for continuous time constrained influence maximization. Proc 29^th AAAI Conf on Artificial Intelligence, p.346–352.

• Mihalcea R, 2004. Graph-based ranking algorithms for sentence extraction, applied to text summarization. Proc ACL on Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.3115/1219044.1219064

• Murray DG, McSherry F, Isaacs R, et al., 2013. Naiad: a timely dataflow system. Proc 24^th ACM Symp on Operating Systems Principles, p.439–455.

• Nanongkai D, 2014. Distributed approximation algorithms for weighted shortest paths. Proc 46^th Annual ACM Symp on Theory of Computing, p.565–573. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591796.2591850

• Nguyen D, Lenharth A, Pingali K, 2013. A lightweight infrastructure for graph analytics. Proc 24^th ACM Symp on Operating Systems Principles, p.456–471. https://doi.org/10.1145/2517349.2522739

• Niepert M, Ahmed M, Kutzkov K, 2016. Learning convolutional neural networks for graphs. https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05273

• Nuutila E, Soisalon-Soininen E, 1994. On finding the strongly connected components in a directed graph. Inform Process Lett, 49(1): 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(94)90047-7

  Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Pan SR, Hu RQ, Long GD, et al., 2018 Adversarially regularized graph autoencoder for graph embedding. https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.04407

• Power R, Li JY, 2010. Piccolo: building fast, distributed programs with partitioned tables. Proc 9^th USENIX Conf on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p.293–306.

• Psorakis I, Roberts S, Ebden M, et al., 2011. Overlapping community detection using Bayesian non-negative matrix factorization. Phys Rev E, 83(2): 066114. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.83.066114

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rahimian F, Payberah AH, Girdzijauskas S, et al., 2014. Distributed vertex-cut partitioning. IFIP Int Conf on Distributed Applications and Interoperable Systems, p.186–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43352-2_15

• Ren XG, Wang JH, 2015. Exploiting vertex relationships in speeding up subgraph isomorphism over large graphs. Proc VLDB Endowm, 8(5): 617–628. https://doi.org/10.14778/2735479.2735493

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rodriguez MA, 2015. The Gremlin graph traversal machine and language (invited talk). Proc 15^th Symp on Database Programming Languages, p.1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2815072.2815073

• Roy A, Mihailovic I, Zwaenepoel W, 2013. X-Stream: edge-centric graph processing using streaming partitions. Proc 24^th ACM Symp on Operating Systems Principles, p.472–488. https://doi.org/10.1145/2517349.2522740

• Roy A, Bindschaedler L, Malicevic J, et al., 2015. Chaos: scale-out graph processing from secondary storage. Proc 25^th Symp on Operating Systems Principles, p.410–424. https://doi.org/10.1145/2815400.2815408

• Sabrin KM, Lin Z, Chau DHP, et al., 2013. MMap: Mining Billion-Scale Graphs on a PC with Fast, Minimalist Approach via Memory Mapping. Technical Report No. GT-CSE-2013–04, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.

  Google Scholar 

• Sakr S, Bajaber F, Barnawi A, et al., 2015. Big data processing systems: state-of-the-art and open challenges. Int Conf on Cloud Computing, p.1–8.

• Sarma AD, Molla AR, Pandurangan G, et al., 2013. Fast distributed PageRank computation. Int Conf on Distributed Computing and Networking, p.11–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35668-1_2

• Scarselli F, Gori M, Tsoi AC, et al., 2009. The graph neural network model. IEEE Trans Neur Netw, 20(1): 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNN.2008.2005605

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schloegel K, Karypis G, Kumar V, 2000. Parallel multilevel algorithms for multi-constraint graph partitioning. Proc 6^th Int European Conf on Parallel Processing, p.296–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44520-X_39

• Seo S, Yoon EJ, Kim J, et al., 2010. HAMA: an efficient matrix computation with the MapReduce framework. IEEE Second Int Conf on Cloud Computing Technology and Science, p.721–726. https://doi.org/10.1109/CloudCom.2010.17

• Shang HC, Zhang Y, Lin XM, et al., 2008. Taming verification hardness: an efficient algorithm for testing subgraph isomorphism. Proc VLDB Endowm, 1(1): 364–375. https://doi.org/10.14778/1453856.1453899

