Social Influence and its Applications An algorithmic and data mining study by Amit Goyal B.Tech., Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, 2005 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Computer Science) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) February 2013 c© Amit Goyal 2013 Abstract Social influence occurs when one’s actions are affected by others. If leveraged carefully, social influence can be exploited in many applications like viral marketing (or targeted advertising in general), recommender systems, social network analysis, events detection, experts finding, link prediction, ranking of feeds etc. One of the fundamental problems in this fascinating field is the problem of influence maximization, primarily motivated by the application of viral marketing. The objective is to identify a small set of users in a social network, who when convinced to adopt a product will influence others in the network leading to a large number of adoptions. The vision of our work is to take the algorithmic and data mining aspects of viral marketing out of the lab. We organize ours goals and contributions into four categories: (i) With the ever-increasing scale of online social networks, it is extremely important to develop efficient algorithms for influence maximization. We propose two algorithms – Celf++ and Simpath that significantly improve the scalability. (ii) We remark that previous studies often make unrealistic assumptions and rely on simulations, instead of validating models against real world data. For instance, they assume an arbitrary assignment of influence probabilities in their studies, which focused more on algorithms than on validity with respect to real data. We attack the problem of learning influence probabilities. In another work, we propose a novel data driven approach to influence models and show that it predicts influence diffusion with much better accuracy. (iii) Next, we propose alternative problem formulations – Mintss and Mintime and show interesting theoretical results. These problem formulations capture the problem of deploying viral campaigns on budget and time constraints. In an additional work, we take a fresh perspective on identifying community leaders using a pattern mining approach. (iv) Finally, we examine applications of social influence. We begin with the application of viral marketing. We show that product adoption is not exactly influence. Given this, we develop a product adoption model and study the problem of maximizing product adoption. Furthermore, we propose and investigate a novel problem in recommender systems, for targeted advertising – Recmax. ii Preface This dissertation is the result of collaboration with several researchers. The common and most influential among them is my supervisor Laks V. S. Lakshmanan from the University of British Columbia, Canada. All the studies included in this dissertation are published in peer-reviewed venues and roughly, each publication constitutes a main technical chapter. Algorithms Celf++ and Simpath to improve the efficiency of the influence maximization solutions are included in Chapter 3 and are based on publications in WWW 2011 (companion volume) [60] and ICDM 2011 [61]. The work on learning influence probabilities from past action log of users is presented in Chapter 4 and is based on our paper in WSDM 2010 [56]. Next, a data-driven approach to social influence maximization in Chapter 5 is described in a VLDB 2012 paper [57]. Theoretical analysis on minimizing budget and propagation time in influence propagation is presented in Chapter 6 and is based on our journal in SNAM 2012 [58]. A pattern mining framework to discover community leaders in Chapter 7 is described in a CIKM 2008 paper [55]. Distinguishing product adoption from influence spread, we present techniques to maximize product adoption in Chapter 8. These results are described in a WSDM 2012 paper [17]. Finally, we formulate and study of a novel problem – Recmax which captures the problem of targeted advertising in recommender systems, in Chapter 9. It is based on our KDD 2012 paper [59]. While studies [60] and [61] were performed in collaboration with Wei Lu from University of British Colmubia, papers [56], [57] and [55] were published in collaboration with Francesco Bonchi from Yahoo! Research, Barcelona, Spain. The journal paper [58] was published in collaboration with Suresh Venkatasubramanian from University of Utah, along with Francesco Bonchi. The study [17] was performed in collaboration with Smriti Bhagat from University of British Columbia1. In [59], we did not collaborate with a third researcher. All these studies were performed under the supervision of Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. 1At the time of writing this dissertation, Smriti Bhagat was employed in Technicolor. iii Table of Contents Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Limitations and Open Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1 Inefficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2 Non-availability of Influence Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.3 Validation of Propagation Models Against Real-world Datasets . . . . . 4 1.1.4 Alternative Optimization Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.5 Alternative Solution Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.6 Influence vs Product Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1.7 Targeted Advertising in Recommender Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2 Dissertation Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3 Key Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3.1 Improving the Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3.2 Learning from Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.3.3 Alternative Problem Formulations and Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3.4 Applications of Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.4 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 Background and Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 Improving the Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.3 Modeling Influence Propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3.1 Learning Propagation Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3.2 Missing Information and Sparsification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 iv Table of Contents 2.3.3 Topic Sensitive Influence Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3.4 Does Influence Exist? Influence vs Homophily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.3.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.4 Alternative Propagation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.4.1 Discussion: Model-based Approach vs Memory-based Approach . . . . 19 2.5 Social Influence Analysis in Blogspace and Twitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.6 Revenue Maximization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.7 Competitive Cascades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.8 Other Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3 Improving the Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.1 CELF++: Optimizing the Greedy Algorithm for Influence Maximization in Social Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.1.2 CELF++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.1.3 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.1.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.2 Simpath: An Efficient Algorithm for Influence Maximization under the Linear Threshold Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.2.2 Contributions and Roadmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.3 Properties of Linear Threshold Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.4 Spread Estimation using Simpath-Spread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.5 Assembling and Optimizing Simpath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.5.1 Vertex Cover Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.5.2 Look Ahead Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.5.3 Simpath: Putting the Pieces Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.6 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.6.1 Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.6.2 Algorithms Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.6.3 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.7 Summary and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4 Learning Influence Probabilities in Social Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4.2 Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.3 Solution Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.4 Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.4.1 Static Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.4.2 Continuous Time (CT) Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.4.3 Discrete Time (DT) Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.5 Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.5.1 Learning the Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.5.2 Evaluating the Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 v Table of Contents 4.5.3 Predicting Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.6 Experimental Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.7 Conclusions and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5 A Data-Based Approach to Social Influence Maximization . . . . . . . . . . 66 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5.2 Why Data Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 5.3 Credit Distribution Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 5.4 Influence Maximization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5.4.1 Overview of Our Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5.4.2 Proof of Theorem 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 5.4.3 Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 5.5 Experimental Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 5.6 Conclusions and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 6 On Minimizing Budget and Time in Influence Propagation over Social Net- works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6.1.1 Our Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6.2 Problems Studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.3 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.3.1 Example Illustrating Performance of Wolsey’s Solution . . . . . . . . . 94 6.4 Minimum Target Set Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 6.4.1 A Bicriteria Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 6.4.2 An Inapproximability Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6.5 MINTIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 6.5.1 Inapproximability Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 6.5.2 A Tri-criteria Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 6.6 Empirical Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 6.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 7 A Pattern Mining Framework to Discover Community Leaders . . . . . . . 109 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 7.2 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 7.3 Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 7.3.1 Additional Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 7.4 Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 7.4.1 Computing Influence Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 7.4.2 Computing Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 7.4.3 Computing Tribe Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 7.4.4 Complexity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 7.5 Experimental Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 7.5.1 Dataset Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 7.5.2 Mining Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 vi Table of Contents 7.5.3 Mining Tribe Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 7.5.4 Qualitative Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 7.6 Conclusions and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 8 Maximizing Product Adoption in Social Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 8.2 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 8.3 Proposed Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 8.3.1 LT-C Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 8.3.2 Maximizing Product Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 8.3.3 Choosing Optimal Seed Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 8.3.4 Learning Model Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 8.4 Model Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 8.4.1 Adoption of Movies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 8.4.2 Adoption of Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 8.5 Conclusions and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 9 RecMax: Targeted Advertising in Recommender Systems . . . . . . . . . . 149 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 9.2 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 9.3 Background and Problem Studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 9.4 Does Seeding help? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 9.5 Complexity of RecMax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 9.6 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 9.7 Conclusions and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 10 Conclusions and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 10.1 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 vii List of Tables 3.1 Comparison between Celf and Celf++. Number of seeds = 100 in all test cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.2 Statistics of datasets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.3 Simpath’s improvement over Ldag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.4 Pruning threshold η as a trade-off between quality of seed sets and efficiency. |S| = 50. Running time in minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.1 Statistics of datasets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5.2 Size of seed set intersection for k = 50 on Flixster_Small (left) and Flickr_Small (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5.3 Notation adopted in the next sections in this chapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 5.4 Effect of truncation threshold λ on Flixster_Large. “True seeds” are the ones obtained when λ = 0.0001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 6.1 Networks statistics: number of nodes and directed arcs with non-null proba- bility, average degree, number of (strongly) connected components, size of the largest one, and clustering coefficient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 6.2 The methods used in our experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 7.1 Top 10 tribe leaders (those with the largest tribe) for two different values of pi. 126 8.1 Dataset statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 8.2 Average RMSE for different models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 9.1 Dataset statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 viii List of Figures 1.1 Summary of our contributions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 Notations used. Terms Υ, σ and P(·) can have superscripts implying that these terms are evaluated on the corresponding subgraph. E.g., σW (S) is the influence spread achieved by the seed set S on the subgraph induced by nodes in W . . . 29 3.2 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.3 The distributions of influence weights for each dataset. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.4 Influence spread achieved by various algorithms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.5 Efficiency: comparisons of running time. Running times below 0.01 minutes are not shown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.6 Comparison of memory usages by Mc-Celf, Simpath, and Ldag (logarithmic scale). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.7 Effects of Vertex Cover Optimization on the running time of Simpath’s first iteration (logarithmic scale). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.8 Size of Vertex Covers for four datasets (logarithmic scale). . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.9 Look Ahead Optimization on Flixster and DBLP: (a) and (b) show the effects of different look-ahead values ` on running time; (c) and (d) show the number of Backtrack calls reduced by Look Ahead Optimization. . . . . 44 3.10 Frequency distribution of average number of hops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.1 Frequency of common actions vs the time difference between two users perform- ing actions. (a) during the first hour at a granularity of 10 minutes; (b) during the first week at hourly granularity (without considering the cases in which the time difference is less than one hour, i.e., the cases in (a)); (c) the rest of the dataset with weekly granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.2 (a) Undirected social graph containing 3 nodes and 3 edges with timestamps when the social tie was created; (b) Action log; (c) Propagation graph for action a1 (d) Propagation graph for action a2 (e) Propagation graph for action a3 (f) Influence Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.3 (a) Action Log; (b) Propagation graph for action a4 (c) pR(.) w.r.t time for Continuous Time Model with Bernoulli. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.4 ROC comparisons of Static Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.5 ROC comparisons of Discrete Time Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.6 ROC comparisons of Static, CT, and DT models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.7 CT Bernoulli model: ROC curves for different slices of users influenceability (a) and actions influenceability (b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 ix List of Figures 4.8 Root Mean Square Error (in days) vs Accuracy in predicting time for CT models. 64 4.9 Distribution of error in time prediction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4.10 Coverage of CT models as a function of time prediction error. . . . . . . . . . . 64 4.11 (a) Training runtime. (b) Testing runtime comparison of all 3 classes of models. (c) Memory usage comparison of all 3 models in testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.1 The standard Influence Maximization process (in light blue), and our ap- proach (in magenta). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.2 Error as a function of actual spread on (a) Flixster_Small, (c) Flickr_Small; (b) Scatter plot of predicted spread vs. actual spread on Flixster_Small. The legend in all the plots follows from (a). . . . . . . . . 69 5.3 RMSE vs propagation size on Flixster_Small (left) and Flickr_Small (right). . 