Revisiting the stop-and-stare algorithms for influence maximization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Influence maximization is a combinatorial optimization problem that finds important applications in viral marketing, feed recommendation, etc. Recent research has led to a number of scalable approximation algorithms for influence maximization, such as TIM + and IMM , and more recently, SSA and D-SSA . The goal of this paper is to conduct a rigorous theoretical and experimental analysis of SSA and D-SSA and compare them against the preceding algorithms. In doing so, we uncover inaccuracies in previously reported technical results on the accuracy and efficiency of SSA and D-SSA , which we set right. We also attempt to reproduce the original experiments on SSA and D-SSA , based on which we provide interesting empirical insights. Our evaluation confirms some results reported from the original experiments, but it also reveals anomalies in some other results and sheds light on the behavior of SSA and D-SSA in some important settings not considered previously. We also report on the performance of SSA-Fix , our modification to SSA in order to restore the approximation guarantee that was claimed for but not enjoyed by SSA . Overall, our study suggests that there exist opportunities for further scaling up influence maximization with approximation guarantees.
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 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".