Predicting Influence Probabilities using Graph Convolutional Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As one of the fundamental tasks in data analytics, Influence Maximization methods have been widely used in many real-world applications. For instance, in social network analysis, after building a directed graph, where edges are weighted with influence probabilities, influence maximization methods can be used to find a set of users who can maximize the spread of information under certain cascade models. Despite their successes, however, one critical weakness of existing influence maximization methods lies in the fact that edges are weighted with historical probabilities. As such, influence maximization methods perform sub-optimal if there occur non-trivial changes in future. In response to this challenge, in this work, we propose a novel prediction-driven influence maximization method that accurately predicts future influence probabilities using graph convolutional networks and find seed users based on the predicted probabilities. The experiments with five real-world datasets show that our prediction accuracy is accurate (e.g., mean absolute percentage error less than 0.1) in many cases, and our prediction-driven influence maximization is very close to the optimal.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".