skip to main content
10.1145/2588555.2593670acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Influence maximization: near-optimal time complexity meets practical efficiency

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 June 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

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 viral marketing, and has been extensively studied in the literature. Existing algorithms for influence maximization, however, either trade approximation guarantees for practical efficiency, or vice versa. In particular, among the algorithms that achieve constant factor approximations under the prominent independent cascade (IC) model or linear threshold (LT) model, none can handle a million-node graph without incurring prohibitive overheads.

This paper presents TIM, an algorithm that aims to bridge the theory and practice in influence maximization. On the theory side, we show that TIM runs in O((k+ l) (n+m) log n2) expected time and returns a (1-1/e-ε)-approximate solution with at least 1 - n-l probability. The time complexity of TIM is near-optimal under the IC model, as it is only a log n factor larger than the Ω(m + n) lower-bound established in previous work (for fixed k, l, and ε). Moreover, TIM supports the triggering model, which is a general diffusion model that includes both IC and LT as special cases. On the practice side, TIM incorporates novel heuristics that significantly improve its empirical efficiency without compromising its asymptotic performance. We experimentally evaluate TIM with the largest datasets ever tested in the literature, and show that it outperforms the state-of-the-art solutions (with approximation guarantees) by up to four orders of magnitude in terms of running time. In particular, when k = 50, ε = 0.2, and l = 1, TIM requires less than one hour on a commodity machine to process a network with 41.6 million nodes and 1.4 billion edges. This demonstrates that influence maximization algorithms can be made practical while still offering strong theoretical guarantees.

References

  1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0900.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. http://an.kaist.ac.kr/traces/WWW2010.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Bharathi, D. Kempe, and M. Salek. Competitive influence maximization in social networks. In WINE, pages 306--311, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Borgs, M. Brautbar, J. Chayes, and B. Lucier. Maximizing social influence in nearly optimal time. In SODA, pages 946--957, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. W. Chen, W. Lu, and N. Zhang. Time-critical influence maximization in social networks with time-delayed diffusion process. In AAAI, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 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
  7. W. Chen, Y. Wang, and S. Yang. Efficient influence maximization in social networks. In KDD, pages 199--208, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. W. Chen, Y. Yuan, and L. Zhang. Scalable influence maximization in social networks under the linear threshold model. In ICDM, pages 88--97, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. P. Domingos and M. Richardson. Mining the network value of customers. In KDD, pages 57--66, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Goyal, F. Bonchi, and L. V. S. Lakshmanan. Learning influence probabilities in social networks. In WSDM, pages 241--250, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. A. Goyal, F. Bonchi, and L. V. S. Lakshmanan. A data-based approach to social influence maximization. PVLDB, 5(1):73--84, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Goyal, W. Lu, and L. V. S. Lakshmanan. Celf++: optimizing the greedy algorithm for influence maximization in social networks. In WWW, pages 47--48, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Goyal, W. Lu, and L. V. S. Lakshmanan. Simpath: An efficient algorithm for influence maximization under the linear threshold model. In ICDM, pages 211--220, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Granovetter. Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6):1420--1443, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. E. M. J. Goldenberg, B. Libai. Talk of the network: A complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Marketing Letters, 12(3):211--223, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. E. M. J. Goldenberg, B. Libai. Using complex systems analysis to advance marketing theory development. American Journal of Sociology, 9:1, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. K. Jung, W. Heo, and W. Chen. Irie: Scalable and robust influence maximization in social networks. In ICDM, pages 918--923, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 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
  19. D. Kempe, J. M. Kleinberg, and É. Tardos. In fluential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks. In ICALP, pages 1127--1138, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Kim, S.-K. Kim, and H. Yu. Scalable and parallelizable processing of influence maximization for large-scale social networks. InICDE, pages 266--277, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. K. Kutzkov, A. Bifet, F. Bonchi, and A. Gionis. Strip: stream learning of influence probabilities. In KDD, pages 275--283, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J. Leskovec, A. Krause, C. Guestrin, C. Faloutsos, J. VanBriesen, and N. Glance. Cost-effective outbreak detection in networks. In KDD, pages 420--429, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Y. Li, W. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z.-L. Zhang. In fluence diffusion dynamics and influence maximization in social networks with friend and foe relationships. In WSDM, pages 657--666, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. W. Lu, F. Bonchi, A. Goyal, and L. V. S. Lakshmanan. The bang for the buck: fair competitive viral marketing from the host perspective. In KDD, pages 928--936, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. Motwani and P. Raghavan. Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. Richardson and P. Domingos. Mining knowledge-sharing sites for viral marketing. In KDD, pages 61--70, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. K. Saito, N. Mutoh, T. Ikeda, T. Goda, and K. Mochizuki. Improving search efficiency of incremental variable selection by using second-order optimal criterion. In KES (3), pages 41--49, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. T. Schelling. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. W.W.Norton & Company, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. L. Seeman and Y. Singer. Adaptive seeding in social networks. In FOCS, pages 459--468, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. V. V. Vazirani. Approximation Algorithms. Springer, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. C. Wang, W. Chen, and Y. Wang. Scalable in fluence maximization for independent cascade model in large-scale social networks. Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 25(3):545--576, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Y. Wang, G. Cong, G. Song, and K. Xie. Community-based greedy algorithm for mining top-k in fluential nodes in mobile social networks. In KDD, pages 1039--1048, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Influence maximization: near-optimal time complexity meets practical efficiency

    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
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGMOD '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data
      June 2014
      1645 pages
      ISBN:9781450323765
      DOI:10.1145/2588555

      Copyright © 2014 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: 18 June 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGMOD '14 Paper Acceptance Rate107of421submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate785of4,003submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader