More algorithmic results for problems of spread of influence in edge-weighted graphs with and without incentives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many phenomena in real-world social networks are interpreted as the spread of influence between activated and non-activated elements within the network. These phenomena are formulated by combinatorial graphs, where vertices represent the elements and edges represent social ties between elements. A main problem is to study important subsets of elements (target sets or dynamic monopolies) such that their activation spreads to the entire network. In edge-weighted networks, the influence between two adjacent vertices depends on the weight of their edge. In models with incentives, the main problem is to minimize the total amount of incentives (called optimal target vectors) that can be offered to vertices such that some vertices are activated and their activation spreads to the whole network. Algorithmic study of target sets and vectors is a hot research field. We prove an inapproximability result for optimal target sets in edge-weighted networks, even for complete graphs. Some other hardness and polynomial time results are presented for optimal target vectors and degenerate threshold assignments in edge-weighted networks. Lastly, we obtain a hardness result for target sets in edge-weighted tournaments.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".