d803bfe2b1
git-subtree-dir: vendor/ruvector git-subtree-split: b64c21726f2bb37286d9ee36a7869fef60cc6900
565 lines
20 KiB
Markdown
565 lines
20 KiB
Markdown
# Axis 1: Scalability -- Billion-Node Graph Transformers
|
|
|
|
**Document:** 21 of 30
|
|
**Series:** Graph Transformers: 2026-2036 and Beyond
|
|
**Last Updated:** 2026-02-25
|
|
**Status:** Research Prospectus
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 1. Problem Statement
|
|
|
|
The fundamental bottleneck of graph transformers is attention complexity. For a graph G = (V, E) with n = |V| nodes, full self-attention requires O(n^2) time and space. This is acceptable for molecular graphs (n ~ 10^2), tolerable for citation networks (n ~ 10^5), and impossible for social networks (n ~ 10^9), knowledge graphs (n ~ 10^10), or the web graph (n ~ 10^11).
|
|
|
|
The scalability axis asks: what are the information-theoretic limits of graph attention, and how close can practical algorithms get?
|
|
|
|
### 1.1 Current State of the Art (2026)
|
|
|
|
| Method | Complexity | Max Practical n | Expressiveness |
|
|
|--------|-----------|----------------|---------------|
|
|
| Full attention | O(n^2) | ~10^4 | Complete |
|
|
| Sparse attention (top-k) | O(nk) | ~10^6 | Locality-biased |
|
|
| Linear attention (Performer, etc.) | O(nd) | ~10^7 | Approximate |
|
|
| Graph sampling (GraphSAINT) | O(batch_size * hops) | ~10^8 | Sampling bias |
|
|
| Neighborhood attention (NAGphormer) | O(n * hop_budget) | ~10^7 | Local |
|
|
| Mini-batch (Cluster-GCN) | O(cluster^2) | ~10^8 | Partition-biased |
|
|
|
|
No existing method achieves full-expressiveness attention on billion-node graphs.
|
|
|
|
### 1.2 RuVector Baseline
|
|
|
|
RuVector's current assets for scalability:
|
|
|
|
- **`ruvector-solver`**: Sublinear 8-sparse algorithms achieving O(n log n) on sparse problems
|
|
- **`ruvector-mincut`**: Min-cut graph partitioning for optimal cluster boundaries
|
|
- **`ruvector-gnn`**: Memory-mapped tensors (`mmap.rs`), cold-tier storage (`cold_tier.rs`), replay buffers
|
|
- **`ruvector-graph`**: Distributed mode with sharding, hybrid indexing
|
|
- **`ruvector-mincut-gated-transformer`**: Sparse attention (`sparse_attention.rs`), spectral methods (`spectral.rs`)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 2. Theoretical Foundations
|
|
|
|
### 2.1 Information-Theoretic Limits
|
|
|
|
**Theorem (Attention Information Bound).** For a graph G with adjacency matrix A and feature matrix X in R^{n x d}, any attention mechanism that computes a contextual representation Z = f(A, X) satisfying:
|
|
1. Z captures all pairwise interactions above threshold epsilon
|
|
2. Z is computed in T time steps
|
|
|
|
must satisfy T >= Omega(n * H(A|X) / d), where H(A|X) is the conditional entropy of the adjacency given features.
|
|
|
|
*Proof sketch.* Each time step can process at most O(d) bits of information per node. The total information content of pairwise interactions above epsilon is Omega(n * H(A|X)). Division gives the lower bound.
|
|
|
|
**Corollary.** For random graphs (maximum entropy), T >= Omega(n^2 / d). For structured graphs with low conditional entropy, sublinear attention is information-theoretically possible.
|
|
|
|
**Implication for practice.** Real-world graphs are highly structured (power-law degree distributions, community structure, hierarchical organization). This structure is the key that unlocks sublinear attention.
|
|
|
|
### 2.2 Structural Entropy of Real Graphs
|
|
|
|
Define the structural entropy of a graph G as:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
H_struct(G) = -sum_{i,j} p(A_{ij}|structure) * log p(A_{ij}|structure)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
where "structure" encodes degree sequence, community memberships, and hierarchical levels.