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Shao B, Wang HX, Li YT, 2013. Trinity: a distributed graph engine on a memory cloud. Proc ACM SIGMOD Int Conf on Management of Data, p.505–516. https://doi.org/10.1145/2463676.2467799

• Shen HW, Cheng XQ, Cai K, et al., 2008. Detect overlapping and hierarchical community structure in networks. Phys A, 388(8):1706–1712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2008.12.021

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Shen YY, Chen G, Jagadish HV, et al., 2014. Fast failure recovery in distributed graph processing systems. Proc VLDB Endowm, 8(4): 437–448. https://doi.org/10.14778/2735496.2735506

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Shi JX, Yao YY, Chen R, et al., 2016. Fast and concurrent RDF queries with RDMA-based distributed graph exploration. Proc 12^th USENIX Conf on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p.317–332.

• Shun JL, Blelloch GE, 2013. Ligra: a lightweight graph processing framework for shared memory. ACM SIGPLAN Not, 48(8): 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1145/2442516.2442530

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Simmhan Y, Kumbhare A, Wickramaarachchi C, et al., 2014. GoFFish: a sub-graph centric framework for large-scale graph analytics. European Conf on Parallel Processing, p.451–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09873-9_38

• Stanton I, Kliot G, 2012. Streaming graph partitioning for large distributed graphs. Proc 18^th ACM SIGKDD Int Conf on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p.1222–1230. https://doi.org/10.1145/2339530.2339722

• Sundaram N, Satish N, Patwary MMA, et al., 2015. Graph-Mat: high performance graph analytics made productive. Proc VLDB Endowm, 8(11): 1214–1225. https://doi.org/10.14778/2809974.2809983

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Taleb Y, Stutsman R, Antoniu G, et al., 2018. Tailwind: fast and atomic RDMA-based replication. USENIX Annual Technical Conf, p.850–863.

• Tangwongsan K, Pavan A, Tirthapura S, 2013. Parallel triangle counting in massive streaming graphs. Proc 22^nd ACM Int Conf on Information and Knowledge Management, p.781–786. https://doi.org/10.1145/2505515.2505741

• Tian YY, Balmin A, Corsten SA, et al., 2013. From “think like a vertex” to “think like a graph.” Proc VLDB Endowm, 7(3):193–204. https://doi.org/10.14778/2732232.2732238

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ullmann JR, 1976. An algorithm for subgraph isomorphism. JACM, 23(1): 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/321921.321925

  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

• Valiant LG, 1990. A bridging model for parallel computation. Commun ACM, 33(8): 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1145/79173.79181

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al., 2017. Attention is all you need. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

• Veličković P, Cucurull G, Casanova A, et al., 2017. Graph attention networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10903

• Vora K, Xu GH, Gupta R, 2016. Load the edges you need: a generic I/O optimization for disk-based graph processing. USENIX Annual Technical Conf, p.507–522.

• Vora K, Gupta R, Xu GQ, 2017. KickStarter: fast and accurate computations on streaming graphs via trimmed approximations. Proc 22^nd Int Conf on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, p.237–251. https://doi.org/10.1145/3037697.3037748

• Wang DX, Cui P, Zhu WW, 2016. Structural deep network embedding. 22^nd ACM SIGKDD Int Conf on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p.1225–1234. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939753

• Wang K, Xu GH, Su Z, et al., 2015. GraphQ: graph query processing with abstraction refinement-scalable and programmable analytics over very large graphs on a single PC. USENIX Annual Technical Conf, p.387–401.

• Wang K, Hussain A, Zuo ZQ, et al., 2017. Graspan: a single-machine disk-based graph system for interprocedural static analyses of large-scale systems code. ACM SIGPLAN Not, 52(4): 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1145/3093336.3037744

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wang K, Zuo ZQ, Thorpe J, et al., 2018. RStream: marrying relational algebra with streaming for efficient graph mining on a single machine. Proc 12^th USENIX Conf on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p.763–782.