84 5.4 Number of propagations captured against absolute error on Flixster_Small (left) and Flickr_Small (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 5.5 Size of seed set intersection for k = 50 on Flixster_Small (left) and Flickr_Small (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.6 Influence spread achieved under CD model by seed sets obtained by various models on Flixster_Small (left) and Flickr_Small (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.7 Running time comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 5.8 Runtime (left) and memory usage (right) against number of tuples. . . . . . . . 87 5.9 Influence spread achieved and number of “true” seeds with respect to number of tuples used on Flixster_Large (left) and Flickr_Large (right). . . . . . . . . 88 6.1 Example. Rectangles represent the elements in the universe. The shaded area within a rectangle represents the coverage function f for the element. e.g., f(v1) = 1/2 + 1/2 = 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 6.2 Experimental results on MINTSS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 6.3 Experimental results on MINTIME with fixed budget. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 6.4 Experimental results on MINTIME with fixed Coverage Threshold. . . . . . . . 106 7.1 (a) Example social graph; (b) A log of actions; (c) Propagation of action a and (d) of action b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 7.2 The propagation graph of an action PG(a) in fig.(a), Inf8(u4, a) in fig.(b), Inf8(u2, a) in fig.(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 7.3 (a) Action log; (b) Propagation graph visible in current window for a action; (c) Influence Vector for the current nodes; (d) Queue for the current action; (e) Lock Bit Vector for the current action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 7.4 The dataset used in the experimentation: (a) nodes degree distribution, (b) distribution of the size of the connected components, (c) distribution of ratings per movie, and (d) distribution of ratings per user. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 7.5 (a) Number of leaders found on Yahoo! Movies dataset, with pi = 9 weeks, for σ ∈ [1, 10] and ψ ∈ [5, 50]; (b) number of confidence leaders with ψ = 5 and varying confidence threshold; (c) number of genuine leaders with ψ = 5 and varying genuineness threshold; (d) number of leaders with varying σ and pi. . . 123 x List of Figures 7.6 (a) Histogram of genuineness of leaders for pi = 9 weeks, (b) comparison between number of leaders and number of tribe leaders with varying ψ, (c) comparison of number of tribe leaders for three different pi, (d) and the corresponding run time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 8.1 LT-C model with colored end states: adopt–green, promote–blue, inhibit–red . 133 8.2 Distribution of edge weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 8.3 Summary of datasets and distributions of model parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 141 8.4 Coverage obtained with different models on Flixster and Movielens datasets . . 142 8.5 Accuracy of estimated coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 8.6 Coverage and seed set analysis on Flixster and Movielens datasets . . . . . . . . 145 8.7 Summary of dataset and distributions of model parameters for Last.fm . . . . . 146 8.8 Coverage and seed set analysis on Last.fm dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 9.1 Hit Rate achieved by random seed set on Movielens dataset on User-based (left) and Item-based (right). The plots show that even when the seed sets are selected randomly, seeding does help and exhibits impressive gains in hit score. . . . . . 155 9.2 Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 9.3 (a) Summary of datasets; (b)-(d) Distributions of ratings. . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 9.4 Distributions of users’s rating thresholds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 9.5 Hit Score achieved with various algorithms on different datasets on User-based RS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 9.6 Hit Score achieved with various algorithms on different datasets on Item-based RS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 9.7 Comparison of User-based and Item-based RS with the algorithm Most- Central. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 xi Acknowledgments One validation of the ideas about social influence described in this dissertation is my life at UBC. My life, thoughts and ideas have been deeply influenced by people around me. This dissertation would not have been in this shape without them. It is a great pleasure to express my sincere thanks here. It is not easy to express my gratitude to my Ph.D. supervisor Dr. Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. He is an outstanding human being. He has remarkable enthusiasm for problem solving and research. He takes great effort in explaining things clearly and intuitively. He showed deep insights whenever I was at a loss and encouraged me whenever I felt down. He gave me complete freedom to explore the problems and research directions I wanted to explore. He never turned down my unsolicited visits and requests. It has been a lot of fun and honor to work with him. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank Dr. Francesco Bonchi from Yahoo! Research, Barcelona. I was lucky to interact with him when he came to UBC during my early days in Ph.D. All my research works in initial years in Ph.D. was in collaboration with him. Even though he lives in a different continent in a different time zone, he is always available for any help or discussion. He keeps things simple and intuitive. He stays focused on the overall objective of the problem, while exploring various directions. My thoughts and writing style are deeply inspired by him. In a way, he has been my unofficial co-supervisor. I have been lucky to collaborate with many smart and hard working scholars. In addition to Laks and Francesco, I got opportunities to collaborate with Wei Lu and Dr. Smriti Bhagat from UBC, and Prof. Suresh Venkatasubramanian from University of Utah. Wei is talented and very hard working chap. Weekdays or weekends, days or nights, he is always available, both for work and drinks. We spent many night outs in the lab and had a lot of fun working together. I am sure that he will do excellent job in his Ph.D. and have a successful career. Smriti is a fantastic collaborator. Brain-storming with her is so much fun. She is always cheerful. When it comes to work, she has many novel ideas. She has this rare ability to work for days continuously without needing rest or sleep. She expresses her thoughts clearly and is an extraordinary writer. I learnt a lot from her. Working with Suresh was another fruitful experience. He is a theoretician and brings fresh perspectives to the problems. He is very funny and explains complicated theoretical stuff intuitively. I would like to thank my Ph.D. supervisory committee members – Raymond Ng and Arvind Gupta. They challenged me with insightful questions and gave me immensely helpful comments over the research direction. I also thank faculty members at the DMM lab at UBC: Raymond Ng and Rachel Pottinger. My research skills have been greatly influenced through close interaction with them by personal meetings, classes, and group seminars. Three other people who have had deep influence on me are Naresh Kumar, Harman Bajwa, xii Acknowledgments and Pooja Mehra. We worked in a startup (called Namkis) together. We had several insightful discussions and I learnt a new perspective to look at things from them. I thank other graduate students in the DMM lab at UBC for their friendship, feedback on my work and advises on various matters: Naresh Kumar, Wei Lu, Shailendra Agarwal, Min Xie, Pei Lee, Vignesh, Glenn Bevilacqua, Shealen Clare, Hongrae Lee, Solmaz Kolahi, Jian Xu, Wendy Hui Wang, Shaofeng Bu, Mohammad Tajer, Byung-Won On, Zhaohong Chen (Charles), Xueyao Liang (Sophia), Tianyu Li, Simona Radu, Yun Lou, Pooya Esfandiar, Ali Moosavi, Dibesh Shakya, April Webster. Last, but most importantly, I am greatly indebted to my family. My Ph.D. has been a rather long journey since I decided to pursue an academic career. My parents, sisters and brother have been very understanding and supportive all the years. I also would like to thank my brother in law Puneet Gupta for his support and tips about life. My wife, Dolly, has always been very supportive. I was able to follow my passion since I knew I have home and loving family. Nothing would have been possible without their love, support and sacrifice. They are behind all I do. xiii Let noble thoughts come to us from every side. – Rig Veda xiv Chapter 1 Introduction Through the ages, humans’ desire to communicate with each other has led to several extraordi- nary inventions. From cave drawings and developing alphabets to telephones, radios, printing press, televisions and computers, the technologies with which we communicate have evolved by leaps and bounds. Today, computers powered by internet have revolutionized the way we communicate with each other. In the process of communicating and sharing knowledge and ideas, we influence each other’s conventions, beliefs, ideas, and ultimately behavior. The study of this social influence has long attracted the attention of psychologists, marketing scientists and even politicians. The last decade has seen scholars from computer science getting engaged with this fascinating field. Meanwhile, the emergence of Web 2.0 and social media platforms like Facebook2 and Twitter3 has greatly facilitated a large scale algorithmic and data mining study on social influence by providing massive amounts of data. The goal of this dissertation is to study social influence and its applications from an algorithmic and data mining perspective. Social influence occurs when one’s actions are affected by others. Rashotte defined social influence as change in an individual’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and behaviors that results from interaction with another individual or a group [107]. Social influence takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard described two psychological needs that lead humans to conform to the expectations of others. These include our need to be right, and our need to be liked [41]. If leveraged carefully, social influence can be exploited in many applications. In the field of data mining, some recognized applications include viral marketing (or targeted advertising in general), recommender systems, analysis of information diffusion in Social Media like Twitter and Facebook, events detection, experts finding, link prediction and ranking of feeds4. Other interesting problems like outbreak detection, human and animal epidemics, immunization are also related to the study of social influence. Consider viral marketing for instance. Consider a social network where users perform various actions. As an example, a user in Twitter may decide to buy a new camera and decide to post a tweet about it. Here, posting a tweet is an action. As another example, a user in Yahoo! Movies5 may decide to rate the movie There will be blood, which is also an action. As a third example, a user in Twitter may decide to ask her followers to support a campaign and spread the word. In each of these examples, users may choose to let their network friends see their actions. Seeing actions performed by their friends may make users curious and may sometimes tempt some fraction of the users to perform those actions themselves, some of the 2http://www.facebook.com/ 3http://www.twitter.com/ 4E.g. Facebook wall feeds 5http://movies.yahoo.com/ 1 Chapter 1. Introduction time. Informally, we can think of this as influence (for performing certain actions) propagating from users to their network friends, potentially recursively. If such influence patterns repeat with some statistical significance, that can be of interest to companies, say for targeted advertising. For example, if we know that there are a small number of “leaders” who set the trend for various actions, then targeting them for adoption of new products or technology could be profitable to the companies. This kind of targeted advertising is called “Viral Marketing” [42, 78, 109]. The idea behind viral marketing is to identify a small set of key influential “individ- uals” in a social network, who when convinced to adopt a product shall influence others in the network leading to a large number of adoptions. In addition to viral marketing, social influence has been leveraged in other applications like recommender systems [7, 106, 120, 124, 125] analysis of information diffusion in Social Media like Twitter [13, 30, 98, 110, 131, 139, 142], events detection [29, 116], experts finding [43, 129], link prediction [11, 39, 54], and ranking of feeds [117]. Furthermore, patterns of influence can be taken as a sign of user trust and exploited for computing trust propagation [49, 64, 127, 143] in large networks and in P2P systems. In recent times, the notion of influence has been at the center-stage of many startups and companies. For example, Klout 6 and similarly, Peerindex 7 claim to measure social influence scores of users who integrate their Facebook and Twitter profiles with Klout (or Peerindex). One of the fundamental problems in the study of social influence is the problem of Influ- ence Maximization, motivated by the application in viral marketing: The problem, as originally defined by Kempe et al. [78], is as follows: given a social network represented by a directed graph with users as nodes, edges corresponding to social ties, edge weights capturing influence probabilities, and a budget k, the goal is to find a seed set of k users such that by targeting these, the expected influence spread (defined as the expected number of influenced users) is maximized. Here, the expected influence spread of a seed set depends on the influ- ence diffusion process which is captured by a model for influence propagation, or propagation model . In other words, the propagation model governs how influence diffuses or propagates through the network. While several propagation models exist, two classical models, namely Linear Threshold (LT) and Independent Cascade (IC), have been widely studied in the literature. In both, at a given time, each node can be either active or inactive. Each node’s tendency to become active increases monotonically as more of its neighbors become active, and an active node never becomes inactive again. Time unfolds in discrete steps. In the IC model, each active neighbor u of a node v has one shot at influencing v and succeeds with probability pu,v, the probability with which u influences v. In the LT model, each node v is influenced by each neighbor u according to a weight pu,v, such that the sum of incoming weights to v is no more than 1. Each node v chooses a threshold θv uniformly at random from [0, 1]. At any timestamp t, if the total weight from the active neighbors of an inactive node v is at least θv, then v becomes active at timestamp t+ 1. In both the models, the process repeats until no new node becomes 6http://www.klout.com/ 7http://www.peerindex.com/ 2 1.1. Limitations and Open Problems active. Given a propagation model m (e.g., IC or LT) and an initial seed set S ⊆ V , the expected number of active nodes at the end of the process is the expected (influence) spread, denoted by σm(S). 1.1 Limitations and Open Problems 1.1.1 Inefficiency One limitation with the framework proposed by Kempe et al. [78] is the inefficiency of the solution algorithms. They showed that while the Influence Maximization is NP-hard, the objective function (expected influence spread) under both independent cascade and linear threshold models is monotone and submodular. A set function f : 2U → R+ is monotone if f(S) ≤ f(T ) whenever S ⊆ T ⊆ U . It is submodular if f(S ∪ {w}) − f(S) ≥ f(T ∪ {w}) − f(T ) for all S ⊆ T and w ∈ U \ T . Intuitively, monotonicity indicates that as the size of seed set increases, the expected spread cannot decrease. Similarly, submodularity says the marginal gain f(S ∪ {w}) − f(S) from adding a new node w shrinks as the seed set grows. This property is also known as the law of diminishing returns. Exploiting these properties, Kempe et al. [78] presented a simple greedy algorithm which repeatedly picks the node with the maximum marginal gain and adds it to the seed set, until the budget k is reached. However, computing exact marginal gain (or exact expected spread) under both the independent cascade and linear threshold models is #P-hard [35, 37]. Hence, it is estimated by running Monte Carlo simulations. This greedy algorithm, referred to as simple greedy henceforth, approximates the problem within a factor of (1 − 1/e − ) for any > 0. It is worth mentioning that in each run of Monte Carlo simulations, a possible world, representing a deterministic graph, is realized from the probabilistic graph. The spread of the seed set in a possible world is then the number of nodes reachable from the seed set (note that the spread includes the nodes in the seed set as well). Several such possible worlds are formed (typically 10,000) and the average of spread is taken to estimate the expected influence spread. The simple greedy algorithm suffers from the following severe performance drawbacks: (i) The Monte Carlo simulations that are run sufficiently many times (typically 10,000) to obtain an accurate estimate of (expected) spread prove to be very expensive. (ii) The simple greedy algorithm makes O(nk) calls to the spread estimation procedure (Monte Carlo in this case) where n is the number of users in the network and k is the size of the seed set to be picked (also known as budget). Unsurprisingly, the algorithm doesn’t scale up to large real world social networks. As we show in Chapter 5, it may take even more than a month to select a seed set on a network of just 10,000 users. 1.1.2 Non-availability of Influence Probabilities The framework employed in previous works, including by Kempe et al. [78] requires two kinds of data – a directed graph and an assignment of probabilities (or weights) to the edges of the graph, capturing degrees of influence. In real life, while the graph representing social network is often explicitly available, edge probabilities are not. To mitigate this, previous 3 1.1. Limitations and Open Problems works have resorted to simply making assumptions about these probabilities. The methods adopted for assignment of probabilities to edges include the following: (i) treating them as constant (e.g., 0.01), (ii) drawing values uniformly at random from a small set of constants, e.g., {0.1, 0.01, 0.001} in the so-called trivalency “model”, or (iii) defining them to be the reciprocal of a node’s in-degree, in the so-called weighted cascade “model” (see e.g., [35, 36, 78]). The question of learning influence probabilities from real world data has largely been ignored. 1.1.3 Validation of Propagation Models Against Real-world Datasets Most of the previous works revolve around two classical propagation models – independent cascade and linear threshold. Both the models, although very popular, have never been tested against real world datasets. It should be noted that Kempe et al. [78], who first introduced these models to the data mining community in their seminal paper, took these models from mathematical sociology. It is not known which propagation model is more appropriate under what conditions. 1.1.4 Alternative Optimization Criteria The essence of Influence Maximization is to identify the quality seed users and recommend them to the marketers (decision makers) who would target them for the marketing of the given new product (e.g., by providing free samples or discounts). These marketers may wish to optimize other objectives, instead of maximizing influence. In the context of influence propagation, we can identify three orthogonal dimensions – the number of seed users activated at the beginning (also known as budget), the expected number of activated nodes at the end of the propagation (known as expected spread), and the time taken for the propagation. We can constrain one or two of these and try to optimize the third. In their seminal paper, Kempe, Kleinberg and Tardos [78] constrained the budget, left time unconstrained, and maximized the expected spread: this problem is known as Influence Maximization. While Influence Maximization has attracted a lot of attention, alternative optimization problems have rarely been studied. For instance, instead of constraining the budget and maximizing spread, we may wish to achieve a certain influence spread with the minimum possible budget. This captures the problem of deploying a viral campaign on a budget. Similarly, we may want to pick a seed set such that by targeting them, influence spreads as quickly as possible. This would address the issue of timing when deploying viral campaigns. Therefore, it is interesting to formulate and study alternative optimization problems. 1.1.5 Alternative Solution Frameworks Likewise, before spending money, the marketer may wish to examine various solution frame- works instead of just the “optimization” framework. The overall goal of Influence Maxi- mization is to identify small number of key individuals (or leaders) in a social network such that by targeting them, a large number of users get influenced eventually. To achieve this goal, Influence Maximization has been formulated as an optimization problem (described above). While this formulation is elegant and extremely popular, it is interesting to formulate the problem using alternative frameworks, say for example, a pattern mining framework. 4 1.2. Dissertation Goals 1.1.6 Influence vs Product Adoption Even though Targeted Advertising (or Viral Marketing) has been the primary motivation of the problem of Influence Maximization, it has rarely been studied directly. While the overall strategy of the two problems is same, that is, identify a small set of key individuals for targeting, there are important differences. For instance, previous works on Influence Maximization tacitly assume that a user who is influenced about a product necessarily adopts the product and encourages her friends to adopt it. However, an influenced user may not adopt the product herself, and yet form an opinion based on the experiences of her friends, and share this opinion with others. Furthermore, a user who adopts the product may not like it and hence not encourage her friends to adopt it to the same extent as another user who adopted and liked the product. This is independent of the extent to which those friends are influenced by her. Previous works do not account for these phenomena. Hence, it is important to distinguish adoption from influence. 1.1.7 Targeted Advertising in Recommender Systems Previous works only account for influence which flows over explicit social links only. This may be suitable for social networks like Facebook or Twitter. For example, on Facebook, the wall feeds are the primary source of flow of information. These wall feeds are composed of actions performed by friends. Similarly, on Twitter, the tweets that are thrown to a user v are usually posted from the users that are followed by user v. However, recently, a different type of “social networks” has emerged, known as recom- mender systems. In a short span of time, they have become extremely popular and successful. Some examples of recommender systems are Amazon8 (a product recommendation engine), Youtube9 (a video recommendation engine) and Netflix10 (a movie recommendation engine). In recommender systems, items (or information) are presented to users based on the items (or information) that a user has acted upon earlier. The flow of information (or influence) in these social networks is not via explicit friendship links, but based on recommendation system models. Hence, targeted advertising in recommender systems require that these information channels are being taken in account. 1.2 Dissertation Goals The ultimate goal of this dissertation is to take the algorithmic and data mining aspects of viral marketing out of the lab. While it is too optimistic to hope to solve all the problems inherent in this one dissertation, we aim to focus on some key problems. More precisely, we address the limitations and open problems mentioned above. We divide our goals in four categories as follows. 1. We identify inefficiency of Influence Maximization algorithms as one of key bottle- necks in applying them in real world settings, especially in the era of ever-increasing 8http://www.amazon.com/ 9http://www.youtube.com/ 10http://www.netflix.com/ 5 1.3. Key Contributions scale of online social networks. Therefore, developing highly scalable algorithms for Influence Maximization is one of our goals. 2. Another issue we realized in the previous studies of social influence is the lack of data driven approaches. Even though the motivating scenarios are primarily inspired from real world marketing applications, the framework studied by Kempe et al. [78] and subsequent works [35–37, 79, 82] are theoretical and lack the validation against the real world data. A key goal of this dissertation is to investigate the approaches driven by the real world data. 3. As a third goal, we aim to improve the role that a human (marketer) plays while designing a viral campaign. A marketer, to make informed decisions, needs to play with various parameters and settings. To this end, we propose alternative problem formulations. There are three orthogonal dimensions in the context of influence propagation – budget, spread achieved and time. We can constrain one or two of these and try to optimize the third. Influence Maximization constrains the budget, leaves time unconstrained, and maximizes the expected spread. Other optimization problems are interesting to study. In addition, instead of seeing viral marketing as an optimization problem, a marketer may be interested in looking for “leaders” in general, and their followers (or tribes). Providing these flexible choices by formulating different problem statements and approaches is one of the goals of this dissertation. 4. Finally, we wish to investigate the motivating applications of the study of social influ- ence, like viral marketing, and in general targeted advertising. As mentioned above, influence does not necessarily imply product adoption, and hence, maximizing product adoption instead of influence requires a different strategy. Moreover, with the emergence of different types of social networks, and in particular, recommender systems, the paths of flow of influence (or information) may not correspond to friendship links only. This complex flow of influence calls for different solution strategies. Our final goal in this dis- sertation is to study the applications of social influence, including in such unconventional social networks. 1.3 Key Contributions Based on the goals mentioned above, we make the following key contributions in this disser- tation (for detailed contributions, see the respective chapters). The contributions are summa- rized in Figure 1.1. 1.3.1 Improving the Efficiency Considerable work has been done to improve the scalability of influence maximization algo- rithms [35–37, 82, 91]. Exploiting the property of submodularity of the objective function, Leskovec et al. [91] developed a “lazy-forward” optimization known as Celf which improves the efficiency of the greedy algorithm proposed by Kempe et al. [78] by up to 700 times. Moreover, various efficient heuristics (which do not guarantee any worst case approximation 6 1.3. Key Contributions Propagation log Social graph Seed set Learn Influence Probabilities (Chapter 4) Efficient Algorithms (Chapter 3) Direct Mining (Chapter 5) For influence maximization For minimizing budget For minimizing propagation time Direct Mining (Chapter 7) Community Leaders (Chapter 6) Viral Marketing in Social Networks (Chapter 8) Targeted Advertising in Recommender Systems (Chapter 9) Applications: Figure 1.1: Summary of our contributions. factor, but work well in practice) have been proposed, particularly for the independent cas- cade model [35, 36, 82]. On the other hand, relatively less work has been done for the linear threshold model [37]. CELF++. In Section 3.1, we introduce Celf++ that further optimizes Celf by exploiting submodularity. Our experiments show that it improves the efficiency of Celf by 17-61%. Since the optimization introduced in Celf++ is orthogonal to the method used for estimating the influence spread, our idea can be combined with the heuristic approaches that are based on the greedy algorithm to obtain highly scalable algorithms for influence maximization. SIMPATH. We also develop Simpath, an efficient and effective heuristic for influence max- imization under the linear threshold model. While Celf++ is an optimization that has no trade-offs with the quality of seed sets obtained, Simpath is a heuristic. Moreover, it is de- signed specifically for linear threshold model. We show through extensive experiments on four real datasets that our Simpath algorithm is more efficient, consumes less memory and pro- duces seed sets with larger spread of influence than Ldag heuristic [37], the previous state of art algorithm (Chapter 3). 1.3.2 Learning from Data Learning Influence Probabilities in Social Networks. In Chapter 4, we attack the problem of learning influence probabilities from real world data. We propose models and algorithms for learning the model parameters. In addition, we also develop techniques for 7 1.3. Key Contributions predicting the time by which a user may be expected to perform an action. We show that influence probabilities are not static and may change over time. We introduce the metrics of user influenceability and action influence quotient. Users (actions) with high values for this metric do experience genuine influence compared to those with low values. We test our models and algorithms on the Flickr data set where for actions, we take users joining online communities. The data set consists of a graph with 1.3M nodes and more than 40M edges and an action log with 35M tuples referring to 300K different actions. A Data-Based approach to Social Influence Maximization. Next, in Chapter 5, we perform a large scale experimental study to test various propagation models against real world datasets. We found that classical propagation models like independent cascade (IC) and linear threshold (LT) models grossly overpredict the spread of influence in most cases. On account of this, we develop a data driven framework for the problem of Influence Maximization. In particular, we introduce a new model, which we call credit distribution, that directly lever- ages available propagation traces to learn how influence flows in the network and uses this to estimate expected influence spread. Our approach also learns the different levels of influence- ability of users, and it is time-aware in the sense that it takes the temporal nature of influence into account. We show that credit diffusion model is way more accurate than IC or LT model in modeling influence propagation. We show that influence maximization under the credit distribution model is NP-hard and that the function that defines expected spread under our model is submodular. Based on these, we develop an approximation algorithm for solving the influence maximization problem. We also build a highly scalable algorithm for Influence Maximization under credit distribution model (Chapter 5). 1.3.3 Alternative Problem Formulations and Frameworks Alternative optimization problems – MINTSS and MINTIME. In Chapter 6, we study a couple of alternative optimization problems which are naturally motivated by resource and time constraints on viral marketing campaigns. In the first problem, termed Minimum Target Set Selection (orMintss for short), an expected spread threshold η is given and the task is to find the minimum size seed set such that by activating it, at least η nodes are eventually activated in the expected sense. This naturally captures the problem of deploying a viral campaign on a budget. In the second problem, termed Mintime, the goal is to minimize the time in which a predefined spread is achieved. More precisely, inMintime, a spread threshold η and a budget threshold k are given, and the task is to find a seed set of size at most k such that by activating it, at least η nodes are activated in the expected sense, in the minimum possible time. This problem addresses the issue of timing when deploying viral campaigns. Both these problems are NP-hard, which motivates our interest in their approximation. For Mintss, we develop a simple greedy algorithm and show that it provides a bicriteria approximation. We also establish a generic hardness result suggesting that improving this bicriteria approximation is likely to be hard. For Mintime, we show that even bicriteria and tricriteria approximations are hard under several conditions. We show, however, that if we allow the budget for number of seeds k to be boosted by a logarithmic factor and allow the spread to fall short, then the problem can be solved exactly in PTIME, i.e., we can achieve the 8 1.3. Key Contributions required spread within the time achieved by the optimal solution to Mintime with budget k and coverage threshold η (Chapter 6). A Pattern Mining framework. The overall goal of Influence Maximization is to identify small number of key individuals (or leaders) in a social network such that by targeting them, a large number of users get influenced eventually. To achieve this goal, Influence Maximization has been formulated as an optimization problem (described above). While this formulation is elegant and extremely popular, it is interesting to formulate the problem from alternative perspectives. In Chapter 7, we introduce a novel frequent pattern mining approach to discover leaders and tribes in social networks. We consider alternative definitions of leaders based on frequent patterns and develop algorithms for their efficient discovery. In particular, we consider social networks where users perform actions. Actions may be as simple as tagging resources (urls) as in Delicious11, rating songs as in Yahoo! Music12, or movies as in Yahoo! Movies13, or users buying gadgets such as cameras, handhelds, etc. and blogging a review on the gadgets. Intuitively, we want to think of user u as a leader w.r.t. an action a provided u performed a and within a chosen time bound after u performed a, a sufficient number of other users per- formed a. Furthermore, we require that these other users are reachable from u thus capturing the role social ties may have played. Finally, we may want to extract leadership w.r.t. per- forming actions in general or performing a class of actions. In other words, we say that a user u is a leader if sufficiently many actions performed by her have been followed by sufficiently large number of other users (reachable from u in the propagation trace) in a sufficiently small time window. Similarly, we say that a leader u is a “tribe-leader” if the set of influenced users (users who follow u’s actions) remains the same across various actions performed by u. The user u along with the set of these influenced users is termed as a “tribe”. We develop efficient algorithms for extracting various kinds of leaders from an input data consisting of a social graph and a table of user actions. We demonstrate the utility and scalability of our algorithms, via an extensive set of experiments on a real-world dataset obtained by joining data coming from Yahoo! Messenger14 (the social graph) and Yahoo! Movies (the actions log, where the action corresponds to rating a movie). 1.3.4 Applications of Social Influence Applications in Viral Marketing. In Chapter 8, we argue that it is important to distin- guish product adoption from influence. We propose a model that factors in a user’s experience (or projected experience) with a product. We adapt the classical Linear Threshold (LT) prop- agation model by defining an objective function that explicitly captures product adoption, as opposed to influence. We show that under our model, adoption maximization is NP-hard and the objective function is monotone and submodular, thus admitting an approximation algo- rithm. We perform experiments on three real popular social networks – Flixster, Movielens15 11http://www.delicious.com/ 12http://www.music.yahoo.com/ 13http://www.movies.yahoo.com/ 14http://www.messenger.yahoo.com/ 15http://movielens.umn.edu/ 9 1.4. Outline and Last.fm16 and show that our model is able to distinguish between influence and adoption, and predict product adoption much more accurately than the classical LT model. Targeted advertising in Recommender Systems. In Recommender Systems, the flow of information (or influence) happens not via explicit friendship links, but based on recom- mendation system models. Hence, targeted advertising in recommender systems require these information channels to be taken in account. In Chapter 9, we propose a novel problem Recmax (short for recommendation maximization): Given a recommender system, a budget of k and a new product ρ, find k users (called seed set) to whom ρ should be marketed such that if they endorse the product by providing relatively high ratings, the number of other users to whom the product is recommended by the underlying recommender system algorithm is maximum. We motivate Recmax with real world applications. We show that seeding can make a substantial difference, if done carefully. We prove that Recmax is not only NP-hard to solve optimally, it is NP-hard to even approximate within any reasonable factor. Given this hardness, we explore several natural heuristics on 3 real world datasets – Movielens, Yahoo! Music 17 and Jester Joke 18 and report our findings. We show that even though Recmax is hard to approximate, simple natural heuristics may provide impressive gains, for targeted marketing using recommender systems. 