Influence maximization based on network representation learning in social network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Influence Maximization (IM), an NP-hard central issue for social network research, aims to recognize the influential nodes in a network so that the message can spread faster and more effectively. A large number of existing studies mainly focus on the heuristic methods, which generally lead to sub-optimal solutions and suffer time-consuming and inapplicability for large-scale networks. Furthermore, the present community-aware random walk to analyze IM using network representation learning considers only the node’s influence or network community structures. No research has been found that surveyed both of them. Hence, the present study is designed to solve the IM problem by introducing a novel influence network embedding (NINE) approach and a novel influence maximization algorithm, namely NineIM, based on network representation learning. First, a mechanism that can capture the diffusion behavior proximity between network nodes is constructed. Second, we consider a more realistic social behavior assumption. The probability of information dissemination between network nodes (users) is different from other random walk based network representation learning. Third, the node influence is used to define the rules of random walk and then get the embedding representation of a social network. Experiments on four real-world networks indicate that our proposed NINE method outperforms four state-of-the-art network embedding baselines. Finally, the superiority of the proposed NineIM algorithm is reported by comparing four traditional IM algorithms. The code is available at https://github.com/baiyazi/NineIM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".