Mitigating Filter Bubbles Under a Competitive Diffusion Model
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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