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.
Appendices
A Proof of Theorem 4
We introduce some notations and lemmas that are useful to prove Theorem 4. Denote \(\bar{\mu }\) as the total expected number of elements in \(T\) checked by SKIP to determine whether \(x_{j}\) is added to \(S\) (Lines 9– 10). Thus, SKIP takes \(O(1+\bar{\mu })\) time in expectation, where “1” is from the stopping step of while loop when it meets the condition \(j\gt h\) (Line 7).
Similarly, let \(\bar{\mu }(p_i,\ldots\,,p_{j})\) denote the expected number of elements checked when \(T=\lbrace x_i,\ldots ,x_j\rbrace\) , e.g., \(\bar{\mu }=\bar{\mu }(p_1,\ldots\,,p_{h})\) . Consider that SKIP performs on \(\lbrace x_i,\ldots ,x_j\rbrace\) and \(x_k\) is the first element checked. The probability for such a case is \((1-p_{i})^{k-i}p_{i}\) , as \(\Pr [X=k-i+1]\) follows the geometric distribution \(G(p_{i})\) . After checking \(x_k\) , SKIP performs on \(\lbrace x_{k+1},\ldots\,,x_j\rbrace\) . Thus, by Markov chain,
We prove the lemma by induction. When \(i=j-1\) , we have \(\bar{\mu }(p_{i+1})=p_{i+1}\) and \(\bar{\mu }(p_{i},p_{i+1})=p_i+(1-p_i)p_i+p_i p_{i+1}=(2+p_{i+1}-p_i)p_i\) , which indicates that \(\bar{\mu }(p_{i+1})\le \bar{\mu }(p_{i},p_{i+1})\) . Assume that for any \(i\ge i^\ast\) , it holds that
It is easy to verify that \(\Delta _\ell \ge 0\) for any \(\ell = i, \ldots\,, j\) owing to the fact that \(\lbrace p_i, \ldots\,, p_j\rbrace\) are in non-ascending order. Besides, the following conclusion holds by definition, and will be used later,
The inequality is due to \(\bar{\mu }(p_{i+1},\ldots\,,p_{j})\ge \bar{\mu }(p_{i+2},\ldots\,,p_{j})\) and \(\Delta _{i+1}+p_{i+1}=p_{i}+(1-p_i)p_i\) by Equation (20).
Note that \(\Delta _j\ge 0\) as \(p_i\ge p_{i+1}\) , which immediately concludes the lemma.□
Lemma 21.
For any \(p_k\le p_k^\prime\) , \(\bar{\mu }(p_{i},\ldots\,,p_k,\ldots\,,p_{j})\le \bar{\mu }(p_{i},\ldots\,,p_k^\prime ,\ldots\,,p_{j})\) .
Proof.
We prove the lemma by induction. When \(i=j=k\) , it obviously holds that \(\bar{\mu }(p_k)=p_k\le p_k^\prime =\bar{\mu }(p_k^\prime)\) . Assume that \(\bar{\mu }(p_{i},\ldots\,,p_k,\ldots\,,p_{j})\le \bar{\mu }(p_{i},\ldots\,,p_k^\prime ,\ldots\,,p_{j})\) that for any \(i\ge i^\ast\) . Now consider the following two cases when \(i=i^\ast -1\) .
Case (i) \(k\gt i\) . With assumption that for any \(\ell +1\ge i+1\ge i^\ast\) , \(\bar{\mu }(p_{\ell +1},\ldots\,,p_k,\ldots\,,p_{j})\le \bar{\mu }(p_{\ell +1},\ldots\,,p_k^\prime ,\ldots\,,p_{j})\) , then we have:
Case (ii) \(k=i\) . Let \(\Gamma _\ell :=\sum _{i=k}^{\ell } (1-p_k^\prime)^{i-k}p_k^\prime -\sum _{i=k}^{\ell }(1-p_k)^{i-k}p_k\) , which implies that \(\Gamma _\ell =(1-p_k)^{\ell -k+1}-(1-p_k^\prime)^{\ell -k+1}\ge 0\) for any \(\ell =k,\ldots\,,j\) , since \(p_k\le p_k^\prime\) . Similar with (20), we have
where the inequality is due to Lemma 20 and (21). Thus, Lemma 21 follows.□
Given any \(\beta =2,\ldots\,,n\) , we divide \(V\) into \(L(\beta)+1\) buckets such that bucket \(B_k=\lbrace x_i:\beta ^{k}\le i\lt \beta ^{k+1}\rbrace\) with \(k=0,1,\ldots\,,L(\beta)\) , where \(L(\beta)=\lfloor \log _\beta n\rfloor\) . For \(x_i\in B_k\) , let \(\hat{p}_i:=p_{\beta ^k}\) which is an upper bound on \(p_i\) . The following lemma establishes an upper bound on \(\bar{\mu }\) .
