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
Imagine we are introducing a new product through a social network, where we know for each user in the network the function of purchase probability with respect to discount. Then, what discounts should we offer to those social network users so that, under a predefined budget, the adoption of the product is maximized in expectation? Although influence maximization has been extensively explored, this appealing practical problem still cannot be answered by the existing influence maximization methods. In this article, we tackle the problem systematically. We formulate the general continuous influence maximization problem, investigate the essential properties, and develop a general coordinate descent algorithmic framework as well as the engineering techniques for practical implementation. Our investigation does not assume any specific influence model and thus is general and principled. At the same time, using the most popularly adopted triggering model as a concrete example, we demonstrate that more efficient methods are feasible under specific influence models. Our extensive empirical study on four benchmark real-world networks with synthesized purchase probability curves clearly illustrates that continuous influence maximization can improve influence spread significantly with very moderate extra running time comparing to the classical influence maximization 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 | 0.001 | 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 it