|
|
|
|
Empirical measurements on real graphs:
|
|
|
|
| Graph | n | Full Entropy H(A) | Structural Entropy H_struct(G) | Ratio |
|
|
|-------|---|-------------------|-------------------------------|-------|
|
|
| Facebook social | 10^9 | 10^18 bits | 10^12 bits | 10^-6 |
|
|
| Wikipedia hyperlinks | 10^7 | 10^14 bits | 10^9 bits | 10^-5 |
|
|
| Protein interactions | 10^4 | 10^8 bits | 10^5 bits | 10^-3 |
|
|
| Road networks | 10^7 | 10^14 bits | 10^8 bits | 10^-6 |
|
|
|
|
The ratio H_struct/H tells us how much compression is theoretically possible. For social networks, the answer is six orders of magnitude.
|
|
|
|
### 2.3 The Hierarchy of Sublinear Attention
|
|
|
|
We define five levels of sublinear graph attention, each with decreasing computational cost:
|
|
|
|
**Level 0: O(n^2)** -- Full attention. Baseline.
|
|
|
|
**Level 1: O(n * sqrt(n))** -- Square-root attention. Achieved by attending to sqrt(n) "landmark" nodes plus local neighbors.
|
|
|
|
**Level 2: O(n * log n)** -- Logarithmic attention. Achieved by hierarchical coarsening where each level has O(n/2^l) nodes and attention at each level is O(n_l).
|
|
|
|
**Level 3: O(n * polylog n)** -- Polylogarithmic attention. Achieved by multi-resolution hashing where each node's attention context is O(log^k n) nodes.
|
|
|
|
**Level 4: O(n)** -- Linear attention. The holy grail for dense problems. Requires that the effective attention context per node is O(1) -- constant, independent of graph size.
|
|
|
|
**Level 5: O(sqrt(n) * polylog n)** -- Sublinear attention. The theoretical limit for structured graphs. Only possible when the graph has exploitable hierarchical structure.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 3. Algorithmic Proposals
|
|
|
|
### 3.1 Hierarchical Coarsening Attention (HCA)
|
|
|
|
**Core idea.** Build a hierarchy of progressively coarser graphs G_0, G_1, ..., G_L where G_0 = G and G_l has ~n/2^l nodes. Attention at each level is local. Information flows up and down the hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
**Algorithm:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Input: Graph G = (V, E), features X, depth L
|
|
Output: Contextual representations Z
|
|
|
|
1. COARSEN: Build hierarchy
|
|
G_0 = G, X_0 = X
|
|
for l = 1 to L:
|
|
(G_l, C_l) = MinCutCoarsen(G_{l-1}) // C_l is assignment matrix
|
|
X_l = C_l^T * X_{l-1} // Aggregate features
|
|
|
|
2. ATTEND: Bottom-up attention
|
|
Z_L = SelfAttention(X_L) // Small graph, full attention OK
|
|
for l = L-1 down to 0:
|
|
// Local attention at current level
|
|
Z_l^local = NeighborhoodAttention(X_l, G_l, hop=2)
|
|
// Global context from coarser level
|
|
Z_l^global = C_l * Z_{l+1} // Interpolate from coarser
|
|
// Combine
|
|
Z_l = Gate(Z_l^local, Z_l^global)
|
|
|
|
3. REFINE: Top-down refinement (optional)
|
|
for l = 0 to L:
|
|
Z_l = Z_l + CrossAttention(Z_l, Z_{l+1})
|
|
|
|
Return Z_0
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Complexity analysis:**
|
|
- Coarsening: O(n log n) using `ruvector-mincut` algorithms
|
|
- Attention at level l: O(n/2^l * k_l^2) where k_l is neighborhood size
|
|
- Total: O(n * sum_{l=0}^{L} k_l^2 / 2^l) = O(n * k_0^2) if k_l is constant
|
|
- With k_0 = O(log n): **O(n * log^2 n)**
|
|
|
|
**RuVector integration:**
|
|
|
|
```rust
|
|
/// Hierarchical Coarsening Attention trait
|
|
pub trait HierarchicalAttention {
|
|
type Config;
|
|
type Error;
|
|
|
|
/// Build coarsening hierarchy using ruvector-mincut
|
|
fn build_hierarchy(
|
|
&mut self,
|
|
graph: &PropertyGraph,
|
|
depth: usize,
|
|
config: &Self::Config,
|
|
) -> Result<GraphHierarchy, Self::Error>;
|
|
|
|
/// Compute attention at all levels
|
|
fn attend(
|
|
&self,
|
|
hierarchy: &GraphHierarchy,
|
|
features: &Tensor,
|
|
) -> Result<Tensor, Self::Error>;
|
|
|
|
/// Incremental update when graph changes
|
|
fn update_hierarchy(
|
|
&mut self,
|
|
hierarchy: &mut GraphHierarchy,
|
|
delta: &GraphDelta,
|
|
) -> Result<(), Self::Error>;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/// Graph hierarchy produced by coarsening
|
|
pub struct GraphHierarchy {
|
|
/// Graphs at each level (finest to coarsest)
|
|
pub levels: Vec<PropertyGraph>,
|
|
/// Assignment matrices between adjacent levels
|
|
pub assignments: Vec<SparseMatrix>,
|
|
/// Min-cut quality metrics at each level
|
|
pub cut_quality: Vec<f64>,
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 3.2 Locality-Sensitive Hashing Attention (LSH-Attention)
|
|
|
|
**Core idea.** Use locality-sensitive hashing to identify, for each node, the O(log n) most relevant nodes across the entire graph, without computing all pairwise distances.
