NetworkX VS SciPy

Built from this data... https://github.com/networkx/networkx/blob/main/examples/grap...

I think one of the elements that author is missing here is that graphs are sparse matrices, and thus can be expressed with Linear Algebra. They mention adjacency matrices, but not sparse adjacency matrices, or incidence matrices (which can express muti and hypergraphs).

Linear Algebra is how almost all academic graph theory is expressed, and large chunks of machine learning and AI research are expressed in this language as well. There was recent thread here about PageRank and how it's really an eigenvector problem over a matrix, and the reality is, all graphs are matrices, they're typically sparse ones.

One question you might ask is, why would I do this? Why not just write my graph algorithms as a function that traverses nodes and edges? And one of the big answers is, parallelism. How are you going to do it? Fork a thread at each edge? Use a thread pool? What if you want to do it on CUDA too? Now you have many problems. How do you know how to efficiently schedule work? By treating graph traversal as a matrix multiplication, you just say Ax = b, and let the library figure it out on the specific hardware you want to target.

Here for example is a recent question on the NetworkX repo for how to find the boundary of a triangular mesh, it's one single line of GraphBLAS if you consider the graph as a matrix:

https://github.com/networkx/networkx/discussions/7326

This brings a very powerful language to the table, Linear Algebra. A language spoken by every scientist, engineer, mathematician and researcher on the planet. By treating graphs like matrices graph algorithms become expressible as mathematical formulas. For example, neural networks are graphs of adjacent layers, and the operation used to traverse from layer to layer is matrix multiplication. This generalizes to all matrices.

There is a lot of very new and powerful research and development going on around sparse graphs with linear algebra in the GraphBLAS API standard, and it's best reference implementation, SuiteSparse:GraphBLAS:

https://github.com/DrTimothyAldenDavis/GraphBLAS

SuiteSparse provides a highly optimized, parallel and CPU/GPU supported sparse Matrix Multiplication. This is relevant because traversing graph edges IS matrix multiplication when you realize that graphs are matrices.

Recently NetworkX has grown the ability to have different "graph engine" backends, and one of the first to be developed uses the python-graphblas library that binds to SuiteSparse. I'm not a directly contributor to that particular work but as I understand it there has been great results.

In the project we used Python lib networkx and a DiGraph object (Direct Graph). To detect a table reference in a Query, we use sqlglot, a SQL parser (among other things) that works well with Bigquery.

If you program in Python, can use NetworkX for that. But it's probably a good idea to implement the basic algorithms yourself at least one time.

For those wanting to play with graphs and ML I was browsing the arangodb docs recently and I saw that it includes integrations to various graph libraries and machine learning frameworks [1]. I also saw a few jupyter notebooks dealing with machine learning from graphs [2].

Integrations include:

* NetworkX -- https://networkx.org/

* DeepGraphLibrary -- https://www.dgl.ai/

* cuGraph (Rapids.ai Graph) -- https://docs.rapids.ai/api/cugraph/stable/

* PyG (PyTorch Geometric) -- https://pytorch-geometric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

--

1: https://docs.arangodb.com/3.11/data-science/adapters/

2: https://github.com/arangodb/interactive_tutorials#machine-le...

org-roam-ui is a great interactive visualization tool, but its main use is visualization. The hope of this library is that it could be part of a larger graph analysis pipeline. The demo provides an example graph visualization, but what you choose to do with the resulting graph certainly isn't limited to that. See for example networkx.

I guess it is a rite of passage to rewrite it. I'm doing it for SciPy too together with Propack in [1]. Somebody already mentioned your repo. Thank you for your efforts.

[1]: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/18566

Fortran codes have caused many problems for the Python package Scipy, and some of them are now being rewritten in C: e.g., https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/19121. Not only does R have many Fortran codes, there are also many R packages using Fortran codes: https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn, https://github.com/cran?q=&type=&language=fortran&sort=. Modern Fortran is a fine language but most legacy Fortran codes use the F77 style. When I update the R package quantreg, which uses many Fortran codes, I get a lot of warning messages. Not sure how the Fortran codes in the R ecosystem will be dealt with in the future, but they recently caused an issue in R due to the lack of compiler support for Fortran: https://blog.r-project.org/2023/08/23/will-r-work-on-64-bit-arm-windows/index.html. Some renowned packages like glmnet already have their Fortran codes rewritten in C/C++: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/glmnet/news/news.html

There are several lessons here: a) vanilla conda-forge numpy and scipy versions come with openblas, and it works pretty well, b) do not use netlib unless your matrices are small and you need to do a lot of SVDs, or idek why c) Apple's veclib/accelerate is super fast, but it is also numerically unstable. So much so that the scipy's devs dropped any support of it back in 2018. Like dang. That said, they are apparently are bring it back in, since the 13.3 release of macOS Ventura saw some major improvements in accelerate performance.

First, if you read through that scipy issue (https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/18118 ) the author was willing and able to relicense PRIMA under a 3-clause BSD license which is perfectly acceptable for scipy.

For the numerical recipes reference, there is a mention that scipy uses a slightly improved version of Powell's algorithm that is originally due to Forman Acton and presumably published in his popular book on numerical analysis, and that also happens to be described & included in numerical recipes. That is, unless the code scipy uses is copied from numerical recipes, which I presume it isn't, NR having the same algorithm doesn't mean that every other independent implementation of that algorithm falls under NR copyright.

Reading the discussions under a previous thread titled "More Descent, Less Gradient"( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23004026 ), I guess people might be interested in PRIMA ( www.libprima.net ), which provides the reference implementation for Powell's renowned gradient/derivative-free (zeroth-order) optimization methods, namely COBYLA, UOBYQA, NEWUOA, BOBYQA, and LINCOA.

PRIMA solves general nonlinear optimizaton problems without using derivatives. It implements Powell's solvers in modern Fortran, compling with the Fortran 2008 standard. The implementation is faithful, in the sense of being mathmatically equivalent to Powell's Fortran 77 implementation, but with a better numerical performance. In contrast to the 7939 lines of Fortran 77 code with 244 GOTOs, the new implementation is structured and modularized.

There is a discussion to include the PRIMA solvers into SciPy ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/18118 ), replacing the buggy and unmaintained Fortran 77 version of COBYLA, and making the other four solvers available to all SciPy users.

if that makes your eyes bleed, what do you think about this? https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/main/scipy/special/specfun/specfun.f (heh)