Lemma 22.
Given \(\beta =2,\ldots\,,n\) , \(\bar{\mu }\le \hat{\mu }(\beta)+L(\beta) + 1\) , where \(\hat{\mu }(\beta)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\hat{p}_i\) .
Proof.
Define \(\bar{\mu }^\ast :=\bar{\mu }(\hat{p}_1,\ldots\,,\hat{p}_n)\) . By Lemma 21, we have \(\bar{\mu }\le \bar{\mu }^\ast\) . We just need to show that \(\bar{\mu }^\ast \le \hat{\mu }(\beta)+L(\beta)+1\) . By Lemma 20, we have
Note that \(\hat{p}_1=\hat{p}_2\) when \(\beta \gt 2\) . Thus, \((1-\hat{p}_1)^{k-1}\hat{p}_1 +\hat{p}_1(1-\hat{p}_2)^{k-2}\hat{p}_2=(1-\hat{p}_1)^{k-2} \hat{p}_1.\) As a result,
Meanwhile, SKIP performs sampling with standard geometric distribution \(G(\hat{p}_{\beta ^{L(\beta)}})\) on \(\lbrace \hat{p}_{\beta ^{L(\beta)}},\ldots\,,\hat{p}_{n}\rbrace\) , which indicates that \(\bar{\mu }(\hat{p}_{\beta ^{L(\beta)}},\ldots\,,\hat{p}_{n})=(n-\beta ^{L(\beta)}+1)\hat{p}_{\beta ^{L(\beta)}} +1\) . Therefore, \(\bar{\mu }^\ast \le \hat{\mu }(\beta)+L(\beta) + 1\) .□
Now, we are ready to prove our main result.
Proof of Theorem 4
Recall that SKIP takes an expected time of \(O(1+\bar{\mu })\) . By Lemma 22, we know that \(\bar{\mu }\le \min _{\beta \in \lbrace 2,\ldots\,,n\rbrace }\lbrace \hat{\mu }(\beta)+L(\beta) + 1\rbrace\) . In addition, according to the definition of \(\hat{p}_i\) under a given \(\beta\) , it is easy to verify that \(\hat{p}_i\le p_{\lceil i/\beta \rceil }\) . Thus,
In this appendix, we present another revised greedy algorithm, which is different from Greedy-Degree in Algorithm 9. For ease of explanation, we name it Greedy-Cost.
Recap that in the second phase of HIST, we can stop the RR set generation process as soon as we hit any sentinel node, thus reducing the average size of the RR sets. Suppose we have a function \(C_\mathcal {R}(S)\) which represents the amount of cost reduction on the collection \(\mathcal {R}\) of RR sets when \(S\) is selected as the sentinel set. Then we can design the Greedy-Cost algorithm by replacing Line 3 in Algorithm 1, that is,
where \(\mathcal {M}\) is the set of nodes which have the largest marginal coverage. Obviously if \(|\mathcal {M}| = 1\) , we have only one candidate, and it must be selected as the sentinel node.
