skip to main content
research-article

Influence Maximization Revisited: Efficient Sampling with Bound Tightened

Published:18 August 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Given a social network G with n nodes and m edges, a positive integer k, and a cascade model C, the influence maximization (IM) problem asks for k nodes in G such that the expected number of nodes influenced by the k nodes under cascade model C is maximized. The state-of-the-art approximate solutions run in O(k(n+m)log n/ε2) expected time while returning a (1 - 1/e - ε) approximate solution with at least 1 - 1/n probability. A key phase of these IM algorithms is the random reverse reachable (RR) set generation, and this phase significantly affects the efficiency and scalability of the state-of-the-art IM algorithms.

In this article, we present a study on this key phase and propose an efficient random RR set generation algorithm under IC model. With the new algorithm, we show that the expected running time of existing IM algorithms under IC model can be improved to O(k ċ n log n ċ2), when for any node v, the total weight of its incoming edges is no larger than a constant. For the general IC model where the weights are skewed, we present a sampling algorithm SKIP. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first index-free algorithm that achieves the optimal time complexity of the sorted subset sampling problem.

Moreover, existing approximate IM algorithms suffer from scalability issues in high influence networks where the size of random RR sets is usually quite large. We tackle this challenging issue by reducing the average size of random RR sets without sacrificing the approximation guarantee. The proposed solution is orders of magnitude faster than states of the art as shown in our experiment.

