skip to main content
10.1145/224170.224228acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesscConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

A multilevel algorithm for partitioning graphs

Published:08 December 1995Publication History

ABSTRACT

The graph partitioning problem is that of dividing the vertices of a graph into sets of specified sizes such that few edges cross between sets. This NP-complete problem arises in many important scientific and engineering problems. Prominent examples include the decomposition of data structures for parallel computation, the placement of circuit elements and the ordering of sparse matrix computations. We present a multilevel algorithm for graph partitioning in which the graph is approximated by a sequence of increasingly smaller graphs. The smallest graph is then partitioned using a spectral method, and this partition is propagated back through the hierarchy of graphs. A variant of the Kernighan-Lin algorithm is applied periodically to refine the partition. The entire algorithm can be implemented to execute in time proportional to the size of the original graph. Experiments indicate that, relative to other advanced methods, the multilevel algorithm produces high quality partitions at low cost.

References

  1. 1.S. T. BARNARD AND H. D. SIMON, A fast multilevel implementation of recursive spectral bisection for partitioning unstructured problems, in Proc. 6th SIAM Conf. Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, SIAM, 1993, pp. 711-718.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.T. BUI AND C. JONES, A heuristic for reducing fill in sparse matrix factorization, in Proc. 6th SIAM Conf. Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, SIAM, 1993, pp. 445-452.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.P. DINIZ, S. PLIMPTON, B. HENDRICKSON, AND R. LELAND, Parallel algorithms for dynamically partitioning unstructured grids, in Proc. 7th SIAM Conf. Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, SIAM, 1995, pp. 615-620.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.A. E. DUNLOP AND B. W. KERNIGHAN, A procedure for placement of standard-cell VLSI circuits, IEEE Trans. CAD, CAD-4 (1985), pp. 92-98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.C. M. FIDUCCIA AND R. M. MATTHEYSES, A linear time heuristic for improving network partitions, in Proc. 19th IEEE Design Automation Conference, IEEE, 1982, pp. 175-181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.M. GAREY, D. JOHNSON, AND L. STOCKMEYER, Some simplified NP-complete graph problems, Theoretical Computer Science, 1 (1976), pp. 237-267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. 7.J. R. GILBERT AND E. ZMIJEWSKI, A parallel graph partitioning algorithm for a message-passing multiprocessor, Intl. J. Parallel Programming, 16 (1987), pp. 498-513. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8.S. HAMMOND. Personal Communication, November 1992. Available through anonymous ftp at riacs.edu, file /pub/grids/3elt.grid.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.S. HAMMOND, Mapping unstructured grid computations to massively parallel computers, PhD thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Dept. of Computer Science, Troy, NY, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10.B. HENDRICKSON AND R. LELAND, An improved spectral load balancing method, in Proc. 6th SIAM Conf. Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, SIAM, March 1993, pp. 953-961.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.B. HENDRICKSON AND R. LELAND, Multidimensional spectral load balancing, Tech. Rep. SAND93-0074, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, January 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. 12.B. HENDRICKSON AND R. LELAND, The Chaco user's guide, version 2.0, Tech. Rep. SAND94-2692, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, October 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.B. HENDRICKSON AND R. LELAND, An improved spectral graph partitioning algorithm for mapping parallel computations, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 16 (1995). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.B. HENDRICKSON, R. LELAND, AND R. VAN DRIESSCHE, Enhancing data locality by using terminal propagation, in Proc. 29th Hawaii Conf. System Sciences, January 1996. To appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15.C. A. JONES, Vertex and Edge Partitions of Graphs, PhD thesis, Penn State, Dept. Computer Science, State College, PA, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. 16.G. KARYPIS AND V. KUMAR, A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs, Tech. Rep. CORR 95-035, University of Minnesota, Dept. Computer Science, Minneapolis, MN, June 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.B. KERNIGHAN AND S. LIN, An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs, Bell System Technical Journal, 29 (1970), pp. 291-307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. 18.R. PONNUSAMY, N. MANSOUR, A. CHOUDHARY, AND G. C. FOX, Graph contraction and physical optimization methods: a quality-cost tradeoff for mapping data on parallel computers, in Intl. Conf. Supercomputing, Tokyo, Japan, July 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 19.A. POTHEN, H. SIMON, AND K. LIOU, Partitioning sparse matrices with eigenvectors of graphs, SIAM J. Matrix Anal., 11 (1990), pp. 430-452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 20.J. E. SAVAGE AND M. G. WLOKA, Parallelism in graph-partitioning, J. Par. Dist. Comput., 13 (1991), pp. 257-272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. 21.H. D. SIMON, Partitioning of unstructured problems for parallel processing, in Proc. Conference on Parallel Methods on Large Scale Structural Analysis and Physics Applications, Pergammon Press, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.P. SUARIS AND G. KEDEM, An algorithm for quadrisection and its application to standard cell placement, IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems, 35 (1988), pp. 294-303.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. 23.J. SWISSHELM. Personal Communication, February 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.D. VANDERSTRAETEN, C. FARHAT, P. S. CHEN, R. KEUNINGS, AND O. ZONE, A retrofit based methodology for the fast generation and optimization of mesh partitions: beyond the minimum interface size criteria, Comput. Meths. Appl. Mech. Eng., (1995). To appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.D. VANDERSTRAETEN, R. KEUNINGS, AND C. FARHAT, Optimization of mesh partitions and impact on parallel CFD, in Parallel Computational Fluid Dynamics, New Trends and Advances, A. Ecer, J. Hauser, P. Leca, and J. Periaux, eds., Elsevier, 1995, pp. 233-239. (Also in Proc. Parallel CFD '93).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.C. WALSHAW, M. CROSS, AND M. EVERETT, A parallelisable algorithm for optimising unstructured mesh partitions, Tech. Rep. 95/IM/03, University of Greenwich, London SE18 6PF, UK, 1995. (submitted for publication).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.R. WILLIAMS, Performance of dynamic load balancing algorithms for unstructured mesh calculations, Concurrency, 3 (1991), pp. 457-481. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A multilevel algorithm for partitioning graphs

                    Recommendations

                    Comments

                    Login options

                    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                    Sign in
                    • Published in

                      cover image ACM Conferences
                      Supercomputing '95: Proceedings of the 1995 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing
                      December 1995
                      875 pages
                      ISBN:0897918169
                      DOI:10.1145/224170
                      • Chairman:
                      • Sid Karin

                      Copyright © 1995 ACM

                      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                      Publisher

                      Association for Computing Machinery

                      New York, NY, United States

                      Publication History

                      • Published: 8 December 1995

                      Permissions

                      Request permissions about this article.

                      Request Permissions

                      Check for updates

                      Qualifiers

                      • Article

                      Acceptance Rates

                      Supercomputing '95 Paper Acceptance Rate69of241submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate1,516of6,373submissions,24%

                    HTML Format

                    View this article in HTML Format .

                    View HTML Format