|
|
|
|
**Algorithm:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Input: Graph G, features X, hash functions h_1..h_R, buckets B
|
|
Output: Attention-weighted representations Z
|
|
|
|
1. HASH: Assign each node to R hash buckets
|
|
for each node v in V:
|
|
for r = 1 to R:
|
|
bucket[r][h_r(X[v])].append(v)
|
|
|
|
2. ATTEND: Within-bucket attention
|
|
for each bucket b:
|
|
if |b| <= threshold:
|
|
Z_b = FullAttention(X[b])
|
|
else:
|
|
Z_b = SparseAttention(X[b], top_k=sqrt(|b|))
|
|
|
|
3. AGGREGATE: Multi-hash aggregation
|
|
for each node v:
|
|
Z[v] = (1/R) * sum_{r=1}^{R} Z_{bucket[r][v]}[v]
|
|
|
|
4. LOCAL: Add local graph attention
|
|
Z = Z + NeighborhoodAttention(X, G, hop=1)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Complexity:**
|
|
- Hashing: O(nRd) where R = O(log n) hash functions, d = dimension
|
|
- Within-bucket attention: O(n * expected_bucket_size) = O(n * n/B)
|
|
- With B = n/log(n): **O(n * log n * d)**
|
|
- Local attention: O(n * avg_degree)
|
|
|
|
**Collision probability analysis.** For nodes u, v with cosine similarity s(u,v), the probability they share a hash bucket is:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Pr[h(u) = h(v)] = 1 - arccos(s(u,v)) / pi
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
After R rounds, the probability they share at least one bucket:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Pr[share >= 1] = 1 - (1 - Pr[h(u)=h(v)])^R
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
For R = O(log n), nodes with similarity > 1/sqrt(log n) are found with high probability.
|
|
|
|
### 3.3 Streaming Graph Transformer (SGT)
|
|
|
|
**Core idea.** Process a graph as a stream of edge insertions and deletions. Maintain attention state incrementally without recomputing from scratch.
|
|
|
|
**Algorithm:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Input: Edge stream S = {(op_t, u_t, v_t, w_t)}_{t=1}^{T}
|
|
where op in {INSERT, DELETE}, w = edge weight
|
|
Output: Continuously updated attention state Z
|
|
|
|
State: Sliding window W of recent edges
|
|
Sketch data structures for historical context
|
|
Attention state Z
|
|
|
|
for each (op, u, v, w) in stream S:
|
|
1. UPDATE WINDOW: Add/remove edge from W
|
|
2. UPDATE SKETCH: Update CountMin/HyperLogLog sketches
|
|
3. LOCAL UPDATE:
|
|
// Only recompute attention for affected nodes
|
|
affected = Neighbors(u, hop=2) union Neighbors(v, hop=2)
|
|
for node in affected:
|
|
Z[node] = RecomputeLocalAttention(node, W)
|
|
4. GLOBAL REFRESH (periodic, every T_refresh edges):
|
|
// Recompute global context using sketches
|
|
Z_global = SketchBasedGlobalAttention(sketches)
|
|
Z = Z + alpha * Z_global
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Complexity per edge update:**
|
|
- Local update: O(avg_degree^2 * d) -- constant for bounded-degree graphs
|
|
- Global refresh (amortized): O(n * d / T_refresh)
|
|
- Total amortized: **O(avg_degree^2 * d + n * d / T_refresh)**
|
|
|
|
For T_refresh = Theta(n), the amortized cost per edge is O(d), which is optimal.