Besides, we investigate the issues of forward propagation and derive its time complexity with our proposed subset sampling techniques. We also present a heuristic condition to indicate when the forward propagation approach should be utilized to estimate the expected influence of a given seed set.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] 2013. KONECT Datasets. Retrieved June 2019 from http://konect.uni-koblenz.de/. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] 2014. PMC code. Retrieved December 2021 from https://github.com/todo314/pruned-monte-carlo. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] 2014. SNAP Datasets. Retrieved June 2019 from http://snap.stanford.edu/data. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] 2015. IMM code. Retrieved June 2019 from https://sourceforge.net/projects/im-imm/. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] 2017. OPIM-C code. Retrieved June 2019 from https://github.com/tangj90/OPIM. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] 2017. SSA code. Retrieved June 2019 from https://github.com/hungnt55/Stop-and-Stare. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [7] Arora Akhil, Galhotra Sainyam, and Ranu Sayan. 2017. Debunking the myths of influence maximization: An in-depth benchmarking study. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 651666.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Bian Song, Guo Qintian, Wang Sibo, and Yu Jeffrey Xu. 2020. Efficient algorithms for budgeted influence maximization on massive social networks. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 13, 9 (2020), 14981510.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [9] Borgs Christian, Brautbar Michael, Chayes Jennifer T., and Lucier Brendan. 2014. Maximizing social influence in nearly optimal time. In Proceedings of the SODA. 946957.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Boyd Stephen, Boyd Stephen P., and Vandenberghe Lieven. 2004. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Bringmann Karl and Panagiotou Konstantinos. 2017. Efficient sampling methods for discrete distributions. Algorithmica 79, 2 (2017), 484508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Budak Ceren, Agrawal Divyakant, and Abbadi Amr El. 2011. Limiting the spread of misinformation in social networks. In Proceedings of the WWW. 665674.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Chen Shuo, Fan Ju, Li Guoliang, Feng Jianhua, Tan Kian-Lee, and Tang Jinhui. 2015. Online topic-aware influence maximization. PVLDB 8, 6 (2015), 666677.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. [14] Chen Wei, Wang Chi, and Wang Yajun. 2010. Scalable influence maximization for prevalent viral marketing in large-scale social networks. In Proceedings of the SIGKDD. 10291038.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Chen Wei, Wang Yajun, and Yang Siyu. 2009. Efficient influence maximization in social networks. In Proceedings of the SIGKDD. 199208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. [16] Cheng Suqi, Shen Huawei, Huang Junming, Chen Wei, and Cheng Xueqi. 2014. IMRank: Influence maximization via finding self-consistent ranking. In Proceedings of the SIGIR. 475484.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. [17] Chung Fan R. K. and Lu Lincoln. 2006. Survey: Concentration inequalities and martingale inequalities: A survey. Internet Mathematics 3, 1 (2006), 79127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Cohen Edith, Delling Daniel, Pajor Thomas, and Werneck Renato F.. 2014. Sketch-based influence maximization and computation: Scaling up with guarantees. In Proceedings of the CIKM. 629638.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] Dagum Paul, Karp Richard M., Luby Michael, and Ross Sheldon M.. 1995. An optimal algorithm for monte carlo estimation (Extended Abstract). In Proceedings of the FOCS. 142149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Galhotra Sainyam, Arora Akhil, and Roy Shourya. 2016. Holistic influence maximization: Combining scalability and efficiency with opinion-aware models. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 743758.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Gomez-Rodriguez Manuel, Balduzzi David, and Schölkopf Bernhard. 2011. Uncovering the temporal dynamics of diffusion networks. In Proceedings of the ICML. 561568.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Goyal Amit, Bonchi Francesco, and Lakshmanan Laks V. S.. 2010. Learning influence probabilities in social networks. In Proceedings of the WSDM. 241250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Goyal Amit, Bonchi Francesco, and Lakshmanan Laks V. S.. 2011. A data-based approach to social influence maximization. PVLDB 5, 1 (2011), 7384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Goyal Amit, Lu Wei, and Lakshmanan Laks V. S.. 2011. CELF++: Optimizing the greedy algorithm for influence maximization in social networks. In Proceedings of the WWW. 4748.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. [25] Goyal Amit, Lu Wei, and Lakshmanan Laks V. S.. 2011. SIMPATH: An efficient algorithm for influence maximization under the linear threshold model. In Proceedings of the ICDM. 211220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Guo Qintian, Wang Sibo, Wei Zhewei, and Chen Ming. 2020. Influence maximization revisited: Efficient reverse reachable set generation with bound tightened. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. ACM, 21672181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. [27] Han Kai, Huang Keke, Xiao Xiaokui, Tang Jing, Sun Aixin, and Tang Xueyan. 2018. Efficient algorithms for adaptive influence maximization. PVLDB 11, 9 (2018), 10291040.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [28] Huang Keke, Wang Sibo, Bevilacqua Glenn S., Xiao Xiaokui, and Lakshmanan Laks V. S.. 2017. Revisiting the stop-and-stare algorithms for influence maximization. PVLDB 10, 9 (2017), 913924.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. [29] Jung Kyomin, Heo Wooram, and Chen Wei. 2012. IRIE: Scalable and robust influence maximization in social networks. In Proceedings of the ICDM. 918923.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Kempe David, Kleinberg Jon M., and Tardos Éva. 2003. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the SIGKDD. 137146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [31] Knuth Donald Ervin. 1997. The Art of Computer Programming. Vol. 3. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] Krause Andreas and Golovin Daniel. 2014. Submodular function maximization. In Proceedings of the Tractability: Practical Approaches to Hard Problems. Cambridge University, 71104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Lei Siyu, Maniu Silviu, Mo Luyi, Cheng Reynold, and Senellart Pierre. 2015. Online influence maximization. In Proceedings of the SIGKDD. 645654.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Li Yuchen, Zhang Dongxiang, and Tan Kian-Lee. 2015. Real-time targeted influence maximization for online advertisements. PVLDB 8, 10 (2015), 10701081.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Liu Bo, Cong Gao, Xu Dong, and Zeng Yifeng. 2012. Time constrained influence maximization in social networks. In Proceedings of the ICDM. 439448.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] Lu Wei, Chen Wei, and Lakshmanan Laks V. S.. 2015. From competition to complementarity: Comparative influence diffusion and maximization. PVLDB 9, 2 (2015), 6071.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. [37] Lucier Brendan, Oren Joel, and Singer Yaron. 2015. Influence at scale: Distributed computation of complex contagion in networks. In Proceedings of the SIGKDD. 735744.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. [38] Nguyen Hung T., Dinh Thang N., and Thai My T.. 2016. Cost-aware targeted viral marketing in billion-scale networks. In Proceedings of the INFOCOM. 19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Nguyen Hung T., Dinh Thang N., and Thai My T.. 2018. Revisiting of “Revisiting the Stop-and-Stare Algorithms for Influence Maximization”. In Proceedings of the CSoNet. 273285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Nguyen Hung T., Nguyen Tri P., Phan NhatHai, and Dinh Thang N.. 2017. Importance sketching of influence dynamics in billion-scale networks. In Proceedings of the ICDM. 337346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. [41] Nguyen Hung T., Nguyen Tri P., Vu Tam N., and Dinh Thang N.. 2017. Outward influence and cascade size estimation in billion-scale networks. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems 1, 1 (2017), 20:1–20:30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Nguyen Hung T., Thai My T., and Dinh Thang N.. 2016. Stop-and-stare: Optimal sampling algorithms for viral marketing in billion-scale networks. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 695710.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Ohsaka Naoto, Akiba Takuya, Yoshida Yuichi, and Kawarabayashi Ken-ichi. 2014. Fast and accurate influence maximization on large networks with pruned monte-carlo simulations. In Proceedings of the AAAI. 138144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Schoenebeck Grant and Tao Biaoshuai. 2020. Influence maximization on undirected graphs: Toward closing the (1-1/e) gap. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 8, 4 (2020), 22:1–22:36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. [45] Tang Jing, Huang Keke, Xiao Xiaokui, Lakshmanan Laks V. S., Tang Xueyan, Sun Aixin, and Lim Andrew. 2019. Efficient approximation algorithms for adaptive seed minimization. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 10961113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. [46] Tang Jing, Tang Xueyan, Xiao Xiaokui, and Yuan Junsong. 2018. Online processing algorithms for influence maximization. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 9911005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Tang Youze, Shi Yanchen, and Xiao Xiaokui. 2015. Influence maximization in near-linear time: A martingale approach. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 15391554.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. [48] Tang Youze, Xiao Xiaokui, and Shi Yanchen. 2014. Influence maximization: Near-optimal time complexity meets practical efficiency. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 7586.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. [49] Udwani Rajan. 2018. Multi-objective maximization of monotone submodular functions with cardinality constraint. In Proceedings of the NeurIPS. 95139524.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [50] Walker Alastair J.. 1977. An efficient method for generating discrete random variables with general distributions. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 3, 3 (1977), 253256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. [51] Wang Yanhao, Fan Qi, Li Yuchen, and Tan Kian-Lee. 2017. Real-time influence maximization on dynamic social streams. PVLDB 10, 7 (2017), 805816.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Influence Maximization Revisited: Efficient Sampling with Bound Tightened

    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 ACM Transactions on Database Systems
      ACM Transactions on Database Systems  Volume 47, Issue 3
      September 2022
      173 pages
      ISSN:0362-5915
      EISSN:1557-4644
      DOI:10.1145/3544001
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 August 2022
      • Online AM: 19 May 2022
      • Accepted: 1 April 2022
      • Revised: 1 February 2022
      • Received: 1 June 2021
      Published in tods Volume 47, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format