skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Beyond Worst-case (In)approximability of Nonsubmodular Influence Maximization

Published:02 April 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We consider the problem of maximizing the spread of influence in a social network by choosing a fixed number of initial seeds, formally referred to as the influence maximization problem. It admits a (1−1/e)-factor approximation algorithm if the influence function is submodular. Otherwise, in the worst case, the problem is NP-hard to approximate to within a factor of N1−ε. This article studies whether this worst-case hardness result can be circumvented by making assumptions about either the underlying network topology or the cascade model. All our assumptions are motivated by many real-life social network cascades.

First, we present strong inapproximability results for a very restricted class of networks called the (stochastic) hierarchical blockmodel, a special case of the well-studied (stochastic) blockmodel in which relationships between blocks admit a tree structure. We also provide a dynamic-programming-based polynomial time algorithm, which optimally computes a directed variant of the influence maximization problem on hierarchical blockmodel networks. Our algorithm indicates that the inapproximability result is due to the bidirectionality of influence between agent-blocks.

Second, we present strong inapproximability results for a class of influence functions that are “almost” submodular, called 2-quasi-submodular. Our inapproximability results hold even for any 2-quasi-submodular f fixed in advance. This result also indicates that the “threshold” between submodularity and nonsubmodularity is sharp, regarding the approximability of influence maximization.