1.4 Outline The rest of this dissertation is organized as follows. In Chapter 2, we provide a brief background and review related work. Chapter 3 corresponds to the first goal – that is, to improve the efficiency and scalability of Influence Maximization algorithms. In Chapter 4, we address the problem of learning influence probabilities, while in Chapter 5, we introduce a data driven approach to Influence Maximization. Both these chapters are related to our second goal which is to validate social influence propagation against real world datasets. The next two chapters – Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 are associated with our third goal which is to formulate different but important problem statements and approaches aimed at providing marketer(s) flexible choices. Chapter 6 proposes two alternative problems – MINTSS and MINTIME and in Chapter 7, we introduce a pattern mining approach to discover community leaders. Our final goal is to study the applications of social influence which we perform in the next two chapters. In Chapter 8, we show that influence is different from product adoption and propose a model for product adoption. In Chapter 9, we apply targeted advertising in recommender systems. Finally, in Chapter 10, we conclude and present future work. 16http://www.last.fm/ 17http://www.music.yahoo.com/ 18http://eigentaste.berkeley.edu/user/ 10 Chapter 2 Background and Related Work Work in influence propagation spans the fields of statistics, economics, computer science, sociology, psychology and marketing. It is an extremely difficult task to review the studies from all these fields, and we do not dare to do it in this dissertation. Our work is primarily inspired from the application of Viral Marketing and this related work review mainly focuses on the studies done in computer science field, meanwhile we provide pointers to various surveys performed by other researchers. 2.1 Background The study of the spread of influence through a social network, i.e., the extent to which peo- ple are likely to be influenced by actions of their friends has a long history in the social sciences. The first investigations focused on the adoption of medical [38] and agricultural innovations [132]. Later marketing researchers have investigated the diffusion process of the “word-of-mouth" effect and its application to the so-called viral marketing [15, 51, 95]. We recommend readers to read [90] for a survey. The first work to consider the propagation of influence and the problem of identification of influential users by a data mining perspective is [42, 109] (see [20] for a survey on social influence from a data mining perspective). Later, Kempe et al. [78] formulated the problem of Influence Maximization as an optimization problem, as described above. Kempe et al. [78] mainly focus on two propagation models – the Independent Cascade (IC) and the Linear Threshold (LT) models. In both, at a given time, each node can be either active or inactive. Each node’s tendency to become active increases monotonically as more of its neighbors become active, and an active node never becomes inactive again. Time unfolds in discrete steps. In the IC model, each active neighbor u of a node v has one shot at influencing v and succeeds with probability pu,v, the probability with which u influences v. In the LT model, each node v is influenced by each neighbor u according to a weight pu,v, such that the sum of incoming weights to v is no more than 1. Each node v chooses a threshold θv uniformly at random from [0, 1]. At any timestamp t, if the total weight from the active neighbors of an inactive node v is at least θv, then v becomes active at timestamp t+ 1. In both the models, the process repeats until no new node becomes active. Given a propagation model m (e.g., IC or LT) and an initial seed set S ⊆ V , the expected number of active nodes at the end of the process is the expected (influence) spread, denoted by σm(S). The input to the Influence Maximization problem is a directed and edge-weighted social graph G = (V,E, p), where V represents the set of users/nodes, E represents the set of 11 2.2. Improving the Efficiency edges/links among users and p represents the weights on the edges such that pu,v denote the influence probability on the edge (u, v) ∈ E, Formally, the problem is defined as follows. Problem 1 (Influence Maximization). Given a directed and edge-weighted social graph G = (V,E, p), a propagation model m, and a number k ≤ |V |, find a set S ⊆ V , |S| ≤ k, such that σm(S) is maximum. Under both the IC and LT propagation models, this problem is shown to be NP-hard [78]. Kempe et al., however, showed that the function σm(S) is monotone and submodular. A function f from sets to reals is monotone if f(S) ≤ f(T ) whenever S ⊆ T . A function f is submodular if f(S+w)−f(S) ≥ f(T+w)−f(T ) whenever S ⊆ T .19 Intuitively, monotonicity indicates that as the size of seed set increases, the expected influence spread cannot decrease. Submodularity intuitively says an active node’s probability of activating some inactive node v does not increase if more nodes have already attempted to activate v and v is hence more “marketing-saturated”. It is also called the law of “diminishing returns”. For any monotone submodular function f with f(∅) = 0, the problem of finding a set S of size k such that f(S) is maximum, can be approximated to within a factor of (1 − 1/e) by a greedy algorithm [103], a result that directly carries over to the influence maximization problem [78] (see Algorithm 1). The complex step of the greedy algorithm is in line 3, where we select the node that provides the largest marginal gain σm(S+w)−σm(S) with respect to the expected spread of the current seed set S. Computing the expected spread given a seed set is #P-hard under both the IC model [35, 72] and the LT model [37]. In their paper, Kempe et al. run MC simulations of the propagation model for sufficiently many times (the authors report 10, 000 trials) to obtain an accurate estimate of the expected spread, resulting in a very long computation time. Clearly, accuracy improves as more simulations are employed. Kempe et al. claimed that for any fixed φ > 0, there is a δ > 0 such that using (1 + δ)-approximate values of the expected influence spread, we can obtain a (1 − 1/e − φ)-approximation for the Influence Maximization problem. Finally, due to Hoeffding Inequality, it can be calculated how many monte carlo simulations are required in order to achieve (1 + δ)-approximate values of the expected influence spread, for any fixed δ > 0 [72]20. Long story short, it is possible to find a seed set S of size k such that σm(S) ≥ (1− 1/e−φ) · σm(S∗) where S∗ is the optimal seed set of size k. 2.2 Improving the Efficiency We now present related work that has been done from other researchers for improving the efficiency of the greedy algorithm. Note that there are two sources of inefficiency in the greedy algorithm: (i) The monte carlo simulations that are run sufficiently many times to obtain an accurate estimate of influence spread prove to be very expensive. (ii) The simple greedy 19In the rest of the thesis, we write S + w in place of S ∪ {w} and similarly S − T in place of S \ T . 20In practice, it is found that usually 10,000 trials of monte carlo simulations are enough for the accurate estimate. 12 2.2. Improving the Efficiency Algorithm 1 Greedy Input: G, k, σm Output: seed set S 1: S ← ∅ 2: while |S| < k do 3: u← arg maxw∈V−S(σm(S + w)− σm(S)); 4: S ← S + u 5: end while algorithm makes O(nk) calls to the spread estimation procedure (monte carlo in this case) where n is the number of nodes in the graph and k is the size of the seed set to be picked. Leskovec et al. [91] exploited submodularity to develop an efficient algorithm based on a “lazy-forward” (known as Celf) optimization in selecting new seeds. The idea is that the marginal gain provided by a node in the current iteration cannot be better than the marginal gain provided by it in the previous iterations. For the sake of completeness, we provide the pseudo-code of the greedy algorithm, when optimized with Celf (Algorithm 2). Algorithm 2 Greedy optimized with Celf Input: G, k, σm Output: seed set S 1: S ← ∅; Q← ∅. 2: /* First iteration */ 3: for each u ∈ V do 4: u.mg = σm({u}); u.flag = 0. 5: Add u to Q in decreasing order of mg. 6: end for 7: /* Celf */ 8: while |S| < k do 9: u = top (root) element in Q. 10: if u.flag == |S| then 11: S ← S ∪ {u}. 12: Q← Q− {u}. 13: else 14: u.mg = σm(S ∪ {u})− σm(S). 15: u.flag = |S|. 16: Reinsert u into Q and heapify. 17: end if 18: end while We use σm(S) to denote the expected influence spread of seed set S under the propagation model m (like IC or LT). The optimization works as follows. Maintain a heap Q with nodes corresponding to users in the network G. The node of Q corresponding to user u stores a tuple of the form 〈u.mg, u.flag〉. Here u.mg = σm(S ∪ {u})− σm(S), the marginal gain of u w.r.t. the current seed set S and u.flag is the iteration number when u.mg was last updated. In the first iteration, marginal gains of each node is computed and added to Q in decreasing order of marginal gains (lines 1-6). Later, in each iteration, look at the top node u in Q and see if 13 2.2. Improving the Efficiency its marginal gain was last computed in the current iteration (using the flag attribute). If yes, then, due to submodularity, u must be the node that provides maximum marginal gain in the current iteration, and hence, it is picked as the next seed (lines 9-12). Otherwise, recompute the marginal gain of u, update its flag and re-insert it in the Q such that the order of marginal gains is maintained (lines 13-16). It is easy to see that this optimization avoids the recomputation of marginal gains of all the nodes in any iteration, except the first one. The Celf optimization results in 700 times speedup in the greedy algorithm as shown by experiments in [91]. In Section 3.1, we propose Celf++ that further optimizes Celf by exploiting submodularity. Our experiments show that it improves the efficiency of Celf by 17-61%. In spite of this big improvement over the basic greedy algorithm, greedy with Celf still faces serious scalability problems as shown in [36]. In that paper, Chen et al. propose degree discount heuristic that produces influence spread close to that of the greedy algorithm but more efficiently. However, their method is limited to IC (independent cascade) model with uniform probabilities, that is, all edges have the same probability. In [81, 82], Kimura et al. proposed two shortest path based models – Spm and Sp1m, which are special cases of the IC (independent cascade) model. Consider two nodes u and v, then the heuristic Spm only considers the influence that flows via the shortest path from u to v. Sp1m, instead considers the top-2 shortest paths from u to v. The intuition is that the majority of influence flows through shortest paths. Not surprisingly, Sp1m performs better than Spm. A critical issue with this approach is that it completely ignores the influence probabilities among users. Chen et al. [35] extended this idea by considering Maximum Influence Paths instead of shortest paths. A maximum influence path between a pair of nodes (u, v) is the path with the maximum propagation probability from u to v. Based on this, the authors propose two models: maximum influence arborescence (Mia) model and its extension prefix excluding Mia (Pmia) model. We observe in Chapter 6 that these heuristics perform badly on high influence graphs, that is, when the influence probabilities through links are large. Wang et al. [135] proposed an alternative approach. They argue that most of the diffusion happens only in small communities, even though the overall networks are huge. Taking this as an intuition, they first split the network in communities, and then using a greedy dynamic programming algorithm, they select seed nodes. To compute the marginal gain of a prospective seed node, they restrict the influence spread to the community to which the node belongs. The focus on their study was on IC model. Both papers – by Wang et al. [135] and by Chen et al. [35] appeared in the same conference in the same year (KDD 2010) and hence, it remains unclear which of these two have better performance. For LT (linear threshold) model, relatively less work has been done. Narayanam et al. [102] proposed an alternative approach for LT model based on Shapely value. Their algorithm Spin (ShaPely value-based Influential Nodes) is slower than the greedy algorithm and thus not scalable [37]. Chen et al. [37] proposed Ldag heuristic for LT model. They observe that while computing the expected spread is #P-hard in general graphs, it can be computed in linear time in DAGs (directed acyclic graphs). They exploit this property by constructing local DAGs (LDAG) for every node in the graph. A LDAG for user v contains the nodes that have significant influence over v (more than a given threshold θ). Based on this idea, 14 2.3. Modeling Influence Propagation they propose a heuristic called Ldag which provides close approximation to Greedy algorithm and is highly scalable. In Chapter 3, we propose Simpath heuristic for LT model and show through extensive experiments on four real datasets that our Simpath algorithm is more efficient, consumes less memory and produces seed sets with larger spread of influence than Ldag. 2.3 Modeling Influence Propagation 2.3.1 Learning Propagation Probabilities We attack the problem of learning influence probabilities in Chapter 4. Our work was one of the initial works to address this problem. After that, a lot of work has been done to model diffusion probabilities, propagation traces, inferring missing propagation networks and other related modeling issues. In this section, we perform a brief survey of these recent works. Saito et al. [114] focused on learning propagation probabilities under the IC model. They formally define the likelihood maximization problem and then apply EM (Expectation Max- imization) algorithm to solve it. While their formulation is elegant, there are two issues in their approach. First, since EM is an iterative algorithm, it may not be scalable to very large social networks. This is due to the fact that in each iteration, the EM algorithm must update the influence probability associated to each edge. Second, the propagation traces data (log of actions – actions that various users perform in a social network, including timestamps) that is used as input to learn probabilities is very sparse – in particular, it follows a long tail dis- tribution, that is, most of the users perform very few actions. As a result, the EM algorithm is vulnerable to overfitting and may result in bad quality seed sets, as we show in Chapter 5. Later, Saito et al. [112, 113] extended the IC and LT models to make them time-aware and proposed methods to learn influence propagation probabilities for these extended models. The authors argue for incorporating time delay in action propagations where the time delay is on a continuous time scale, for IC model in [112] and for LT model in [113]. Their argument is in line with our work in Chapter 4 where we show that influence probabilities decrease over time, and hence, a time delay parameter is necessary in modeling the influence propagation. Saito et al. use EM based approaches to learn propagation probabilities, like in their previous work [114], described above. In a recent paper, the same set of authors recognizes the issue of overfitting (as we explain above) that comes with this approach [115]. In [115], the authors propose to consider node attributes as well in learning probabilities. Cao et at. [27] argue that above mentioned works assume that propagation traces (which user perform what action at what time) which are usually available to social network platforms and not to the outsiders, mainly due to privacy reasons. They proposed “active learning” framework for learning influence probabilities under linear threshold (LT) model. In active learning framework, the information diffusion data is constructed strategically by sending free products to some users and monitor how their social neighbors react. One of the goals in their study is to design techniques such that the influence probabilities are learnt in as few free products as possible, while at the same time, these probabilities are useful for Influence Maximization. They proposed a weighted sampling algorithm and show that it performs better than a baseline random sampling algorithm. In the process, they show an interesting 15 2.3. Modeling Influence Propagation result that Influence Maximization problem is sensitive to influence probabilities in LT model. 2.3.2 Missing Information and Sparsification Gomez-Rodriguez et al. [53] highlighted the issue of missing and unobserved information in diffusion data. They argue that even though it is possible to directly detect whether and when a node has become activated (or infected), observing individual transmissions (i.e., who infected whom or who influences whom) is typically very difficult. Moreover, in many applications, the underlying diffusion paths are unobserved. They formalized the problem as an optimization problem of finding k best edges that maximizes the likelihood of the observed data. The problem is NP-hard and the authors proposed approximation algorithms. Their modeling builds on independent cascade model. Sadikov et al. [111] studied the problem of estimating properties of a target cascade (or propagation tree) C, given only its fraction C′, obtained by uniform sampling of C nodes. They proposed a k-tree model of cascade to predict the missing data such as the size and depth of the propagation tree. Gomez-Rodriguez [52] focus on the temporal dynamics of diffusion networks. More pre- cisely, given the cascade data, they estimate the transmission rates of each edge that best explain the observed data. Yang et al. [142] on the other hand, model the propagation without requiring the infor- mation about the social graph. They proposed Linear Influence Model, where the rate of adoption is modeled as depends on which other nodes got infected in the past. Their model is similar of Bass’ model [15], described below in Section 2.4, in a way that both ignore the social graphs. Mathioudakis et al. [97] proposed an alternative problem of finding k most important links in a network that maximizes the likelihood of the observed propagations. They refer to the problem as “sparsification of influence networks”. The idea is that by keeping only the most important links in an influence network one can identify the backbone of the social influence propagation. This can be useful in qualitative analysis of influence propagation. Sparsification can also be employed in optimizing the algorithms for analyzing influence propagation. Although inferring missing data, or most important parts of data in the context of influence propagation is a related and an interesting problem, we do not study it in this dissertation. 