Budget-aware local influence iterative algorithm for efficient influence maximization in social networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The budgeted influence maximization (BIM) problem aims to identify a set of seed nodes that adhere to predefined budget constraints within a specified network structure and cost model. However, it is difficult for the existing algorithms to achieve a balance between timeliness and effectiveness. To address this challenge, our study initially proposes a refined cost model through empirical scrutiny of Weibo's quote data. Subsequently, we introduce a proxy-based algorithm, i.e., the budget-aware local influence iterative (BLII) algorithm tailored for the BIM problem, aimed at expediently identifying seed nodes. The algorithm approximates the global influence by leveraging the user's one-hop influence and circumvents influence overlap among seed nodes via iterative influence updates. Comparative experiments involving eight algorithms across four real networks demonstrate the effectiveness, efficiency, and robustness of the BLII algorithm. In terms of influence spread, the proposed algorithm outperforms other proxy-based algorithms by 20%-255 % and reaches the state-of-the-art simulation-based approach by 96 %. In addition, the running time of the BLII algorithm is reasonable. Generally, the proposed cost model and BLII algorithm provide novel insights and potent tools for studying BIM problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".