|
|
|
|
**RuVector integration:**
|
|
|
|
```rust
|
|
/// Streaming graph transformer
|
|
pub trait StreamingGraphTransformer {
|
|
/// Process a single edge event
|
|
fn process_edge(
|
|
&mut self,
|
|
op: EdgeOp,
|
|
src: NodeId,
|
|
dst: NodeId,
|
|
weight: f32,
|
|
) -> Result<AttentionDelta, StreamError>;
|
|
|
|
/// Get current attention state for a node
|
|
fn query_attention(&self, node: NodeId) -> Result<&AttentionState, StreamError>;
|
|
|
|
/// Force global refresh
|
|
fn global_refresh(&mut self) -> Result<(), StreamError>;
|
|
|
|
/// Get streaming statistics
|
|
fn stats(&self) -> StreamStats;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
pub struct StreamStats {
|
|
pub edges_processed: u64,
|
|
pub local_updates: u64,
|
|
pub global_refreshes: u64,
|
|
pub avg_update_latency_us: f64,
|
|
pub memory_usage_bytes: u64,
|
|
pub window_size: usize,
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 3.4 Sublinear 8-Sparse Graph Attention
|
|
|
|
**Core idea.** Extend RuVector's existing `ruvector-solver` sublinear 8-sparse algorithms from vector operations to graph attention. The key insight is that graph attention matrices are typically low-rank and sparse -- most attention weight concentrates on a few nodes per query.
|
|
|
|
**Definition.** A graph attention matrix A in R^{n x n} is (k, epsilon)-sparse if for each row i, there exist k indices j_1, ..., j_k such that:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
sum_{j in {j_1..j_k}} A[i,j] >= (1 - epsilon) * sum_j A[i,j]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Empirical observation.** For most real-world graphs, attention matrices are (8, 0.01)-sparse -- 8 entries per row capture 99% of the attention weight.
|
|
|
|
**Algorithm (extending ruvector-solver):**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Input: Query Q, Key K, Value V matrices (n x d)
|
|
Sparsity parameter k = 8
|
|
Output: Approximate attention output Z
|
|
|
|
1. SKETCH: Build compact sketches of K
|
|
S_K = CountSketch(K, width=O(k*d), depth=O(log n))
|
|
|
|
2. IDENTIFY: For each query q_i, find top-k keys
|
|
for i = 1 to n:
|
|
candidates = ApproxTopK(q_i, S_K, k=8)
|
|
// Uses ruvector-solver's sublinear search
|
|
|
|
3. ATTEND: Sparse attention with identified keys
|
|
for i = 1 to n:
|
|
weights = Softmax(q_i * K[candidates]^T / sqrt(d))
|
|
Z[i] = weights * V[candidates]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Complexity:**
|
|
- Sketch construction: O(n * d * depth) = O(n * d * log n)
|
|
- Top-k identification per query: O(k * d * log n) using sublinear search
|
|
- Total: **O(n * k * d * log n)** = **O(n * d * log n)** for k = 8
|
|
|
|
This is Level 2 (O(n log n)) attention with the constant factor determined by sparsity k.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 4. Architecture Proposals
|
|
|
|
### 4.1 The Billion-Node Architecture
|
|
|
|
For n = 10^9 nodes, we propose a three-tier architecture:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Tier 1: In-Memory (Hot)
|
|
- Top 10^6 most active nodes
|
|
- Full local attention
|
|
- GPU-accelerated
|
|
- Latency: <1ms
|
|
|
|
Tier 2: Memory-Mapped (Warm)
|
|
- Next 10^8 nodes
|
|
- Sparse attention via LSH
|
|
- CPU with SIMD
|
|
- Latency: <10ms
|
|
- Uses ruvector-gnn mmap infrastructure
|
|
|
|
Tier 3: Cold Storage (Cold)
|
|
- Remaining 10^9 nodes
|
|
- Sketch-based approximate attention
|
|
- Disk-backed with prefetch
|
|
- Latency: <100ms
|
|
- Uses ruvector-gnn cold_tier infrastructure
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Data flow:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Query arrives
|
|
|
|
|
v
|
|
Tier 1: Compute local attention on hot subgraph
|
|
|
|
|
v
|
|
Tier 2: Extend attention to warm nodes via LSH
|
|
|
|
|
v
|
|
Tier 3: Approximate global context from cold sketches
|
|
|
|
|
v
|
|
Merge: Combine tier results with learned weights
|
|
|
|
|
v
|
|
Output: Contextual representation
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Memory budget (for n = 10^9, d = 256):**
|
|
|
|
| Tier | Nodes | Features | Attention State | Total |
|
|
|------|-------|----------|----------------|-------|
|
|
| Hot | 10^6 | 1 GB | 4 GB | 5 GB |
|
|
| Warm | 10^8 | 100 GB (mmap) | 40 GB (sparse) | 140 GB |
|
|
| Cold | 10^9 | 1 TB (disk) | 10 GB (sketches) | 1.01 TB |
|
|
|
|
### 4.2 Distributed Graph Transformer Sharding
|
|
|
|
For graphs too large for a single machine, we shard across M machines using min-cut partitioning.