2.3.3 Topic Sensitive Influence Analysis Tang et al. [129] introduce the problem of topic-based social influence analysis. Given a social network and a topic distribution for each user, the problem is to find topic-specific subnetworks, and topic-specific influence weights between members of the subnetworks. They propose a Topical Affinity Propagation (TAP) approach using a graphical probabilistic model. They also deal with the efficiency problem by devising a distributed learning algorithm under the Map-reduce programming model. Lie et al. [94] propose a generative graphical model which utilizes the content and link information associated with each node (here, a node can be a user, or a document) in the 16 2.3. Modeling Influence Propagation network to mine topic-level direct influence. Woo et al. [141] studied the diffusion of violent topics (that deals with terrorism and extremism) in web forums to identify the exposure process of extreme opinions. The adapt the SIR propagation model (described below in Section 2.4) and apply to a major international Jihadi forum that expounds extreme ideology. One of the interesting finding they report is that “anti-America” is the most infectious topic while “wear-hijab” is the least infectious topic. Our work in Chapter 8 is related to topic-modeling. Although, we do not explicitly model the topics, we use collaborative filtering data to model user opinions in product adoption diffusion. This indirectly accounts for topic diffusion. 2.3.4 Does Influence Exist? Influence vs Homophily In addition to social influence, homophily (or selection) has been shown to be a possible cause of users’ actions. Homophily is defined as the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others. The presence of homophily has been discovered in a vast array of network studies. In 2001, within their extensive review paper, sociologists McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook [99] cite over one hundred studies that have observed homophily in some form or another. These include age, gender, class, organizational role, and so forth. In particular, Watts challenges the very notion of influential users that are often assumed in viral marketing papers [13, 136–138]. In data mining community as well, several studies has shown the existence of homophily [6, 8, 39, 88, 122]. While some [6, 8] focus on distinguishing the effects of influence and homophily, others [39, 88] showed the feedback effects that both factors have on each other. Crandall et al. [39], in particular, showed that both influence and homophily can be useful in predicting users’ future behavior. Huang et al. [71] empirically analyzed the effects of word-of-mouth recommendations on real-world online social networks and content sharing communities. They show strong impact that word-of-mouth recommendations can have on users’ behavior. Hill et al. [68] provides an excellent survey on word-of-mouth marketing methods with an emphasis on the statistical methods and the data used to which these methods are being applied. They cite several studies which show the effect of influence in product adoption. In addition, they show, empirically, that users who are connected to active neighbors (neighbors who have already influenced w.r.t. a product), are 3-5 times more likely to adopt the product. One popular case study they talked about is “Hotmail” (www.hotmail.com). The hotmail free email service started in July 1996, and by early 1997, it had over 1 million subscribers [101]. Manchanda et al. [96] study the effect of social influence in the context of pharmaceutical industry, with their data containing the launch of a new drug. The two factors their study considered in modeling physician’s decision to adopt the new drug were general marketing and the social contagion. They found that (general) marketing plays a large (relative) role in affecting adoption early on. However, the role of contagion dominates from month 4 onwards and, by month 17 (or about half the duration of our data), asymptotes to about 90% of the effect. Another recent and popular study that shows the presence of influence is done by Iyengar et al. [73]. One of the goals in the study of social influence and in particular influence maximization is 17 2.4. Alternative Propagation Models to build models that can predict users’ actions, without necessarily distinguishing the causes. Therefore, even if homophily and not influence is the primary cause of a user’s action, it is often helpful to model it in the propagation/diffusion probabilities in prediction. 2.3.5 Discussion Above, we briefly described the studies that have been performed to model the influence propagation. In this dissertation, we also spend substantial efforts in modeling influence and product adoption (see Chapters 4, 5 and 8). Even after all these works, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. For example, we still do not know what are the best methods to learn influence probabilities in case of LT model. Even for IC model, we do not know how to solve over-fitting issues in the methods proposed by Saito et al. [114]. Furthermore, the kind of datasets that are available from different sources are usually different. For example, in some datasets, we are aware of social graph while in other, the social graph is not even present and the information propagates through implicit links. Similarly, in some cases, we are aware of timestamps at which users perform actions, and in other cases, we are not aware of these timestamps. Finally, on some datasets, it may be possible that influence plays a significant role while on other datasets, homophily is a major driver of users’ behavior. All of these issues have made the task of modeling influence propagation very difficult. 2.4 Alternative Propagation Models In addition to IC and LT models, various other propagation models have been proposed to model influence spread. One of the first and popular was proposed by Bass [15]. Bass said that product diffusion follows a S-shaped curved, where adoption is slow at first, takes off exponentially and flattens at the end. He modeled rate of adoption as a function of users who have already adopted the product. It does not explicitly account for the structure of the social network. Another popular propagation model is SIR – susceptible, infected, recovered. SIR has been extensively studied in the context of disease propagation where a person is first susceptible to the disease, then she can become infected with a probability β if exposed to the infection (that is, to an infected neighbor in the social network). Subsequently, the person recovers at rate r. Once a person recovers, she becomes immune to the disease. In the context of social influence, some studies that focused on SIS models (and its extensions) are [83, 138, 141] among others. Kempe et al. [78], in addition to LT and IC models, also proposed a broader framework that simultaneously generalizes the LT and IC models, and that has equivalent formulations in terms of thresholds and cascades. In the General Threshold Model, each node v has a monotone activation function fv : 2N(v) → [0, 1], from the set of neighbors N of v, to real numbers in [0, 1], and a threshold θv, chosen independently and uniformly at random from the interval [0,1]. A node v becomes active at time t + 1 if fv(S) ≥ θv, where S is the set of neighbors of u that are active at time t. Decreasing Cascade Model is similar to the Independent Cascade Model, except that it allows the probability that u succeeds in activating a neighbor v to depend on the set S of v’s 18 2.5. Social Influence Analysis in Blogspace and Twitter neighbors that have already tried. Thus, an incremental function pv(u, S) is defined where S and {u} are disjoint subsets of v’s neighbor set. LT (Linear Threshold) model is a special case of General Threshold model and IC (In- dependent Cascade) model is a special case of Decreasing Cascade model. Kempe et al. [78] showed that General Threshold and Decreasing Cascade models have the same expressive power. That is, every instance of one model has an equivalent instance of other model. Note that even though these “general” models are equivalent, the special case models LT and IC remains two distinct models. 2.4.1 Discussion: Model-based Approach vs Memory-based Approach Most of the approaches to identify influential users in social networks can be classified as model- based approaches. That is, a propagation model is assumed that is supposed to capture the flow of influence. The parameters of the model are then learnt from the observed propagation traces. Finally, to estimate the influence spread of a user, the propagation model is used. In Chapter 5, we propose an alternative memory-based approach to estimate influence spread of users. We show empirically that our memory based approach is more accurate in estimating influence spread, than popular model based approaches. The discussion of model- based approach vs memory based approach is similar in spirit with that in recommender systems [108]. 2.5 Social Influence Analysis in Blogspace and Twitter Considerable work has been done on analyzing social influence on blogs and micro-blogs, particularly on Twitter (http://twitter.com), perhaps due to easiness of collecting data from Twitter. Agarwal et al. [3] investigated the problem of identifying the influential bloggers in a community. They showed that most influential bloggers are not necessarily most active. Gruhl et al. [63] analysed the information diffusion in blogspace by characterizing the individuals and the topics of the blog postings. In [53], the authors look into the problem of inferring networks of diffusion and influence in blogspace. On Twitter, Cha et al. [30] compared three different measures of influence – indegree (number of followers), retweets and user mentions. They observed that users who have large number of followers are not necessarily influential in terms of spawning retweets or mentions. Weng et al. [139] discovered that almost 72.4% of the users in Twitter follow more than 80% of their followers. They attributed the cause of this “reciprocity” to homophily. Based on this observation, they proposed a topic-sensitive PageRank measure for influence in Twit- ter. However, Cha et al. [30] has shown that the reciprocity is low overall in Twitter and contradicted the assumptions of this work. Romero et al. [110] showed that the majority of users act as passive information consumers and do not forward the content to the network. They proposed techniques to learn users’ passivity. They argue that information about passivity of users in a network may be useful from the perspectives of viral marketing. 19 2.6. Revenue Maximization Bakshy et al. [13] found that the largest cascades tend to be generated by users who have been influential in the past and who have a large number of followers. They also reported that predictions of which particular user or URL will generate large cascades are relatively unreliable. Consequently, they concluded that word-of-mouth diffusion can only be harnessed reliably by targeting large numbers of potential influencers, thereby capturing average ef- fects. The authors made these claims based on the prediction model they employed which is regression trees. It remains unclear whether other modeling approaches would improve the prediction accuracy. Tsur et al. [131] incorporated the contents of the tweets, which they derive from hashtags, to predict the spread of a tweet. They show that a combination of content features with temporal and topological features reduces the prediction error. Our dissertation does not specifically analyze influence on Twitter, but the techniques we propose are fairly general in nature and can be applied to Twitter propagation trees as well. 2.6 Revenue Maximization Instead of optimizing influence, a couple of studies [10, 65] focus on optimizing the revenue by explicitly considers pricing models for products. Hartline et al. [65] propose a family of strategies called influence-and-exploit strategies that work as follows. In the first step (influence step) the seller gives the item to a chosen set of customers for free. Then in the exploit step, the seller visits the remaining buyers in a random sequence and offers them a price in order to maximize the revenue. The assumption is that the decision of the buyers depends on the customers chosen in the first step and the price offered to them. Furthermore, buyers themselves do not influence each other. They propose various settings and in the general case, the problem is NP-hard and approximation algorithms are developed. Later, Arthur et al. [10] also work on a similar problem. Their model is inspired by the independent cascade model and work as follows. If a node u buys a product, say at time step t, it recommends the product to all its inactive neighbors. At that time, the seller offers a different price to each of the inactive neighbor. If the inactive neighbor decides to buy the product, a fixed cashback reward is given to the recommender. If there are multiple recommenders, then the buyer must choose only one of them for the cashback reward. The process is repeated until there are no more activations. In such settings, finding a seller strategy that maximizes the revenue is NP-hard. The authors develop approximation algorithms based on influence- and-exploit idea. Their model is different from Hartline’s model in two ways: a) The seller is not allowed to pick an initial seed set, instead the seed set is given as input; b) In Hartline’s model, the seller is allowed to visit the nodes in an arbitrary manner (in the exploit step), their model make use of the network structure and the timing of an offer made to a customer depends on the cascade of recommendations. Singer [121] approached this problem as the question: How do we influence the influencers?. That is, how to ensure that the seed users that are selected by the influence maximization algorithms are activated? The author argued that there is a cost attached to activate the seed users and focus on identifying it. 20 2.7. Competitive Cascades In Chapter 8, we study a similar problem of maximizing product adoption, instead of influence or revenue. The overall goal of our problem is same, but our framework is very different. We provide detailed differences in the Chapter. 2.7 Competitive Cascades Another natural extension of Influence Maximization problem is to introduce a competitive setting. Instead of one product, there can be multiple products in the market all competing with each other. In [18], Bharathi, Kempe and Salek extended the IC (independent cascade) model to the competitive setting as follows. Each node is either active or inactive. If it is active, then it has adopted exactly one of the multiple products in the market. Once a node adopts a product, it cannot adopt another product. When a node u becomes active at time t w.r.t product r, it makes exactly one attempt to activate each of its inactive neighbor v w.r.t product r. It succeeds with a probability pu,v. If it succeeds, the node v activates at time t + Tu,v, where Tu,v is an independent and exponentially distributed continuous random variable. The process continues until there are no more new activations. In the beginning of the game, each of the b players (corresponding to b products) selects a seed set Si of at most ki nodes. A node selected by multiple players adopts one of the products randomly. The authors propose the best response strategies for the players and prove that for the last player to commit the strategy, the solution obtained by the simple greedy algorithm is within (1− 1/e) factor of the optimal solution of the best response. This is due to the monotonicity and submodularity properties of the objective function. Kostka et al. [85] examined the diffusion of competing rumors in social networks. Their propagation model is again an adaptation of IC (independent cascade) model. Suppose there are b competing rumors. Each node can be either inactive (state 0), or active w.r.t. one of the rumor or in state ∞, where the node rejects all rumors. When a node becomes active w.r.t a rumor r, say at time step t, it attempts to activate each of its inactive neighbors w.r.t the rumor. There are no probabilities on the edges and hence the assumption is that each node trusts the first rumor it encounters and adopts it. If there is more than one rumor, then the node rejects all the rumors and goes to the state ∞. The propagation continues until there are no more activations. Consider the simplest setting when there are only two competing rumors/players. Let player 1 is the first one to commit the strategy such that he knows the number of seeds picked by player 2 but doesn’t know the exact seeds (as player 2 hasn’t committed to its strategy yet). The authors prove that not only it is NP-hard to compute the optimal strategy for the player 1, but it is also NP-hard to find an α-approximate solution for any 1 < α ∈ o(n). However, the second player knows the seed set picked by the first player. They prove that although it is NP-hard to find the optimal strategy, the solution provided by the simple greedy algorithm is within (1− 1/e) factor of the optimal solution. One might think that the first player is in advantage as it has more freedom to pick the seed set. The authors show through an example that it is not the case. Carnes et al. [28] consider the competitive setting from the follower’s perspective with 21 2.8. Other Related Work only two products. They propose two propagation models, namely Distance-based model and Wave propagation model. In the Distance-based model, the probability of a node v adopting a product is a function of number of nodes in the shortest paths from the two seed sets. In Wave propagation model, at any time step, an inactive node randomly picks one of its active neighbors and adopts its product. Both these models reduce to IC (independent cascade) model when there is no competition. They exploit submodularity to prove that the greedy algorithm approximates the second player’s optimal strategy within a factor of (1−1/e). Using experiments, they show that the heuristic that chooses high degree nodes is the best strategy for the first player. Moreover, if the first player doesn’t pick the initial seed set in this fashion, the second player can in fact outperform it with a relatively low budget. All the studies mentioned above extend the IC (independent cascade) model. Relatively, less work has been done on using threshold models in competitive settings. Recently, Borodin et al. [22] suggested several extensions to the linear threshold model in the competitive settings. For most of these models (all except one), they show that the greedy approach cannot be used. Furthermore, they show that for a broad family of competitive influence models, it is NP-hard to achieve an approximation that is better than a square root of the optimal solution 2.8 Other Related Work Leskovec et al. [91] study the propagation problem from a different perspective namely outbreak detection: how to select nodes in a network in order to detect the spread of a virus as fast as possible? They present a general methodology for near optimal sensor placement in these and related problems. In the same paper, they also introduced lazy-forward Celf optimization, that we have described above (Algorithm 2). Cui et al. [40] proposed an interesting problem – given a user, what item she should share with her friends such that her influence among her friends is maximized. They proposed a matrix factorization approach for item-level social influence modeling and devised an efficient projected gradient method to solve it. Aral et al. [9] investigated how incorporating viral features in the product itself helps in making a product viral. They show that viral product design features can result in identifiable peer influence and social contagion effects. They found that passive-broadcast viral messaging generates a 246% increase in local peer influence and social contagion effects, while adding active-personalized viral messaging only generates an additional 98% increase in contagion. Budak et al. [26] studied the problem of influence limitation where a bad campaign starts propagating from a certain node in the network and use the notion of limiting campaigns to counteract the effect of misinformation. The goal of their problem statement is to identify a set of individuals that should be convinced to adopt a competing (good) campaign so as to minimize the number of people that adopt the bad campaign. 22 Chapter 3 Improving the Efficiency In this chapter, we introduce novel techniques that improve the efficiency of Influence Maximization algorithms, in particular, the greedy algorithm. First, we introduce Celf++, that improves on Celf optimization [91]. We show that Celf++ is 17-61% faster than Celf. Next, we propose Simpath, an efficient and effective algorithm for influence maximization under the linear threshold model. Even though we have provided background and related work in Chapter 2, for the sake of completeness, we provide a brief background and related work here as well. WhileCelf++ optimization was appeared inWWW 2011 in the companion volume [60], Simpath appeared in ICDM 2011 [61]. Both studies are done in collaboration with Wei Lu and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. The original paper of Celf++ [60] contained a few bugs in the algorithm. We thank Wei Chen from Microsoft Research Asia for pointing out the bugs to us. Here, we present the fixed version of the paper. 3.1 CELF++: Optimizing the Greedy Algorithm for Influence Maximization in Social Networks Kempe et al. [78] showed the problem of Influence Maximization is NP-hard and a simple greedy algorithm guarantees the best possible approximation factor in PTIME. However, it has two major sources of inefficiency. First, finding the expected spread of a node set is #P-hard. Second, the basic greedy algorithm is quadratic in the number of nodes. The first source is tackled by estimating the spread using Monte Carlo simulation or by using heuristics [35– 37, 78, 82, 91]. Leskovec et al. [91] proposed the Celf algorithm for tackling the second. In this work, we propose Celf++ and empirically show that it is 17-61% faster than Celf. 3.1.1 Introduction In Influence Maximization, we are given a network G with pairwise user influence proba- bilities (as edge labels) and a number k, and want to find a set S of k users (nodes) such that the expected spread of influence (spread for short) is maximized. In their seminal work [78], Kempe et al. studied this problem, focusing on two fundamental propagation models – Linear Threshold Model (LT) and Independent Cascade Model (IC). They showed, under both models, the problem is NP-hard and a simple greedy algorithm successively selecting the node with the maximum marginal influence spread approximates the optimum solution within a factor of (1 − 1/e). This is due to the nice properties of monotonicity and submodularity that the spread function exhibits under these models. In terms of spread, monotonicity says as more neighbors of some arbitrary node u gets active, the probability of u getting active increases. 23 3.1. CELF++: Optimizing the Greedy Algorithm for Influence Maximization in Social Networks Submodularity says the marginal gain of a new node shrinks as the set grows. Function f is submodular iff f(S ∪ {w})− f(S) ≥ f(T ∪ {w})− f(T ) whenever S ⊆ T . A major limitation of the simple greedy algorithm is two-fold: (i) The algorithm requires repeated computes of the spread function for various seed sets. The problem of computing the spread under both IC and LT models is #P-hard [35, 37]. As a result, Monte-Carlo simulations are run by Kempe et al. for sufficiently many times to obtain an accurate estimate, resulting in very long computation time. (ii) In each iteration, the simple greedy algorithm searches all the nodes in the graph as a potential candidate for next seed node. As a result, this algorithm entails a quadratic number of steps in terms of the number of nodes. Considerable work has been done on tackling the first issue, by using efficient heuristics for estimating the spread [35–37, 82] to register huge gains on this front. Relatively little work has been done on improving the quadratic nature of the greedy algorithm. The most notable work is [91], where submodularity is exploited to develop an efficient algorithm called Celf, based on a “lazy-forward” optimization in selecting seeds. The idea is that the marginal gain of a node in the current iteration cannot be better than its marginal gain in the previous iterations. Celf maintains a table 〈u,∆u(S)〉 sorted on ∆u(S) in decreasing order, where S is the current seed set and ∆u(S) is the marginal gain of u w.r.t S. ∆u(S) is re-evaluated only for the top node at a time and if needed, the table is resorted. If a node remains at the top, it is picked as the next seed. Leskovec et al. [91] empirically shows that Celf dramatically improves the efficiency of the greedy algorithm. See Algorithm 2 for more details. In this work, we introduce Celf++ that further optimizes Celf by exploiting submod- ularity. Our experiments show that it improves the efficiency of Celf by 17-61%. Since the optimization introduced in Celf++ is orthogonal to the method used for estimating the spread, our idea can be combined with the heuristic approaches that are based on the greedy algorithm to obtain highly scalable algorithms for Influence Maximization. 3.1.2 CELF++ Algorithm 3 describes the Celf++ algorithm. We use σ(S) to denote the spread of seed set S. We maintain a heap Q with nodes corresponding to users in the network G. The node of Q corresponding to user u stores a tuple of the form 〈u.mg1, u.prev_best, u.mg2, u.flag〉. Here u.mg1 = ∆u(S), the marginal gain of u w.r.t. the current seed set S; u.prev_best is the node that has the maximum marginal gain among all the users examined in the current iteration, before user u; u.mg2 = ∆u(S ∪{prev_best}), and u.flag is the iteration number when u.mg1 was last updated. The idea is that if the node u.prev_best is picked as a seed in the current iteration, we don’t need to recompute the marginal gain of u w.r.t (S ∪ {prev_best}) in the next iteration. It is important to note that in addition to computing ∆u(S), it is not necessary to compute ∆u(S ∪ {prev_best}) from scratch. More precisely, the algorithm can be implemented in an efficient manner such that both ∆u(S) and ∆u(S∪{prev_best}) are evaluated simultaneously in a single iteration of Monte Carlo simulation (which typically contains 10, 000 runs). In that sense, the extra overhead is relatively insignificant compared to the huge runtime gains we can achieve, as we will show from our experiments. In addition to the data structureQ, the algorithm uses the variables S to denote the current 24 3.1. CELF++: Optimizing the Greedy Algorithm for Influence Maximization in Social Networks Algorithm 3 Greedy Celf++ Input: G, k Output: seed set S 1: S ← ∅; Q← ∅; last_seed← NULL; cur_best← NULL. 2: for each u ∈ V do 3: u.mg1← σ({u}); u.prev_best← cur_best; 4: u.mg2← ∆u{cur_best}; u.flag ← 0. 5: Q← Q ∪ {u}. Update cur_best based on u.mg1. 6: end for 7: while |S| < k do 8: u← top (root) element in Q. 9: if u.flag == |S| then 10: S ← S ∪ {u}; Q← Q− {u}; 11: last_seed← u; cur_best← NULL; 12: continue; 13: else if u.prev_best == last_seed and u.flag == |S| − 1 then 14: u.mg1← u.mg2. 15: else 16: u.mg1← ∆u(S); u.prev_best← cur_best; 17: u.mg2← ∆u(S ∪ {cur_best}). 18: end if 19: u.flag ← |S|; Update cur_best; Heapify Q. 20: end while seed set, last_seed to track the id of last seed user picked by the algorithm, and cur_best to track the user having the maximum marginal gain w.r.t. S over all users examined in the current iteration. The algorithm starts by building the heap Q initially (lines 2-6). Then, it continues to select seeds until the budget k is exhausted. As in Celf, we look at the root element u of Q and if u.flag is equal to the size of the seed set, we pick u as the seed as this indicates that u.mg1 is actually ∆u(S) (lines 7-12). The optimization of Celf++ comes from lines 13-14 where we update u.mg1 without recomputing the marginal gain. Clearly, this can be done since u.mg2 has already been computed efficiently w.r.t. the last seed node picked. If none of the above cases applies, we recompute the marginal gain of u (line 15-17). 3.1.3 Experiments We use two real world data sets consisting of academic collaboration networks: NetHEPT and NetPHY, both extracted from arXiv21. NetHEPT is taken from the “High Energy Physics – Theory” section and has 15K nodes and 32K unique edges. NetPHY is taken from the full “Physics” section and has 37K nodes and 174K unique edges. The graphs are undirected, however we make them directed by taking for each edge the arcs in both the directions. We consider the IC model and assign the influence probability to arcs using two different settings, following previous works (e.g., see [35, 36, 78]). In the first setting, for an arc (v, u) we set the influence probability as pv,u = 1/din(u), where din is the in-degree of the node u. In the 21http://www.arXiv.org 25 3.2. Simpath: An Efficient Algorithm for Influence Maximization under the Linear Threshold Model Dataset Running time (min) Avg. # node lookups Celf Celf++ Gain Celf Celf++ Gain Hept WC 245 178 27% 18.7 13.6 27.2% Hept IC 5269 2082 60.5% 190.5 113.0 40.7% Phy WC 1242 1028 17.2% 18.6 17.9 3.8% Table 3.1: Comparison between Celf and Celf++. Number of seeds = 100 in all test cases. second setting, we assign a uniform probability of 0.1 to all arcs. In all the experiments, we run 10, 000 Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the spread. The results are shown in Table 3.1. We use WC (weighted cascade) to refer to the case when the probabilities are non-uniform and IC for the uniform probability 0.1 setting. We only show the results corresponding to NetHEPT WC, NetHEPT IC, and NetPHY WC for brevity. The results for NetPHY IC are similar. In these settings, we found that computing u.mg2 for all nodes in the first iteration results in large overhead. So, we apply Celf++ starting from the second iteration. Notice that the optimization behind Celf++ can be applied starting from any iteration. As can be seen, Celf++ is significantly faster than Celf. This is due to the fact that the average number of “spread computations” per iteration is significantly lower. Since we apply the optimization starting from the second iteration, we report the average number of nodes examined starting from the third iteration. Memory Consumption: Although Celf++ maintains a larger data structure to store the look-ahead marginal gains (u.mg2) of each node, the increase of the memory consumption is insignificant. For instance, Celf consumes 21.9 MB for NetHEPT and 39.7 MB for NetPHY, while Celf++ uses 22.4 MB and 41.2 MB respectively. 3.1.4 Conclusions In this work, we presentedCelf++, a highly optimized approach based on theCelf algorithm [91] in order to further improve the naive greedy algorithm for Influence Maximization in social networks [78]. Celf++ exploits the property of submodularity of the spread func- tion for influence propagation models (e.g., Linear Threshold Model and Independent Cascade Model) to avoid unnecessary re-computations of marginal gains incurred by Celf. Our em- pirical studies on real world social network datasets show that Celf++ works effectively and efficiently, resulting in significant improvements in terms of both running time and the average number of node look-ups. 3.2 Simpath: An Efficient Algorithm for Influence Maximization under the Linear Threshold Model Kempe et al. [78] showed, among other things, that under the Linear Threshold model, the problem of Influence Maximization is NP-hard, and that a simple greedy algorithm guar- antees the best possible approximation factor in PTIME. However, this algorithm suffers from various major performance drawbacks. In this section, we propose Simpath, an efficient and 26 3.2. Simpath: An Efficient Algorithm for Influence Maximization under the Linear Threshold Model effective algorithm for Influence Maximization under the linear threshold model that ad- dresses these drawbacks by incorporating several clever optimizations. Through a comprehen- sive performance study on four real data sets, we show that Simpath consistently outperforms the state of the art w.r.t. running time, memory consumption and the quality of the seed set chosen, measured in terms of expected influence spread achieved. 3.2.1 Introduction In their seminal paper, Kempe et al. [78] formulated Influence Maximization as a discrete optimization problem: Given a directed social graph with users as nodes, edge weights reflect- ing influence between users, and a number k (called budget), find k users, called the seed set, such that by activating them, the expected spread of the influence (just spread for brevity) according to a propagation model is maximized. The influence diffusion process unfolds in discrete time steps, as captured by the propagation model. Two classical propagation models discussed in [78] are the Linear Threshold (LT) Model and the Independent Cascade (IC) Model, both taken from mathematical sociology. In both models, at any time step, a user is either active (an adopter of the product) or inactive. In the IC model, when an inactive user becomes active at a time step t, it gets exactly one chance to independently activate its currently inactive neighbors at time t+1. In the LT model, the sum of incoming edge weights on any node is assumed to be at most 1 and every user chooses an activation threshold uniformly at random from [0, 1]. At any time step, if the sum of incoming influence (edge weights) from the active neighbors of an inactive user exceeds its threshold, it becomes active. In both models, influence propagates until no more users can become active. Influence Maximization under both IC and LT models is NP-hard and the spread function is monotone and submodular [78]. A set function f : 2U → R+ is monotone if f(S) ≤ f(T ) whenever S ⊆ T ⊆ U . It is submodular if f(S ∪ {w}) − f(S) ≥ f(T ∪ {w})− f(T ) for all S ⊆ T and w ∈ U \ T . Intuitively, submodularity says the marginal gain f(S ∪ {w})− f(S) from adding a new node w shrinks as the seed set grows. Exploiting these properties, Kempe et al. [78] presented a simple greedy algorithm which repeatedly picks the node with the maximum marginal gain and adds it to the seed set, until the budget k is reached. However, computing exact marginal gain (or exact expected spread) under both the IC and LT models is #P-hard [35, 37]. Hence, it is estimated by running Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. This greedy algorithm, referred to as simple greedy henceforth, approximates the problem within a factor of (1− 1/e− ) for any > 0. Unfortunately, the simple greedy algorithm suffers from the following severe performance drawbacks: (i) The MC simulations that are run sufficiently many times (typically 10,000) to obtain an accurate estimate of spread prove to be very expensive. (ii) The simple greedy algorithm makes O(nk) calls to the spread estimation procedure (MC in this case) where n is the number of nodes in the graph and k is the size of the seed set to be picked. Considerable work has been done to address the first limitation in the case of the IC model by developing heuristic solutions for seed selection [35, 36, 82]. By contrast, for the LT model, the only similar work to our knowledge is by Chen et al. [37]. They observed that while computing the spread is #P-hard in general graphs, it can be computed in linear time on directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). Moreover, they claim that the majority of the influence flows 27 3.2. Simpath: An Efficient Algorithm for Influence Maximization under the Linear Threshold Model only within a small neighborhood and thus they construct one local DAG (LDAG) per node in the graph and assume that the influence flows to the node only through that LDAG. They experimentally show that this heuristic is significantly faster than the greedy algorithm and achieves high quality seed set selection, measured in terms of the spread achieved. While their approach is interesting, the algorithm has the following limitations: First, it relies heavily on finding a high quality LDAG. However, finding an optimal LDAG is NP- hard [37] and a greedy heuristic is employed to discover a good LDAG. Recall, their algorithm is already a heuristic and using a greedy LDAG in place of the optimal one may introduce an additional level of loss in quality of the seed set chosen in terms of the spread achieved. Second, it assumes that influence flows to a node via paths within only one LDAG and ignores influence flows via other paths. As a result, if other “ignored” LDAGs together have a high influence flow, the quality of the seed set chosen may suffer. Finally, they store all LDAGs in memory, making the approach memory intensive. From here on, we refer to their algorithm as Ldag. In our experiments, we explore each of the limitations of Ldag mentioned above. It is worth noting that Ldag is the state of the art algorithm for Influence Maximization under the LT model. Toward addressing the second limitation of the simple greedy algorithm, Leskovec et al. [91] proposed the Celf optimization that significantly reduces the number of calls made to the spread estimation procedure (MC simulation). Even though this improves the running time of the simple greedy algorithm by up to 700 times [91], it has still been found to be quite slow and definitely not scalable to very large graphs [37, 57]. In particular, the first iteration is very expensive as it makes n calls to the spread estimation procedure. It should be mentioned that Ldag was shown [37] to be significantly faster than even the simple greedy, optimized using Celf. In this chapter, we propose the Simpath algorithm for Influence Maximization under the LT model. Simpath incorporates three key novel ways of optimizing the computation and improving the quality of seed selection, where seed set quality is based on its spread of influence: the larger its spread, the higher its quality. 