Revenue maximization in incentivized social advertising
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
Incentivized social advertising, an emerging marketing model, provides monetization opportunities not only to the owners of the social networking platforms but also to their influential users by offering a "cut" on the advertising revenue. We consider a social network (the host) that sells ad-engagements to advertisers by inserting their ads, in the form of promoted posts, into the feeds of carefully selected "initial endorsers" or seed users: these users receive monetary incentives in exchange for their endorsements. The endorsements help propagate the ads to the feeds of their followers. Whenever any user engages with an ad, the host is paid some fixed amount by the advertiser, and the ad further propagates to the feed of her followers, potentially recursively. In this context, the problem for the host is is to allocate ads to influential users, taking into account the propensity of ads for viral propagation, and carefully apportioning the monetary budget of each of the advertisers between incentives to influential users and ad-engagement costs, with the rational goal of maximizing its own revenue. We show that, taking all important factors into account, the problem of revenue maximization in incentivized social advertising corresponds to the problem of monotone submodular function maximization, subject to a partition matroid constraint on the ads-to-seeds allocation, and submodular knapsack constraints on the advertisers' budgets. We show that this problem is NP-hard and devise two greedy algorithms with provable approximation guarantees, which differ in their sensitivity to seed user incentive costs. Our approximation algorithms require repeatedly estimating the expected marginal gain in revenue as well as in advertiser payment. By exploiting a connection to the recent advances made in scalable estimation of expected influence spread, we devise efficient and scalable versions of our two greedy algorithms. An extensive experimental assessment confirms the high quality of our proposal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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