Bibliographic record
Abstract
Influence maximization is the problem of finding a set of influential users in a social network such that the expected spread of influence under a certain propagation model is maximized. Much of the previous work has neglected the important distinction between social influence and actual product adoption. However, as recognized in the management science literature, an individual who gets influenced by social acquaintances may not necessarily adopt a product (or technology), due, e.g., to monetary concerns. In this work, we distinguish between influence and adoption by explicitly modeling the states of being influenced and of adopting a product. We extend the classical Linear Threshold (LT) model to incorporate prices and valuations, and factor them into users' decision-making process of adopting a product. We show that the expected profit function under our proposed model maintains submodularity under certain conditions, but no longer exhibits monotonicity, unlike the expected influence spread function. To maximize the expected profit under our extended LT model, we employ an unbudgeted greedy framework to propose three profit maximization algorithms. The results of our detailed experimental study on three real-world datasets demonstrate that of the three algorithms, PAGE, which assigns prices dynamically based on the profit potential of each candidate seed, has the best performance both in the expected profit achieved and in running time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".