3.2.2 Contributions and Roadmap In Section 3.3, we establish a fundamental result on influence propagation in the LT model which says the spread of a set of nodes can be calculated as the sum of spreads of each node in the set on appropriate induced subgraphs. This paves the way for our Simpath al- gorithm. Simpath builds on the Celf optimization that iteratively selects seeds in a lazy forward manner. However, instead of using expensive MC simulations to estimate the spread, we show that under the LT model, the spread can be computed by enumerating the simple paths starting from the seed nodes. It is known that the problem of enumerating simple paths is #P-hard [133]. However, the majority of the influence flows within a small neighborhood, since probabilities of paths diminish rapidly as they get longer. Thus, the spread can be computed accurately by enumerating paths within a small neighborhood. We propose a pa- rameter δ to control the size of the neighborhood that represents a direct trade-off between accuracy of spread estimation and running time. Our spread estimation algorithm which we call Simpath-Spread is given in Section 3.4. 28 3.3. Properties of Linear Threshold Model bu,v Influence weight on edge (u, v) ΥS,v Prob. that v activates if S is the initial seed set σ(S) Expected spread of influence achieved by seed set S N in(v) Set of in-neighbors of v Nout(v) Set of out-neighbors of v P = 〈v1, ..., vm〉 A simple path from v1 to vm P(u, v) Set of all simple paths from node u to v δ Pruning threshold (see Section 3.4) ` Look-ahead value (see Section 3.5.B) Figure 3.1: Notations used. Terms Υ, σ and P(·) can have superscripts implying that these terms are evaluated on the corresponding subgraph. E.g., σW (S) is the influence spread achieved by the seed set S on the subgraph induced by nodes in W . We propose two novel optimizations to reduce the number of spread estimation calls made by Simpath. The first one, which we call Vertex Cover Optimization, cuts down on the number of calls made in the first iteration (Section 3.5.A), thus addressing a key weakness of the simple greedy algorithm that is not addressed by Celf. We show that the spread of a node can be computed directly using the spread of its out-neighbors. Thus, in the first iteration, we first construct a vertex cover of the graph and obtain the spread only for these nodes using the spread estimation procedure. The spread of the rest of the nodes is derived from this. This significantly reduces the running time of the first iteration. Next, we observe that as the size of the seed set grows in subsequent iterations, the spread estimation process slows down considerably. In Section 3.5.B, we provide another optimization called Look Ahead Optimization which addresses this issue and keeps the running time of subsequent iterations small. Specifically, using a parameter `, it picks the top-`most promising seed candidates in the start of an iteration and shares the marginal gain computation of those candidates. In Section 3.6, we show through extensive experiments on four real datasets that our Simpath algorithm is more efficient, consumes less memory and produces seed sets with larger spread of influence than Ldag, the current state of art. Indeed, among all the settings we tried, the seed selection quality of Simpath is quite close to the simple greedy algorithm. Section 3.7 summarizes the section and discusses promising directions for further research. 3.3 Properties of Linear Threshold Model Consider a digraph G = (V,E, b) with edges (u, v) ∈ E labeled with influence weights bu,v that represent the influence weight of node u on v. Kempe et al. [78] showed that the LT model is equivalent to the “live-edge" model where a node v ∈ V picks at most one incoming edge with a probability equal to the edge weight. If an edge is selected, it is considered live. Otherwise, it is considered dead/blocked. This results in a distribution over possible worlds. Then the spread is the expected number of nodes reachable from the initial seed set S over the possible worlds. Let X be any possible world and σX(S) denote the number of nodes 29 3.3. Properties of Linear Threshold Model Figure 3.2: Example reachable from S via live paths in (the deterministic graph) X where a live path is a path made of live edges. Then the spread of S, by definition, is σ(S) = ∑ X Pr[X] · σX(S) where σX(S) = ∑ v∈V I(S, v,X). Here, I(S, v,X) is the indicator function which is 1 if there is a “live" path in X from any node in S to v and 0 otherwise. Hence, σ(S) = ∑ v∈V ∑ X Pr[X] · I(S, v,X) = ∑ v∈V ΥS,v, (3.1) where ΥS,v is the probability that v activates if S is the initial seed set. We call it the total influence weight of S on v. We consider only directed paths. Let P = 〈v1, v2, ...vm〉 be a path. We write (vi, vj) ∈ P to indicate that the edge (vi, vj) belongs to path P. A simple path is a path in which no nodes are repeated. Henceforth by paths we mean directed simple paths. Clearly, Pr[P] = ∏ (vi,vj)∈P bvi,vj . By definition of the “live-edge” model, we have 22, Υu,v = ∑ P∈P(u,v) Pr[P] (3.2) where Pr[P] is the probability of a path P being live and P(u, v) is the set of all paths from node u to v. As an example, consider the influence graph shown in Fig. 9.2. The influence of node x on z is Υx,z = 0.3 · 0.2 + 0.4 = 0.46. With superscripts, we denote the corresponding subgraph considered. For example, ΥV−Su,v denotes the total influence weight of u on v in the subgraph induced by V −S. For simplicity, we write V − S for V \ S and V − S + u to denote ((V \ S) ∪ {u}). When there is no superscript, the whole graph G is considered. Fig. 3.1 summarizes the notations used in the chapter. Simpath builds on the following key result. Theorem 1. In the LT model, the spread of a set S is the sum of the spread of each node u ∈ S on subgraphs induced by V − S + u. That is, σ(S) = ∑ u∈S σV−S+u(u) We first illustrate the theorem using the example shown in Fig. 9.2. Let S = {x, y}, then according to the claim, σ(S) = σV−y(x) + σV−x(y) = 1 + 0.4 + 1 + 0.2 = 2.6 which is the correct spread of the set {x, y}. 22This definition is also used in [37]. 30 3.4. Spread Estimation using Simpath-Spread Proof of theorem 1: We claim that ΥS,v = ∑ u∈S Υ V−S+u u,v . The theorem follows from this, upon taking the sum over all nodes v ∈ V (see Eq. (3.1)). We next prove the claim. Intuitively, it says that the influence weight of a set S on node v is the sum of influence weights of each node u ∈ S on v on subgraphs induced by V −S+u. We prove the claim by induction on path lengths. Specifically, let ΥS,v(t) denote the total influence weight of S on v via all paths of length t. Clearly, ΥS,v = ∑ t ΥS,v(t). To prove the claim above, it suffices to show ΥS,v(t) = ∑ u∈S Υ V−S+u u,v (t), ∀t. Base Case: When the path length t is 0, we must have v ∈ S. Then the claim is trivial as ΥS,v(0) = ΥV−S+vv,v (0) = 1 and ΥV−S+ww,v (0) = 0, ∀w 6= v. Induction Step: Assume the claim for t. Consider paths from S to v of length t+ 1. A path of length t+1 from S to v must contain a sub-path of length t from S to some in-neighbor w of v. Clearly, this sub-path cannot pass through v (since the path is simple). Thus, we have: ΥS,v(t+ 1) = ∑ w∈N in(v) ΥV−vS,w (t) · bw,v (3.3) where N in(v) denotes the set of in-neighbors of v. By expanding the term ΥV−vS,w (t) using induction hypothesis in Eq. 3.3, we have: ΥS,v(t+ 1) = ∑ w∈N in(v) ∑ u∈S ΥV−v−S+uu,w (t) · bw,v By switching the summations, we have ΥS,v(t+1) = ∑ u∈S ∑ w∈N in(v) Υ V−v−S+u u,w (t)·bw,v =∑ u∈S Υ V−S+u u,v (t+ 1). This was to be shown. 3.4 Spread Estimation using Simpath-Spread In this section, we develop Simpath-Spread, the spread estimation algorithm used by Simpath. Eq. 3.1 and 3.2 show that the spread of a node can be computed by summing the weights (i.e., probabilities) of all simple paths originating from it. For instance, con- sider the example shown in Fig. 9.2. The spread of the node x is Υx,x + Υx,y + Υx,z = 1 + (0.3 + 0.4 · 0.5) + (0.4 + 0.3 · 0.2) = 1.96. Moreover, in Theorem 1, we show that the spread of a seed set S can be obtained as the sum of spreads of individual nodes u in S in subgraphs induced by V −S+u. Hence, the spread of a seed set can be computed by enumer- ating paths from nodes in S, although on different subgraphs. Not surprisingly, the problem of enumerating all simple paths is #P-hard [133]. However, we are interested only in path weight (that is, probability of a path being live), which decreases rapidly as the length of the path increases. Thus, the majority of the influence can be captured by exploring the paths within a small neighborhood, where the size of the neighborhood can be controlled by the error we can tolerate. This is the basis of our algorithm. We adapt the classical Backtrack algorithm [75, 86] to enumerate all simple paths as follows. We maintain a stack Q containing the nodes in the current path. Initially, Q contains only the current seed node. The algorithm calls the subroutine Forward which takes the last element in Q and adds the nodes to it in 31 3.4. Spread Estimation using Simpath-Spread a depth-first fashion until no more nodes can be added. Whenever a new node is added, the subroutine Forward ensures that it does not create a cycle and the path segment has not been explored before. If no more nodes can be added, the algorithm backtracks and the last node is removed from the stack Q. The subroutine Forward is called again to get a new path. The process is continued until all the paths are enumerated. As argued above, the majority of the influence to a node flows in from a small neighborhood and can be captured by enumerating paths within that neighborhood. Thus, we prune a path once its weight reaches below a given pruning threshold δ. Intuitively, δ is the error we can tolerate. It represents the trade-off between accuracy of the estimated spread and efficiency of the algorithm (running time). If δ is high, we can tolerate larger error and prune paths early, at the price of accuracy of our spread estimation. On the other hand, if it is low, we will explore more paths, leading to high accuracy but with increased running time. As a special case, if δ = 0, then the spread obtained would be exact. We study the effect of δ on the quality of seed set and running time in Section 3.6. The spread estimation procedure Simpath-Spread is described in Algorithms 4, 5, 6. Given a set S and a pruning threshold δ, Algorithm 4 exploits Theorem 1 to compute the spread of S. For each node u ∈ S, it calls Backtrack (line 3) which in turn takes a node u, the pruning threshold δ, a given set of nodes W ⊆ V and estimates σW (u). In addition, the algorithm also takes a set U ⊆ V which is needed to implement optimizations proposed in Section 3.5. To give a preview, in addition to computing σW (u), the algorithm also computes σW−v(u) for all nodes v ∈ U . We don’t need it right now and hence assume U to be an empty set. We will revisit to it in Section 3.5. Algorithm 4 Simpath-Spread Input: S, δ, U 1: σ(S) = 0. 2: for each u ∈ S do 3: σ(S)← σ(S) +Backtrack(u, δ, V − S + u, U). 4: end for 5: return σ(S). Algorithm 5 Backtrack Input: u, δ,W,U 1: Q← {u}; spd← 1; pp← 1; D ← null. 2: while Q 6= ∅ do 3: [Q,D, spd, pp] ← Forward(Q,D, spd, pp, δ,W,U). 4: u← Q.last(); Q← Q− u; delete D[u]; v ← Q.last(). 5: pp← pp/bv,u. 6: end while 7: return spd. The subroutine Backtrack (Algorithm 5) enumerates all simple paths starting from u. It uses a stack Q to maintain the current nodes on the path, pp to maintain the weight of the current path and spd to track the spread of node u in the subgraph induced by W . D[x] 32 3.5. Assembling and Optimizing Simpath maintains the out-neighbors of x that have been seen so far. Using this, we can keep track of the explored paths from a node efficiently. The variables are initialized in line 1. The subroutine Forward is called repeatedly which gives a new pruned path that is undiscovered until now (line 3). Then, the last node is removed from the path and the variable pp is set accordingly. Since u no longer exists in the current path, D[u] is deleted (lines 4-5). Algorithm 6 Forward Input: Q,D, spd, pp, δ,W,U 1: x = Q.last(). 2: while ∃y ∈ Nout(x): y /∈ Q, y /∈ D[x], y ∈W do 3: if pp · bx,y < δ then 4: D[x].insert(y). 5: else 6: Q.add(y). 7: pp← pp · bx,y; spd← spd+ pp. 8: D[x].insert(y); x← Q.last(). 9: for each v ∈ U such that v /∈ Q do 10: spdW−v ← spdW−v + pp. 11: end for 12: end if 13: end while 14: return [Q,D, spd, pp]. Next, we explain the Forward algorithm (Algorithm 6). It takes the last element as x on the path (line 1) and extends it as much as possible in a depth-first fashion. A new node y added to the path must be an out-neighbor of x which is not yet explored (y /∈ D[x]), should not create a cycle (y /∈ Q) and should be in the graph considered (y ∈ W ) (line 2). Lines 3-4 prune the path if its weight becomes less than the pruning threshold δ and the node y is added to the seen neighbors of x. If a node y is added to the path, the weight of the path pp is updated accordingly and the spread is updated (lines 5-7). Finally, the node y is added to the seen neighbors of x (line 8). The process is continued until no new nodes can be added to the path. Lines 9-10 are used only for the optimizations proposed in section 3.5 and can be ignored for now. 3.5 Assembling and Optimizing Simpath In the previous section, we proposed Simpath-Spread to compute the spread of a seed set. Now, we can plug it in the greedy algorithm (optimized with Celf) to obtain an algorithm for Influence Maximization. This forms the core of the Simpath algorithm. We propose two optimizations to further improve Simpath which make it highly efficient. 3.5.1 Vertex Cover Optimization Even with the Celf optimization, in the first iteration, the spread estimation needs to be done for all nodes in the graph, resulting in |V | calls to the Simpath-Spread subroutine, where 33 3.5. Assembling and Optimizing Simpath V is the set of nodes in the input social graph. This makes the selection process of the first seed particularly slow. In this section, we propose the Vertex Cover Optimization that reduces the number of calls to Simpath-Spread significantly. It leverages the Theorem 2, proved below, which says for any node v, if we have the spread values of all its out-neighbors in the subgraph induced by V − v, then we can directly compute the spread of v without making any call to Simpath-Spread. Using this insight, in the first iteration, we first split the set V of all nodes into two disjoint subsets C and V − C such that C is a vertex cover of the underlying undirected graph G′ of the directed social graph G.23 Then, we simultaneously compute for each node u ∈ C, the spread of u in G and in the subgraphs induced by V −v, for each in-neighbor v of u that is present in V −C. In Algorithm 4, this can be achieved by setting U = (V − C) ∩ N in(u) (see Algorithm 7 for details). The Backtrack subroutine remains unchanged and in the Forward subroutine, in addition to updating spd (that is, σ(u)), lines 9-10 update the variable spdV−v (which represents σV−v(u)) for all v ∈ (V − C) ∩ N in(u) properly. Note that in the first iteration, W = V . Clearly, v must not be in the current path (v 6∈ Q). Once this is done, we can use Theorem 2 to compute the spread of every node in V − C directly. Theorem 2. In the LT model, the spread of a node linearly depends on the spread of its out-neighbors as follows. σ(v) = 1 + ∑ u∈Nout(v) bv,u · σV−v(u) As an example, consider the graph shown in Fig. 9.2. Spread of node x can be computed as σ(x) = 1 + bx,y · σV−x(y) + bx,z · σV−x(z) = 1 + 0.3 · (1 + 0.2) + 0.4 · (1 + 0.5) = 1.96. Proof of theorem 2: Consider Υv,y, the influence of v on an arbitrary node y. Recall that it is the sum of probabilities of simple paths from v to y. If y ≡ v, Υv,y = 1. For y ∈ V − v, any path from v to y must pass through some out-neighbor u of v. Let P = 〈v, u, ..., y〉 be such a path. Clearly, Pr[P] = bv,u · Pr[P′], where P′ = 〈u, ..., y〉. From this, we have Υv,y = ∑ u∈Nout(v) ∑ P′∈P(u,y) bv,u · Pr[P′] where Nout(v) is the set of out-neighbors of v. Since path P does not have any cycles, P′ must not contain v and thus, we can rewrite the above equation as Υv,y = ∑ u∈Nout(v) ∑ P′∈PV−v(u,y) bv,u · Pr[P′] = ∑ u∈Nout(v) bv,u ·ΥV−vu,y where PV−v(u, y) is the set of (simple) paths from u to y in the subgraph induced by V − v. Taking the sum over all y ∈ V , we get the theorem. 23The underlying undirected graph G′ of a digraph G is obtained by ignoring the directions of edges and deleting any duplicate edges. A vertex cover of a graph is a set of vertices such that each edge of the graph is incident to at least one vertex in the set. 34 3.5. Assembling and Optimizing Simpath Finding Vertex Cover. Minimizing the number of calls to Simpath-Spread in the first iteration making use of Theorem 2, requires finding a minimum vertex cover (that is, a vertex cover of minimum size). However, this is an NP-complete problem. Fortunately, this prob- lem is approximable and several PTIME approximation algorithms are known (e.g., see [48] and [77]). However, it is important to keep in mind that the overhead in finding an approxi- mate minimum vertex cover should not overshadow the benefits coming from it, by means of saved spread estimation calls. In our experiments, we observed that when using the approximation algorithms, the amount of savings achieved is dominated by the running time of the algorithms, so we settle for a heuristic solution. We use a maximum degree heuristic that repeatedly picks a node of maximum degree and adds it into the vertex cover C whenever at least one of its incident edges is not yet covered. It does this until all edges in the (underlying undirected) graph G′ are covered, i.e., incident to at least one vertex in C. It is worth pointing out that the approxi- mation quality of the vertex cover does not affect the output quality (i.e., seed selection) of our algorithm. We employ it only to improve the efficiency of our algorithm. Thus, we recommend a fast heuristic such as the maximum degree heuristic for Vertex Cover Optimization. 3.5.2 Look Ahead Optimization As the seed set grows, the time spent on the spread estimation process increases. An important reason is that the number of calls to the Backtrack subroutine in an iteration increases hurting the performance of Simpath. For instance, if Si is the seed set after the i-th iteration (|Si| = i), then for each seed candidate x, we need to compute σ(Si+x) to obtain its marginal gain σ(Si + x)− σ(Si), where σ(Si) is known from the previous iteration. It takes i + 1 calls to Backtrack to compute σ(Si + x), resulting in j · (i + 1) calls in total, where j is the index of the seed node to be picked in the Celf queue. In other words, j is the number of nodes the algorithm ends up examining before picking the seed in the iteration. In each Backtrack call, we compute the spread of an individual node v ∈ Si + x on the subgraph induced by V − S + v. Except for the node x, the work for all other nodes in Si is largely repeated, although on slightly different graphs. In this section, we propose Look Ahead Optimization, which intelligently avoids this repetition and as a result, significantly reduces the number of Backtrack calls. We manipulate Theorem 1 as follows. σ(Si + x) = ∑ u∈Si+x σV−Si−x+u(u) (3.4) = σV−Si(x) + ∑ u∈Si σV−Si−x+u(u) (3.5) = σV−Si(x) + σV−x(Si) (3.6) Thus, if we have a set U of the most promising seed candidates to use from an iteration, say i+ 1, we can compute σV−x(Si) for all x ∈ U in the start of the iteration i+ 1. Then, for each x, we call Backtrack to compute σV−Si(x). 