Approximation Analysis of Influence Spread in Social Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of influence propagation in a social graph, we can identify three orthogonal dimensions - the number of seed nodes activated at the beginning (known as budget), the expected number of activated nodes at the end of the propagation (known as expected spread or coverage), and the time taken for the propagation. We can constrain one or two of these and try to optimize the third. In their seminal paper, Kempe et al. constrained the budget, left time unconstrained, and maximized the coverage: this problem is known as Influence Maximization. In this paper, we study alternative optimization problems which are naturally motivated by resource and time constraints on viral marketing campaigns. In the first problem, termed Minimum Target Set Selection (or MINTSS for short), a coverage threshold n is given and the task is to find the minimum size seed set such that by activating it, at least n nodes are eventually activated in the expected sense. In the second problem, termed MINTIME, a coverage threshold n and a budget threshold k are given, and the task is to find a seed set of size at most k such that by activating it, at least n nodes are activated, in the minimum possible time. Both these problems are NP-hard, which motivates our interest in their approximation. For MINTSS, we develop a simple greedy algorithm and show that it provides a bicriteria approximation. We also establish a generic hardness result suggesting that improving it is likely to be hard. For MINTIME, we show that even bicriteria and tricriteria approximations are hard under several conditions. However, if we allow the budget to be boosted by a logarithmic factor and allow the coverage to fall short, then the problem can be solved exactly in PTIME. Finally, we show the value of the approximation algorithms, by comparing them against various heuristics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".