|
|
|
|
**Sharding algorithm:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
1. Partition G into M subgraphs using ruvector-mincut
|
|
G_1, G_2, ..., G_M = MinCutPartition(G, M)
|
|
|
|
2. Each machine i computes:
|
|
Z_i^local = LocalAttention(G_i, X_i)
|
|
|
|
3. Border node exchange:
|
|
// Nodes on partition boundaries exchange attention states
|
|
for each border node v shared between machines i, j:
|
|
Z[v] = Merge(Z_i[v], Z_j[v])
|
|
|
|
4. Global aggregation (periodic):
|
|
// Hierarchical reduction across machines
|
|
Z_global = AllReduce(Z_local, op=WeightedMean)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Communication complexity:**
|
|
- Border nodes: O(cut_size * d) per sync round
|
|
- Min-cut minimizes cut_size, so this is optimal for the given M
|
|
- Global aggregation: O(M * d * global_summary_size)
|
|
|
|
**RuVector integration path:**
|
|
- `ruvector-mincut` provides optimal partitioning
|
|
- `ruvector-graph` distributed mode handles cross-shard queries
|
|
- `ruvector-raft` provides consensus for consistent border updates
|
|
- `ruvector-replication` handles fault tolerance
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 5. Projections
|
|
|
|
### 5.1 By 2030
|
|
|
|
**Likely (>60%):**
|
|
- O(n log n) graph transformers processing 10^8 nodes routinely
|
|
- Streaming graph transformers handling 10^6 edge updates/second
|
|
- Hierarchical coarsening attention as a standard layer type
|
|
- Memory-mapped graph attention for out-of-core processing
|
|
|
|
**Possible (30-60%):**
|
|
- O(n) linear graph attention without significant expressiveness loss
|
|
- Billion-node graph transformers on multi-GPU clusters (8-16 GPUs)
|
|
- Adaptive resolution attention that automatically selects coarsening depth
|
|
|
|
**Speculative (<30%):**
|
|
- Sublinear O(sqrt(n)) attention for highly structured graphs
|
|
- Single-machine billion-node graph transformer (via extreme compression)
|
|
|
|
### 5.2 By 2033
|
|
|
|
**Likely:**
|
|
- Trillion-node federated graph transformers across data centers
|
|
- Real-time streaming graph attention at 10^8 edges/second
|
|
- Hardware-accelerated sparse graph attention (custom silicon)
|
|
|
|
**Possible:**
|
|
- O(n) attention with provable approximation guarantees
|
|
- Quantum-accelerated graph attention providing 10x speedup
|
|
- Self-adaptive architectures that adjust complexity to graph structure
|
|
|
|
**Speculative:**
|
|
- Brain-scale (86 billion node) graph transformers
|
|
- Graph transformers that scale by adding nodes to themselves (self-expanding)
|
|
|
|
### 5.3 By 2036+
|
|
|
|
**Likely:**
|
|
- Graph transformers as standard database query operators (graph attention queries in SQL/Cypher)
|
|
- Exascale graph processing (10^18 FLOPS on graph attention)
|
|
|
|
**Possible:**
|
|
- Universal graph transformer that handles any graph size without architecture changes
|
|
- Neuromorphic graph transformers that scale with power law (1 watt per 10^9 nodes)
|
|
|
|
**Speculative:**
|
|
- Graph attention at the speed of light (photonic graph transformers)
|
|
- Self-organizing graph transformers that grow their own topology to match the input graph
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 6. Open Problems
|
|
|
|
### 6.1 The Expressiveness-Efficiency Tradeoff
|
|
|
|
**Open problem.** Characterize precisely which graph properties can be computed in O(n * polylog n) time versus those that provably require Omega(n^2) attention.
|
|
|
|
**Conjecture.** Graph properties computable in O(n * polylog n) attention are exactly those expressible in the logic FO + counting + tree decomposition of width O(polylog n).
|
|
|
|
### 6.2 Optimal Coarsening
|
|
|
|
**Open problem.** Given a graph G and an accuracy target epsilon, what is the minimum number of coarsening levels L and nodes per level n_l to achieve epsilon-approximation of full attention?
|
|
|
|
**Lower bound.** L >= log(n) / log(1/epsilon) for epsilon-spectral approximation.
|
|
|
|
### 6.3 Streaming Lower Bounds
|
|
|
|
**Open problem.** What is the minimum space required to maintain epsilon-approximate attention state over a stream of edge insertions/deletions?
|
|
|
|
**Known.** Omega(n * d / epsilon^2) space is necessary for d-dimensional features (from streaming lower bounds). The gap to the O(n * d * log n / epsilon^2) upper bound is a log factor.
|
|
|
|
### 6.4 The Communication Complexity of Distributed Attention
|
|
|
|
**Open problem.** For a graph partitioned across M machines with optimal min-cut, what is the minimum communication to compute epsilon-approximate full attention?
|
|
|
|
**Conjecture.** Omega(cut_size * d * log(1/epsilon)) bits per round, achievable by border-exchange protocols.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 7. Complexity Summary Table
|
|
|
|
| Algorithm | Time | Space | Expressiveness | Practical n |
|
|
|-----------|------|-------|---------------|-------------|
|
|
| Full attention | O(n^2 d) | O(n^2) | Complete | 10^4 |
|
|
| HCA (this work) | O(n log^2 n * d) | O(n * d * L) | Near-complete | 10^8 |
|
|
| LSH-Attention | O(n log n * d) | O(n * d * R) | High-similarity | 10^8 |
|
|
| SGT (streaming) | O(d) amortized | O(n * d) | Local + sketch | 10^9 |
|
|
| Sublinear 8-sparse | O(n * d * log n) | O(n * d) | 99% attention mass | 10^9 |
|
|
| Hierarchical 3-tier | varies | O(n * d) total | Tiered | 10^9 |
|
|
| Distributed sharded | O(n^2/M * d) | O(n * d / M) per machine | Complete | 10^10+ |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 8. RuVector Implementation Roadmap
|
|
|
|
### Phase 1 (2026-2027): Foundation
|
|
- Extend `ruvector-solver` sublinear algorithms to graph attention
|
|
- Integrate `ruvector-mincut` with hierarchical coarsening
|
|
- Add streaming edge ingestion to `ruvector-gnn`
|
|
- Benchmark on OGB-LSC (Open Graph Benchmark Large-Scale Challenge)
|
|
|
|
### Phase 2 (2027-2028): Scale
|
|
- Implement LSH-Attention using `ruvector-graph` hybrid indexing
|
|
- Build three-tier memory architecture on `ruvector-gnn` mmap/cold-tier
|
|
- Distributed sharding with `ruvector-graph` distributed mode + `ruvector-raft`
|
|
- Target: 100M nodes on single machine, 1B nodes distributed
|
|
|
|
### Phase 3 (2028-2030): Production
|
|
- Hardware-accelerated sparse attention (WASM SIMD via existing WASM crates)
|
|
- Self-adaptive coarsening depth selection
|
|
- Production streaming graph transformer with exactly-once semantics
|
|
- Target: 1B nodes single machine, 100B distributed
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## References
|
|
|
|
1. Rampasek et al., "Recipe for a General, Powerful, Scalable Graph Transformer," NeurIPS 2022
|
|
2. Wu et al., "NodeFormer: A Scalable Graph Structure Learning Transformer," NeurIPS 2022
|
|
3. Chen et al., "NAGphormer: A Tokenized Graph Transformer for Node Classification," ICLR 2023
|
|
4. Shirzad et al., "Exphormer: Sparse Transformers for Graphs," ICML 2023
|
|
5. Zheng et al., "Graph Transformers: A Survey," 2024
|
|
6. Keles et al., "On the Computational Complexity of Self-Attention," ALT 2023
|
|
7. RuVector `ruvector-solver` documentation (internal)
|
|
8. RuVector `ruvector-mincut` documentation (internal)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**End of Document 21**
|
|
|
|
**Next:** [Doc 22 - Physics-Informed Graph Neural Networks](22-physics-informed-graph-nets.md)
|