Activity Maximization by Effective Information Diffusion in Social Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a social network, even about the same information the excitement between different users are different. If we want to spread a piece of new information and maximize the expected total amount of excitement, which seed users should we choose? This problem indeed is substantially different from the renowned influence maximization problem and cannot be tackled using the existing approaches. In this paper, motivated by the demand in a few interesting applications, we model the novel problem of activity maximization, and tackle the problem systematically. We first analyze the complexity and the approximability of the problem. We develop an upper bound and a lower bound that are submodular so that the Sandwich framework can be applied. We then devise a polling-based randomized algorithm that guarantees a data dependent approximation factor. Our experiments on four real data sets clearly verify the effectiveness and scalability of our method, as well as the advantage of our method against the other heuristic methods.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it