skip to main content
research-article

Efficient algorithms for adaptive influence maximization

Published:01 May 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Given a social network G, the influence maximization (IM) problem seeks a set S of k seed nodes in G to maximize the expected number of nodes activated via an influence cascade starting from S. Although a lot of algorithms have been proposed for IM, most of them only work under the non-adaptive setting, i.e., when all k seed nodes are selected before we observe how they influence other users. In this paper, we study the adaptive IM problem, where we select the k seed nodes in batches of equal size b, such that the choice of the i-th batch can be made after the influence results of the first i - 1 batches are observed. We propose the first practical algorithms for adaptive IM with an approximation guarantee of 1 − exp(ξ − 1) for b = 1 and 1 − exp(ξ − 1 + 1/e) for b > 1, where ξ is any number in (0, 1). Our approach is based on a novel AdaptGreedy framework instantiated by non-adaptive IM algorithms, and its performance can be substantially improved if the non-adaptive IM algorithm has a small expected approximation error. However, no current non-adaptive IM algorithms provide such a desired property. Therefore, we further propose a non-adaptive IM algorithm called EPIC, which not only has the same worst-case performance bounds with that of the state-of-the-art non-adaptive IM algorithms, but also has a reduced expected approximation error. We also provide a theoretical analysis to quantify the performance gain brought by instantiating AdaptGreedy using EPIC, compared with a naive approach using the existing IM algorithms. Finally, we use real social networks to evaluate the performance of our approach through extensive experiments, and the experimental experiments strongly corroborate the superiorities of our approach.

References

  1. https://bit.ly/2I3A99p.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. http://snap.stanford.edu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. https://sourceforge.net/projects/im-imm/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Badanidiyuru, C. Papadimitriou, A. Rubinstein, L. Seeman, and Y. Singer. Locally adaptive optimization: adaptive seeding for monotone submodular functions. In SODA, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. N. Barbieri, F. Bonchi, and G. Manco. Topic-aware social influence propagation models. In ICDM, pages 81--90, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. Berend and A. Kontorovich. A sharp estimate of the binomial mean absolute deviation with applications. Statistics & Probability Letters, 83(4):1254--1259, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. C. Borgs, M. Brautbar, J. T. Chayes, and B. Lucier. Maximizing social influence in nearly optimal time. In SODA, pages 946--957, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. W. Chen, C. Wang, and Y. Wang. Scalable influence maximization for prevalent viral marketing in large-scale social networks. In KDD, pages 1029--1038, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Y. Chen and A. Krause. Near-optimal batch mode active learning and adaptive submodular optimization. In Proc. of ICML, pages 160--168, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. P. Dubhashi and A. Panconesi. Concentration of measure for the analysis of randomized algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. Golovin and A. Krause. Adaptive submodularity: theory and applications in active learning and stochastic optimization. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 42(1):427--486, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. K. Han, Y. He, X. Xiao, S. Tang, F. Gui, C. Xu, and J. Luo. Budget-constrained organization of influential social events. In ICDE, pages 917--928, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. K. Han, C. Xu, F. Gui, S. Tang, H. Huang, and J. Luo. Discount allocation for revenue maximization in online social networks. In MobiHoc, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. T. Horel and Y. Singer. Scalable methods for adaptively seeding a social network. In WWW, pages 623--624, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. K. Huang, S. Wang, G. S. Bevilacqua, X. Xiao, and L. V. S. Lakshmanan. Revisiting the stop-and-stare algorithms for influence maximization. PVLDB, 10(9):913--924, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. Kempe, J. M. Kleinberg, and É. Tardos. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In KDD, pages 137--146, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. H. T. Nguyen, M. T. Thai, and T. N. Dinh. Stop-and-stare: Optimal sampling algorithms for viral marketing in billion-scale networks. In SIGMOD, pages 695--710, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. H. T. Nguyen, M. T. Thai, and T. N. Dinh. Stop-and-stare: Optimal sampling algorithms for viral marketing in billion-scale networks. CoRR, abs/1605.07990v3, Feb 22, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. L. Seeman and Y. Singer. Adaptive seeding in social networks. In FOCS, pages 459--468, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Tang, X. Tang, X. Xiao, and J. Yuan. Online processing algorithms for influence maximization. In SIGMOD, 2018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. Tang, X. Tang, and J. Yuan. Influence maximization meets efficiency and effectiveness: A hop-based approach. In ASONAM, pages 64--71, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J. Tang, X. Tang, and J. Yuan. An efficient and effective hop-based approach for inluence maximization in social networks. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 8(10), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Y. Tang, Y. Shi, and X. Xiao. Influence maximization in near-linear time: A martingale approach. In SIGMOD, pages 1539--1554, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Y. Tang, X. Xiao, and Y. Shi. Influence maximization: Near-optimal time complexity meets practical efficiency. In SIGMOD, pages 75--86, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Vaswani and L. V. S. Lakshmanan. Adaptive influence maximization in social networks: Why commit when you can adapt? arXiv: 1604.08171, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. A. Yadav, H. Chan, A. Xin Jiang, H. Xu, E. Rice, and M. Tambe. Using social networks to aid homeless shelters: Dynamic influence maximization under uncertainty. In AAMAS, pages 740--748, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Efficient algorithms for adaptive influence maximization
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
      Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment  Volume 11, Issue 9
      Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
      May 2018
      135 pages

      Publisher

      VLDB Endowment

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 May 2018
      Published in pvldb Volume 11, Issue 9

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader