Papers › FeLoG: Scalable and Efficient Distributed Graph Embedding with Feedback Loop Mechanism
FeLoG: Scalable and Efficient Distributed Graph Embedding with Feedback Loop Mechanism
Peng Fang, Arijit Khan, Ziqiang Wu, Zhenli Li, Yibo Zhou, Fang Wang, Dan Feng
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Graph embedding maps graph nodes into low-dimensional vectors to support applications such as recommendation, fraud detection, and graph-based retrieval-augmented generation (GraphRAG). As graphs scale to billions of edges, scalable and efficient graph embedding has become increasingly important. Existing frameworks commonly adopt a sampling-training paradigm, in which mini-batches are constructed by sampling nodes and their neighbors. However, sampling is typically decoupled from evolving embedding quality, causing redundant exploration of well-trained regions while under-sampling undertrained nodes. At the system level, such decoupling further leads to excessive communication, serialized execution, and low resource utilization in distributed environments. We present FeLoG, a feedback loop-driven system for scalable distributed graph embedding. (1) FeLoG introduces feedback-coupled sampling and training, dynamically prioritizing undertrained nodes according to real-time embedding-quality feedback, thereby reducing redundant computation and accelerating convergence. (2) It employs activity-aware communication that compresses frequently occurring node sequences to reduce intra-machine PCIe traffic and selectively synchronizes frequently updated embeddings to reduce inter-machine communication. (3) It adopts a round-interleaved pipeline that overlaps next-round sampling with current-round training to improve CPU-GPU utilization. Experiments against six state-of-the-art baselines on large-scale graphs show that FeLoG achieves an average speedup of 27.9x, reduces communication cost by more than 53.1%, and sustains over 80% CPU-GPU utilization.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2606.22180")
Code
Syntology Ran 8 of 18 code samples harvested from 4 repositories linked to this paper; 10 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 7 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 18 samples from 4 repositories, 8 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
18 samples harvested; 8 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 10 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 13 of the 18 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from 4 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
3249a9789feb2084 · report
2aaa86fdd39bbf4b · report
b338b6f7dd60e20a · report
f5aca99be25ca82a · report
affe997f9f201d4e · report
27ba097348e4aa6f · report
2d06c85d765e946d · report
33959d0bcca2d9be · report
b1513edd1b088c78 · report
a164461c10272fa1 · report
8b345a76be8c9f7a · report
1f4b33b8bb420499 · report
e3ca14669fcbadc6 · report
5fc045c4a6bec127 · report
3aa189334625af0d · report
0ea0f96e15ee65f3 · report
1795bb680a62df99 · report
793a3a5b95a81cea · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2606.22180, was issued in June 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections