Mitigating Filter Bubbles Under a Competitive Diffusion Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While social networks greatly facilitate information dissemination, they are well known to have contributed to the phenomena of filter bubbles and echo chambers. This in turn can lead to societal polarization and erosion of trust in public institutions. Mitigating filter bubbles is an urgent open problem. Recently, approaches based on the influence maximization paradigm have been proposed in our community for mitigating filter bubbles by balancing exposure to opposing viewpoints. However, existing works ignore the inherent competition between the adoption of opposing viewpoints by users. In this paper, we propose a realistic model for the filter bubble problem, which unlike previous work, captures thecompetition between opposing opinions propagating in a network as well as thecomplementary nature of the reward forexposing users to both those opinions. We formulate an optimization problem for mitigating filter bubbles under our model. We establish several evidences of the intrinsic difficulty in developing constant approximation to the problem and develop a heuristic and two instance-dependent approximation algorithms. Our experiments over 4 real datasets show that our heuristic far outperforms two state-of-the-art baselines as well as other algorithms in both efficiency and mitigating filter bubbles. We also empirically demonstrate that our best heuristic performs close to the optimal objective, which is obtained by utilizing the theoretical bounds of our approximation algorithms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".