In the following, we present how to define the cost funtion \(C_\mathcal {R}(\cdot)\) . Recap that when generating an RR set \(R\) , each sampled node is added into \(R\) one by one (please see Algorithm 2). Thus, we say the index of \(u\) is \(i\) if it is the \(i\) th node added into \(R\) , where \(i = 0, 1, 2, \ldots , |R|-1\) . Let \(l(u, R)\) be the function which returns the index of \(u\) in \(R\) . Let \(l(u, R) = |R|\) if \(u \not\in R\) . Due to the existence of the sentinel set \(S\) , the process of generating \(R\) can be stopped immediately when it reaches the sentinel node \(u^* \in S\) with the minimum index,
It is easy to realize that if no node of \(S\) is hit by \(R\) , the cost reduction \(C(R, S) = 0\) due to \(l(u, R) = |R|\) for each \(u \in S\) . It implies that it can not save any sampling cost when generating \(R\) . By summing up all the cost reduction in \(\mathcal {R}\) , the function \(C_\mathcal {R}(S)\) is defined as
Akhil Arora, Sainyam Galhotra, and Sayan Ranu. 2017. Debunking the myths of influence maximization: An in-depth benchmarking study. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 651–666.
Song Bian, Qintian Guo, Sibo Wang, and Jeffrey Xu Yu. 2020. Efficient algorithms for budgeted influence maximization on massive social networks. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 13, 9 (2020), 1498–1510.
Christian Borgs, Michael Brautbar, Jennifer T. Chayes, and Brendan Lucier. 2014. Maximizing social influence in nearly optimal time. In Proceedings of the SODA. 946–957.
Wei Chen, Chi Wang, and Yajun Wang. 2010. Scalable influence maximization for prevalent viral marketing in large-scale social networks. In Proceedings of the SIGKDD. 1029–1038.
Suqi Cheng, Huawei Shen, Junming Huang, Wei Chen, and Xueqi Cheng. 2014. IMRank: Influence maximization via finding self-consistent ranking. In Proceedings of the SIGIR. 475–484.
Fan R. K. Chung and Lincoln Lu. 2006. Survey: Concentration inequalities and martingale inequalities: A survey. Internet Mathematics 3, 1 (2006), 79–127.
Edith Cohen, Daniel Delling, Thomas Pajor, and Renato F. Werneck. 2014. Sketch-based influence maximization and computation: Scaling up with guarantees. In Proceedings of the CIKM. 629–638.
Paul Dagum, Richard M. Karp, Michael Luby, and Sheldon M. Ross. 1995. An optimal algorithm for monte carlo estimation (Extended Abstract). In Proceedings of the FOCS. 142–149.
Sainyam Galhotra, Akhil Arora, and Shourya Roy. 2016. Holistic influence maximization: Combining scalability and efficiency with opinion-aware models. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 743–758.
Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez, David Balduzzi, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2011. Uncovering the temporal dynamics of diffusion networks. In Proceedings of the ICML. 561–568.
Amit Goyal, Francesco Bonchi, and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. 2010. Learning influence probabilities in social networks. In Proceedings of the WSDM. 241–250.
Amit Goyal, Wei Lu, and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. 2011. CELF++: Optimizing the greedy algorithm for influence maximization in social networks. In Proceedings of the WWW. 47–48.
Amit Goyal, Wei Lu, and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. 2011. SIMPATH: An efficient algorithm for influence maximization under the linear threshold model. In Proceedings of the ICDM. 211–220.
Qintian Guo, Sibo Wang, Zhewei Wei, and Ming Chen. 2020. Influence maximization revisited: Efficient reverse reachable set generation with bound tightened. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. ACM, 2167–2181.
Keke Huang, Sibo Wang, Glenn S. Bevilacqua, Xiaokui Xiao, and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. 2017. Revisiting the stop-and-stare algorithms for influence maximization. PVLDB 10, 9 (2017), 913–924.
David Kempe, Jon M. Kleinberg, and Éva Tardos. 2003. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the SIGKDD. 137–146.
Andreas Krause and Daniel Golovin. 2014. Submodular function maximization. In Proceedings of the Tractability: Practical Approaches to Hard Problems. Cambridge University, 71–104.
Wei Lu, Wei Chen, and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. 2015. From competition to complementarity: Comparative influence diffusion and maximization. PVLDB 9, 2 (2015), 60–71.
Brendan Lucier, Joel Oren, and Yaron Singer. 2015. Influence at scale: Distributed computation of complex contagion in networks. In Proceedings of the SIGKDD. 735–744.
Hung T. Nguyen, Thang N. Dinh, and My T. Thai. 2016. Cost-aware targeted viral marketing in billion-scale networks. In Proceedings of the INFOCOM. 1–9.
