Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Graph Neural Network Training Systems: A Performance Comparison of Full-Graph and Mini-Batch

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.00552 v4 pith:2MSA2NFZ submitted 2024-06-01 cs.LG cs.DC

classification cs.LGcs.DC
keywords trainingsystemsmini-batchfull-graphcomparisonaccuracycategorymethod
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have gained significant attention in recent years due to their ability to learn representations of graph-structured data. Two common methods for training GNNs are mini-batch training and full-graph training. Since these two methods require different training pipelines and systems optimizations, two separate classes of GNN training systems emerged, each tailored for one method. Works that introduce systems belonging to a particular category predominantly compare them with other systems within the same category, offering limited or no comparison with systems from the other category. Some prior work also justifies its focus on one specific training method by arguing that it achieves higher accuracy than the alternative. The literature, however, has incomplete and contradictory evidence in this regard. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive empirical comparison of representative full-graph and mini-batch GNN training systems. We find that the mini-batch training systems consistently converge faster than the full-graph training ones across multiple datasets, GNN models, and system configurations. We also find that mini-batch training techniques converge to similar to or often higher accuracy values than full-graph training ones, showing that mini-batch sampling is not necessarily detrimental to accuracy. Our work highlights the importance of comparing systems across different classes, using time-to-accuracy rather than epoch time for performance comparison, and selecting appropriate hyperparameters for each training method separately.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Graph Neural Networks to Predict Coercivity of Hard Magnetic Microstructures

    physics.comp-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A GNN trained on reduced-order micromagnetic simulations predicts coercivity (R2=96%) and maximum energy product (R2=97%) of Nd2Fe14B microstructures.

  2. Geometric deep learning assists protein engineering. Opportunities and Challenges

    q-bio.QM 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A perspective synthesizing geometric deep learning applications in protein engineering and proposing an explainable, structure-aware design pipeline.

Pith tools