MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112994038 · doi:10.14778/3436905.3436920

Maximizing social welfare in a competitive diffusion model

2020· preprint· en· W3112994038 on OpenAlexaff
Prithu Banerjee, Wei Chen, Laks V. S. Lakshmanan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)Viral marketingComputer scienceIncentiveMaximizationQuality (philosophy)Social WelfareMicroeconomicsFocus (optics)Competitive equilibriumSocial network (sociolinguistics)Utility maximizationUtility maximization problemMathematical economicsEconomicsSocial media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Influence maximization (IM) has garnered a lot of attention in the literature owing to applications such as viral marketing and infection containment. It aims to select a small number of seed users to adopt an item such that adoption propagates to a large number of users in the network. Competitive IM focuses on the propagation of competing items in the network. Existing works on competitive IM have several limitations. (1) They fail to incorporate economic incentives in users' decision making in item adoptions. (2) Majority of the works aim to maximize the adoption of one particular item, and ignore the collective role that different items play. (3) They focus mostly on one aspect of competition - pure competition. To address these concerns we study competitive IM under a utility-driven propagation model called UIC, and study social welfare maximization. The problem in general is not only NP-hard but also NP-hard to approximate within any constant factor. We, therefore, devise instant dependent efficient approximation algorithms for the general case as well as a (1 - 1/ e - ∈ )-approximation algorithm for a restricted setting. Our algorithms outperform different baselines on competitive IM, both in terms of solution quality and running time on large real networks under both synthetic and real utility configurations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207