Hung T. Nguyen, Thang N. Dinh, and My T. Thai. 2018. Revisiting of “Revisiting the Stop-and-Stare Algorithms for Influence Maximization”. In Proceedings of the CSoNet. 273–285.
Hung T. Nguyen, Tri P. Nguyen, NhatHai Phan, and Thang N. Dinh. 2017. Importance sketching of influence dynamics in billion-scale networks. In Proceedings of the ICDM. 337–346.
Hung T. Nguyen, Tri P. Nguyen, Tam N. Vu, and Thang N. Dinh. 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.
Hung T. Nguyen, My T. Thai, and Thang N. Dinh. 2016. Stop-and-stare: Optimal sampling algorithms for viral marketing in billion-scale networks. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 695–710.
Naoto Ohsaka, Takuya Akiba, Yuichi Yoshida, and Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi. 2014. Fast and accurate influence maximization on large networks with pruned monte-carlo simulations. In Proceedings of the AAAI. 138–144.
Grant Schoenebeck and Biaoshuai Tao. 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.
Jing Tang, Keke Huang, Xiaokui Xiao, Laks V. S. Lakshmanan, Xueyan Tang, Aixin Sun, and Andrew Lim. 2019. Efficient approximation algorithms for adaptive seed minimization. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 1096–1113.
Jing Tang, Xueyan Tang, Xiaokui Xiao, and Junsong Yuan. 2018. Online processing algorithms for influence maximization. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 991–1005.
Youze Tang, Yanchen Shi, and Xiaokui Xiao. 2015. Influence maximization in near-linear time: A martingale approach. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 1539–1554.
Youze Tang, Xiaokui Xiao, and Yanchen Shi. 2014. Influence maximization: Near-optimal time complexity meets practical efficiency. In Proceedings of the SIGMOD. 75–86.
Rajan Udwani. 2018. Multi-objective maximization of monotone submodular functions with cardinality constraint. In Proceedings of the NeurIPS. 9513–9524.
Alastair J. Walker. 1977. An efficient method for generating discrete random variables with general distributions. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 3, 3 (1977), 253–256.
Chen XSong YTang JChua TNgo CKa-Wei Lee RKumar RLauw H(2024)Link Recommendation to Augment Influence Diffusion with Provable GuaranteesProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645521(2509-2518)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
Liu YHu YYu SZhou XLi K(2024)Conformity-aware adoption maximization in competitive social networksNeurocomputing10.1016/j.neucom.2023.127224573(127224)Online publication date: Mar-2024
SIGMOD '15: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data
Given a social network G and a positive integer k, the influence maximization problem asks for k nodes (in G) whose adoptions of a certain idea or product can trigger the largest expected number of follow-up adoptions by the remaining nodes. This ...
SIGMOD '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data
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 ...
SIGMOD '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data
Given a social network G and a constant $k$, the influence maximization problem asks for k nodes in G that (directly and indirectly) influence the largest number of nodes under a pre-defined diffusion model. This problem finds important applications in ...
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].
Chen XSong YTang JChua TNgo CKa-Wei Lee RKumar RLauw H(2024)Link Recommendation to Augment Influence Diffusion with Provable GuaranteesProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645521(2509-2518)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
Liu YHu YYu SZhou XLi K(2024)Conformity-aware adoption maximization in competitive social networksNeurocomputing10.1016/j.neucom.2023.127224573(127224)Online publication date: Mar-2024
Zhang FChen DWang SYang YGan J(2023)Scalable Approximate Butterfly and Bi-triangle Counting for Large Bipartite NetworksProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36267531:4(1-26)Online publication date: 12-Dec-2023
Guo QFeng CZhang FWang S(2023)Efficient Algorithm for Budgeted Adaptive Influence Maximization: An Incremental RR-set Update ApproachProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36173281:3(1-26)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
Li YGao HGao YGuo JWu W(2023)A Survey on Influence Maximization: From an ML-Based Combinatorial OptimizationACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data10.1145/360455917:9(1-50)Online publication date: 18-Jul-2023
Tai CTeng Y(2023)Influence Maximization within Period under Different Advance Publicity2023 9th International Conference on Applied System Innovation (ICASI)10.1109/ICASI57738.2023.10179532(136-138)Online publication date: 21-Apr-2023