References

  1. Rico Angell and Grant Schoenebeck. 2017. Don,t be greedy: Leveraging community structure to find high quality seed sets for influence maximization. In Proceedings of the WINE. Springer, 16--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. W. B. Arthur. 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ. J. 99, 394 (1989), pp. 116--131. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2234208c.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Lars Backstrom, Daniel P. Huttenlocher, Jon M. Kleinberg, and Xiangyang Lan. 2006. Group formation in large social networks: Membership, growth, and evolution. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Abhijit Banerjee, Arun G Chandrasekhar, Esther Duflo, and Matthew O Jackson. 2013. The diffusion of microfinance. Science 341, 6144 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. F. M. Bass. 1969. A new product growth for model consumer durables. Manage. Sci. 15, 5 (1969), 215--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Shishir Bharathi, David Kempe, and Mahyar Salek. 2007. In Proceedings of the WINE. Springer, Berlin, 306--311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christian Borgs, Michael Brautbar, Jennifer T. Chayes, and Brendan Lucier. 2012. Influence maximization in social networks: Towards an optimal algorithmic solution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0884 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. J. Brown and P. H. Reingen. 1987. Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. J. Consumer Res. 14 (1987), 350--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. D. Centola. 2010. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329, 5996 (2010), 1194--1197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ning Chen. 2009. On the approximability of influence in social networks. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 23, 3 (2009), 1400--1415. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Wei Chen, Tian Lin, Zihan Tan, Mingfei Zhao, and Xuren Zhou. 2016. Robust influence maximization. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD. ACM, 795--804. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Wei Chen, Yajun Wang, and Siyu Yang. 2009. Efficient influence maximization in social networks. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD. ACM, 199--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Wei Chen, Yifei Yuan, and Li Zhang. 2010. Scalable influence maximization in social networks under the linear threshold model. In Proceedings of the ICDM. IEEE, 88--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Aaron Clauset, Cristopher Moore, and Mark EJ Newman. 2008. Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks. Nature 453, 7191 (2008), 98--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Coleman, E. Katz, and H. Menzel. 1957. The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry 20 (1957), 253--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. T. G. Conley and C. R. Udry. 2010. Learning about a new technology: Pineapple in Ghana. Amer. Econ. Rev. 100, 1 (2010), 35--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Paul DiMaggio. 1986. Structural analysis of organizational fields: A blockmodel approach. Res. Organiz. Behav. 8 (1986), 335--370.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. P. Domingos and M. Richardson. 2001. Mining the network value of customers. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Goldenberg, B. Libai, and E. Muller. 2001. Using complex systems analysis to advance marketing theory development: Modeling heterogeneity effects on new product growth through stochastic cellular automata. Acad. Market. Sci. Rev. 9, 3 (2001), 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sanjeev Goyal and Michael Kearns. 2012. Competitive contagion in networks. In Proceedings of the STOC. 759--774. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Mark Granovetter. 1978. Threshold models of collective behavior. Amer. J. Sociol. 83, 6 (1978), 1420--1443.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Xinran He and David Kempe. 2016. Robust influence maximization. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Paul W Holland, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey, and Samuel Leinhardt. 1983. Stochastic blockmodels: First steps. Soc. Netw. 5, 2 (1983), 109--137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Matthew O. Jackson. 2008. Social and Economic Networks. Princeton University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. David Kempe, Jon M. Kleinberg, and Éva Tardos. 2003. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD. 137--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. David Kempe, Jon M. Kleinberg, and Éva Tardos. 2005. Influential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks. In Proceedings of the ICALP. 1127--1138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. K. Lerman and R. Ghosh. 2010. Information contagion: An empirical study of the spread of news on Digg and Twitter social networks. In Proceedings of the ICWSM. 90--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jure Leskovec, Lada A. Adamic, and Bernardo A. Huberman. 2006. The dynamics of viral marketing. In Proceedings of the EC. 228--237. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Qiang Li, Wei Chen, Xiaoming Sun, and Jialin Zhang. 2017. Influence maximization with ϵ-almost submodular threshold functions. In Proceedings of the NIPS. 3804--3814. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Brendan Lucier, Joel Oren, and Yaron Singer. 2015. Influence at scale: Distributed computation of complex contagion in networks. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD. ACM, 735--744. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Vince Lyzinski, Minh Tang, Avanti Athreya, Youngser Park, and Carey E. Priebe. 2017. Community detection and classification in hierarchical stochastic blockmodels. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 4, 1 (2017), 13--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. V. Mahajan, E. Muller, and F. M. Bass. 1990. New product diffusion models in marketing: A review and directions for research. J. Market. 54 (1990), 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. S. Morris. 2000. Contagion. Rev. Econ. Studies 67, 1 (2000), 57--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Elchanan Mossel and Sébastien Roch. 2010. Submodularity of influence in social networks: From local to global. SIAM J. Comput. 39, 6 (2010), 2176--2188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. George L. Nemhauser, Laurence A. Wolsey, and Marshall L. Fisher. 1978. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions. Math. Program. 14, 1 (1978), 265--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. M. Richardson and P. Domingos. 2002. Mining knowledge-sharing sites for viral marketing. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD. 61--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Daniel M. Romero, Brendan Meeder, and Jon Kleinberg. 2011. Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: Idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on Twitter. In Proceedings of the WWW. ACM, 695--704. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1963503. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Lior Seeman and Yaron Singer. 2013. Adaptive seeding in social networks. In Proceedings of the FOCS. IEEE, 459--468. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Yaron Singer and Thibaut Horel. 2016. Maximization of approximately submodular functions. In Proceedings of the NIPS. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. D. J. Watts. 2002. A simple model of global cascades on random networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 9 (2002), 5766--5771. Retrieved from arXiv:http://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/5766.full.pdf+html.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Harrison C. White, Scott A. Boorman, and Ronald L. Breiger. 1976. Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. Amer. J. Sociol. 81, 4 (1976), 730--780. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777596.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Beyond Worst-case (In)approximability of Nonsubmodular Influence Maximization

      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 Computation Theory
        ACM Transactions on Computation Theory  Volume 11, Issue 3
        September 2019
        164 pages
        ISSN:1942-3454
        EISSN:1942-3462
        DOI:10.1145/3323875
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        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: 2 April 2019
        • Accepted: 1 December 2018
        • Revised: 1 September 2018
        • Received: 1 January 2018
        Published in toct Volume 11, Issue 3

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format