• Wang P, Zhang K, Chen R, et al., 2014. Replication-based fault-tolerance for large-scale graph processing. 44^th Annual IEEE/IFIP Int Conf on Dependable Systems and Networks, p.562–573. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSN.2014.58

• Washio T, Motoda H, 2003. State of the art of graph-based data mining. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl, 5(1): 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/959242.959249

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Xie CN, Chen R, Guan HB, et al., 2015. SYNC or ASYNC: time to fuse for distributed graph-parallel computation. ACM SIGPLAN Not, 50(8): 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858788.2688508

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Xie WL, Wang GZ, Bindel D, et al., 2013. Fast iterative graph computation with block updates. Proc VLDB Endowm, 6(14): 2014–2025. https://doi.org/10.14778/2556549.2556581

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Yan D, Cheng J, Lu Y, et al., 2014. Blogel: a block-centric framework for distributed computation on real-world graphs. Proc VLDB Endowm, 7(14): 1981–1992. https://doi.org/10.14778/2733085.2733103

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Yan XF, Han JW, 2002. gSpan: graph-based substructure pattern mining. Proc IEEE Int Conf on Data Mining, p.721–724. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2002.1184038

• Yan XF, Han JW, 2003. CloseGraph: mining closed frequent graph patterns. Proc ACM SIGKDD Int Conf on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p.286–295. https://doi.org/10.1145/956750.956784

• Yoo A, Chow E, Henderson K, et al., 2005. A scalable distributed parallel breadth-first search algorithm on BlueGene/L. Proc ACM/IEEE Conf on Supercomputing, Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1109/SC.2005.4

• Yuan PP, Zhang WY, Xie CF, et al., 2014. Fast iterative graph computation: a path centric approach. Proc Int Conf for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, p.401–412.

• Zaharia M, Chowdhury M, Franklin MJ, et al., 2010. Spark: cluster computing with working sets. Proc 2^nd USENIX Conf on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing, Article 10.

• Zhang KY, Chen R, Chen HB, 2015. NUMA-aware graph-structured analytics. ACM SIGPLAN Not, 50(8): 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858788.2688507

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zhang MX, Wu YW, Chen K, et al., 2016. Exploring the hidden dimension in graph processing. Proc 12^th USENIX Conf on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p.285–300.

• Zhang S, Wang RS, Zhang XS, 2007. Identification of overlapping community structure in complex networks using fuzzy c-means clustering. Phys A, 374(1): 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2006.07.023

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zhang Y, Liao XF, Jin H, et al., 2018. CGraph: a correlations-aware approach for efficient concurrent iterative graph processing. USENIX Annual Technical Conf, p.1–12.

• Zhang YH, Chen R, Chen HB, 2017. Sub-millisecond stateful stream querying over fast-evolving linked data. Proc 26^th Symp on Operating Systems Principles, p.614–630. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132747.3132777

• Zhang YM, Li DS, Guo CX, et al., 2017a. CubicRing: exploiting network proximity for distributed in-memory key-value store. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw, 25(4): 2040–2053. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2017.2669215

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zhang YM, Li DS, Zhang CX, et al., 2017b. GraphA: efficient partitioning and storage for distributed graph computation. IEEE Trans Serv Comput, online. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2017.2778737

• Zhang YM, Li DS, Liu L, 2019. Leveraging glocality for fast failure recovery in distributed RAM storage. ACM Trans Stor, 15(1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3289604

  Google Scholar 

• Zhao Y, Yoshigoe K, Xie M, et al., 2014. LightGraph: lighten communication in distributed graph-parallel processing. IEEE Int Congress on Big Data, p.717–724. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.Congress.2014.106

• Zhou C, Gao J, Sun B, et al., 2014. MOCgraph: scalable distributed graph processing using message online computing. Proc VLDB Endowm, 8(4): 377–388. https://doi.org/10.14778/2735496.2735501

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zhu G, Lin X, Zhu K, et al., 2012. TreeSpan: efficiently computing similarity all-matching. Proc ACM SIG-MOD Int Conf on Management of Data, p.529–540. https://doi.org/10.1145/2213836.2213896

• Zhu XW, Han WT, Chen WG, 2015. GridGraph: large-scale graph processing on a single machine using 2-level hierarchical partitioning. USENIX Annual Technical Conf, p.375–386.

• Zhu XW, Chen WG, Zheng WM, et al., 2016. Gemini: a computation-centric distributed graph processing system. USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, p.301–316.

Download references