35 3.6. Experiments Let ` be the look-ahead value, that is, the number of most promising seed candidates in an iteration. At the beginning of the i + 1-th iteration, we select the top-` nodes as one batch from the Celf queue as U , and estimate σ(Si + x) based on Eq. (7). If the algorithm fails to find a new seed from the current batch, we take the next top-` nodes from the Celf queue as U . The process is repeated until a seed is selected (see Algorithm 7). Consequently, the optimization reduces the number of Backtrack calls to i ·dj/`e+j where dj/le is the number of batches we end up processing. The look-ahead value ` represents the trade-off between the number of batches we process and the overhead of computing σV−x(Si) for all x ∈ U . A large value of ` would ensure that the seed node is picked in the first batch itself (dj/`e = 1). However, that would be inefficient as the overhead of computing σV−x(Si) for all x ∈ U for a large U is high. On the other hand, a small value of ` would result in too many batches that we end up processing. As a special case, ` = 1 is equivalent to the optimization not being applied. We study the effect of ` on Simpath’s efficiency in Section 3.6. 3.5.3 Simpath: Putting the Pieces Together Algorithm 7 shows the complete Simpath algorithm. Lines 1-8 implement the Vertex Cover Optimization. First, the algorithm finds a vertex cover C (line 1), then for every node u ∈ C, its spread is computed on required subgraphs needed for the optimization (lines 2-4). This is done in a single call to Simpath-Spread. Next, for the nodes that are not in the vertex cover, the spread is computed using Theorem 2 (lines 6-7). The Celf queue (sorted in the decreasing order of marginal gains) is built accordingly (lines 5 and 8). Lines 9-20 select the seed set in a lazy forward (Celf) fashion using Look Ahead Optimization. The spread of the seed set S is maintained using the variable spd. At a time, we take a batch of top-` nodes, call it U , from the Celf queue (line 11). In a single call to Simpath-Spread, the spread of S is computed on required subgraphs needed for the optimization (lines 12). For a node x ∈ U , if it is processed before in the same iteration, then it is added in the seed set as it implies that x has the maximum marginal gain w.r.t. S (lines 13-16). Recall that the Celf queue is maintained in decreasing order of the marginal gains and thus, no other node can have a larger marginal gain. If x is not seen before, we need to recompute its marginal gain, which is done in lines 17-19. The subroutine Backtrack is called to compute σV−S(x) and Eq. 3.6 is applied to get the spread of the set S + x. The Celf queue is updated accordingly (line 20). 3.6 Experiments We conduct extensive experiments on four real-world datasets ranging from small to large scale, to evaluate the performance of Simpath and compare it with well-known Influence Maximization algorithms on various aspects such as efficiency, memory consumption and quality of the seed set. The code is written in C++ using the Standard Template Library (STL), and all the experiments are run on a Linux (OpenSuSE 11.3) machine with a 2.93GHz Intel Xeon CPU and 64GB memory. The code is available for download at http://people.cs.ubc.ca/~welu/ downloads.html. It includes the implementation of all the algorithms listed in this section. 36 3.6. Experiments Algorithm 7 Simpath Input: G = (V,E, b), δ, ` 1: Find the vertex cover of input graph G. Call it C. 2: for each u ∈ C do 3: U ← (V − C) ∩N in(u). 4: Compute σ(u) and σV−v(u), ∀v ∈ U in a single call to Algorithm 4: Simpath-Spread(u, δ, U). 5: Add u to Celf queue. 6: end for 7: for each v ∈ V − C do 8: Compute σ(v) using Theorem 2. 9: Add v to Celf queue. 10: end for 11: S ← ∅. spd← 0. 12: while |S| < k do 13: U ← top-` nodes in Celf queue. 14: Compute σV−x(S), ∀x ∈ U , in a single call to Algorithm 4: Simpath-Spread(S, δ, U). 15: for each x ∈ U do 16: if x is previously examined in the current iteration then 17: S ← S + x; Update spd. 18: Remove x from Celf queue. Break out of the loop. 19: end if 20: Call Backtrack(x, δ, V − S, ∅) to compute σV−S(x). 21: Compute σ(S + x) using Eq. 3.6. 22: Compute marginal gain of u as σ(S + x)− spd. 23: Re-insert u in Celf queue such that its order is maintained. 24: end for 25: end while 26: return S. 3.6.1 Datasets We use four real-world graph data sets whose statistics are summarized in Table 3.2. To obtain influence weights on edges, we adopt the methods in [56] and [78] and learn them. More precisely, we assign the weight on an edge (u, v) as bu,v = A(u, v)/N(v) where A(u, v) is the number of actions both u and v perform, and N(v) is a normalization factor to ensure that the sum of incoming weights to v is 1, i.e., N(v) = ∑ u∈N in(v)A(u, v). The distribution of influence weights for all datasets is in Fig. 3.3. The details are as follows: NetHEPT. Frequently used in previous works [35–37, 78] in this area, NetHEPT is a col- laboration network taken from the “High Energy Physics (Theory)” section of arXiv24 with nodes representing authors and edges representing co-authorship. Here, an action is a user publishing a paper, and A(u, v) is the number of papers co-authored by u and v. The numbers of nodes and directed edges in the graph are 15K and 62K respectively25. Last.fm. Taken from a popular music and online radio website with social networking fea- 24http://arxiv.org/ 25The dataset is publicly available at http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/weic/graphdata. zip 37 3.6. Experiments 1 10 100 1000 10000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fr eq ue nc y Influence Weights NetHEPT 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fr eq ue nc y Influence Weights Last.fm (a) NetHEPT (b) Last.fm 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1e+06 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fr eq ue nc y Influence Weights Flixster 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1e+06 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fr eq ue nc y Influence Weights DBLP (c) Flixster (d) DBLP Figure 3.3: The distributions of influence weights for each dataset. tures26, this network data contains 100K users, 3.15M edges, 66K groups, and 1M subscriptions [119]. We consider “joining a group” as an action, and thus, A(u, v) is the number of groups both u and v have joined. After excluding users who did not join any group, we are left with 60K users with 584K directed edges. Flixster. Taken from a social movie site27 allowing users to share movie ratings, the raw data contains 1M users with 28M edges. There are 8.2M ratings distributed among 49K distinct movies [74]28. Here, an action is a user rating a movie and thus, A(u, v) is the number of movies rated by both u and v. Users who do not rate any movies are excluded. The resulting graph contains 99K users and 978K directed edges. DBLP. A collaboration network from the DBLP Computer Science Bibliography, much larger compared to NetHEPT. We obtain all the latest bibliographic records (snapshot on June 7, 2011) available from the website. Similar to NetHEPT, A(u, v) is the number of manuscripts 26http://www.last.fm/ 27http://www.flixster.com/ 28The dataset is available at http://www.cs.sfu.ca/∼sja25/personal/datasets 38 3.6. Experiments Table 3.2: Statistics of datasets. Dataset NetHEPT Last.fm Flixster DBLP #Nodes 15K 61K 99K 914K #Directed Edges 62K 584K 978K 6.6M Avg. Degree 4.1 9.6 9.9 7.2 Maximum Out-degree 64 1073 428 950 #Connected Components 1781 370 1217 41.5K Avg. Component Size 8.55 164 81.4 22 Largest Component Size 6794 59.7K 96.5K 789K both u and v have co-authored. The graph consists of 914K nodes and 6.6M edges. 3.6.2 Algorithms Compared Besides Ldag, which is the state of art, we include several other algorithms and some generic model independent heuristics (listed below) in our empirical evaluation. High-Degree. A heuristic based on the notion of “degree centrality”, considering high- degree nodes as influential [78]. The seeds are the nodes with the k highest out-degrees. PageRank. A link analysis algorithm to rank the importance of pages in a Web graph [23]. We implement the power method with a damping factor of 0.85 and pick the k highest-ranked nodes as seeds. We stop when the score vectors from two consecutive iterations differ by at most 10−6 as per L1-norm. Mc-Celf. The greedy algorithm with Celf optimization [91]. Following the literature, we run 10, 000 Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to estimate the spread of a seed set. Ldag. The algorithm proposed in [37]. As recommended by the authors, we use the influence parameter θ = 1/320 to control the size of the local DAG constructed for each node. Simpath. Our proposed algorithm described in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 (Algorithm 7). Unless otherwise noted, the pruning threshold δ used in Simpath is set to 10−3 and the look-ahead value ` is set to 4. These values were chosen based on empirically observing the performance. Sps-Celf++. In Section 3.1, we proposed Celf++, an improvement to Celf. Thus, a natural question is whether we can obtain an algorithm better than Simpath by using Celf++ in place of Celf. We investigate this question next. More concretely, define Sps- Celf++ to be the greedy algorithm with Celf++ (instead of Celf) used to select seeds and Simpath-Spread (instead of MC) used for spread estimation. Sps-Celf++ also leverages Vertex Cover Optimization for the first iteration (Section 3.5.A). As recommended by [60], we apply Celf++ starting from the second iteration. For fairness of comparison, we set δ to the same value 10−3 that we used in Simpath. As described in Section 3.1, Celf++ works well when it is possible to compute marginal gain of a node u w.r.t. the current seed set Si and Si + x simultaneously where x is the node having the maximum marginal gain among all nodes examined in the current iteration. Next, we show how to do this within Simpath architecture. From Theorem 1, using an algebraic 39 3.6. Experiments Table 3.3: Simpath’s improvement over Ldag Dataset Improvement inSpread Running Time Memory NetHEPT 8.7% 21.7% 62.9% Last.fm 1.7% 42.9% 86.5% Flixster 8.9% 33.6% 87.5% DBLP 2.3% 67.2% 87.1% manipulation similar to that in Eq. (3.6), we can obtain σ(Si + x+ u) = σ V−x(Si + u) + σV−Si−u(x) Thus, in the i-th iteration, while computing σ(Si + u), we also compute σV−x(Si + u) by setting U = {x} in Algorithm 4. Finally, if x is selected as seed, we just compute σV−Si−u(x) to obtain σ(Si + x+ u). However, Celf++ cannot be applied in conjunction with the Look Ahead Optimization as Celf++ requires to compute σV−x(Si + u), where x is the previous best node (having maximum marginal gain), but when we compute the spread of Si on different subgraphs at the beginning of an iteration, this x is unknown. As a result, in Sps-Celf++, we can incorporate Vertex Cover Optimization but not Look Ahead Optimization. We include Sps-Celf++ in our evaluation. Since it is more efficient than simple greedy using Celf++, we do not evaluate the latter separately. 3.6.3 Experimental Results We compare the performance of the various algorithms on the following metrics: quality of seed sets, running time, memory usage, and scalability. We also study the effectiveness of our two optimizations: the Vertex Cover Optimization and Look Ahead Optimization. Table 3.3 gives an overall summary of the relative performance of Ldag and Simpath observed in our experiments. It shows the percentage improvement registered by Simpath over Ldag on quality of seed set (measured in spread), running time, and memory consumption. On all counts, it can be seen that Simpath outperforms Ldag, the state of the art. We will drill down into the details in the next subsections. Due to Mc-Celf’s lack of efficiency and scalability, its results are only reported for NetHEPT and Last.fm, the two datasets on which it can finish in a reasonable amount of time. On Quality of Seed Sets. The quality of the seed sets obtained from different algorithms is evaluated based on the expected spread of influence. Higher the spread, better the quality. For fair comparisons, we run MC simulations 10, 000 times to obtain the “ground truth” spread of the seeds sets obtained by all algorithms. Fig. 3.4 shows the spread achieved against the size of the seed set. We show the spread of the seed sets chosen by Simpath and Sps-Celf++ as one plot because they both use Algorithm 4 (Simpath-Spread) to estimate the spread and hence, the seed sets produced by both the algorithms are exactly the same. 40 3.6. Experiments 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Sp re ad o f I nf lu en ce Number of Seeds MC-CELF SimPath/SPS-CELF++ LDAG PageRank High-Degree 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Sp re ad o f I nf lu en ce (x 10 00 ) Number of Seeds MC-CELF SimPath/SPS-CELF++ LDAG PageRank High-Degree (a) NetHEPT (b) Last.fm 0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Sp re ad o f I nf lu en ce (x 10 00 ) Number of Seeds SimPath/SPS-CELF++ LDAG PageRank High-Degree 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Sp re ad o f I nf lu en ce (x 10 00 ) Number of Seeds SimPath/SPS-CELF++ LDAG PageRank High-Degree (c) Flixster (d) DBLP Figure 3.4: Influence spread achieved by various algorithms. The seed sets output by Simpath are quite competitive in quality with those ofMc-Celf. For instance, both have the spread 1408 on NetHEPT, while on Last.fm, Simpath is only 0.7% lower than Mc-Celf in spread achieved. Note that Mc-Celf is too slow to complete on Flixster and DBLP. Except for Mc-Celf, on all datasets, Simpath is able to produce seed sets of the highest quality. The biggest differences between Simpath and Ldag are seen on Flixster and NetHEPT, where the seed set of Simpath has 8.9% and 8.7% larger spread than that of Ldag, respec- tively. PageRank and High-Degree have similar performances, both being worse than Simpath, e.g., PageRank is 9.7%, 8.2%, 27.5%, and 4.7% lower than Simpath in spread achieved on NetHEPT, Last.fm, Flixster, DBLP, respectively. On Efficiency and Memory Consumption. We evaluate the efficiency and scalability on two aspects: running time and memory usage. Fig. 3.5 reports the time taken by various algorithms against the size of the seed set. Note that the plots for NetHEPT and Last.fm have a logarithmic scale on the y-axis. Mc-Celf takes 9 hours to finish on NetHEPT and 7 days on Last.fm while it fails to complete in a reasonable amount of time on Flixster and DBLP. 41 3.6. Experiments 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 R un ni ng T im e (m in) Number of Seeds MC-CELF LDAG SPS-CELF++ SimPath 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 R un ni ng T im e (m in) Number of Seeds MC-CELF LDAG SPS-CELF++ SimPath PageRank (a) NetHEPT (b) Last.fm 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 R un ni ng T im e (m in) Number of Seeds LDAG SPS-CELF++ SimPath PageRank 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 R un ni ng T im e (m in) Number of Seeds LDAG SPS-CELF++ SimPath PageRank High-Degree (c) Flixster (d) DBLP Figure 3.5: Efficiency: comparisons of running time. Running times below 0.01 minutes are not shown. High-Degree and PageRank finish almost instantly in most cases29. Except for them, Simpath is the fastest among other algorithms on all datasets. It is not only highly efficient on moderate datasets such as NetHEPT (10 seconds), but also scalable to large data, finishing in 5.6 min. on Flixster and in 12.0 min. on DBLP to select 50 seeds. Ldag is approximately twice and 3 times slower on Flixster and DBLP, respectively. On the other hand, Sps-Celf++ is less scalable than Simpath on large datasets. This is because that Sps-Celf++ is not compatible with the Look Ahead Optimization, so it makes a much larger number of calls to Backtrack (Algorithm 5) to com- pute the marginal gains of seed candidates, especially when |S| becomes large. Recall that the Vertex Cover Optimization is indeed applicable to Sps-Celf++, indicating that Look Ahead Optimization makes a substantial difference in running time between Simpath and Sps-Celf++ (more on this later). Next, we compare the memory consumption of Mc-Celf, Simpath, Sps-Celf++, and 29Running time below 0.01 min. are not shown on the plots. 42 3.6. Experiments Figure 3.6: Comparison of memory usages by Mc-Celf, Simpath, and Ldag (loga- rithmic scale). Figure 3.7: Effects of Vertex Cover Opti- mization on the running time of Simpath’s first iteration (logarithmic scale). Figure 3.8: Size of Vertex Covers for four datasets (logarithmic scale). Ldag in Fig. 3.6 (logarithmic scale). Ldag consumes the most memory among the three algorithms, as it maintains a local DAG for every single node in the graph. Relatively, the memory usage by Simpath is much less. For instance, on the largest dataset DBLP, Ldag consumes 9.3GB while Simpath uses only 1.2GB. Indeed, Table 3.3 shows that Simpath can save up to 87% of the memory footprint that is used by Ldag. On Vertex Cover Optimization. Recall that Vertex Cover Optimization aims to reduce the number of spread estimation calls in the first iteration, thus addressing a limitation of Celf. We show its effectiveness in Fig. 3.7 and 3.8 (both have logarithmic scale on Y -axis). In Fig. 3.7, we compare the running time of the first iteration of Simpath with and without the Vertex Cover Optimization. With the optimization turned on, the first iteration is 28.6%, 11.9%, 17.5%, and 13.6% faster on NetHEPT, Last.fm, Flixster, and DBLP, respectively, than without the optimization. This is because with this optimization, the number of calls to Simpath-Spread is only for a fraction of nodes in the graph (i.e., the vertex cover). Next, in Fig. 3.8, we report the size of the vertex cover found by the maximum degree 43 3.6. Experiments 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 R un ni ng T im e (m in) Number of Seeds SimPath l=1 SPS-CELF++ SimPath l=2 SimPath l=4 SimPath l=6 SimPath l=10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 R un ni ng T im e (m in) Number of Seeds SimPath l=1 SPS-CELF++ SimPath l=2 SimPath l=4 SimPath l=6 SimPath l=10 (a) Flixster (b) DBLP 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 N um be r o f C al ls to B ac kt ra ck Number of Seeds No Look Ahead Look Ahead (l=4) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 N um be r o f C al ls to B ac kt ra ck Number of Seeds No Look Ahead Look Ahead (l=4) (c) Flixster (d) DBLP Figure 3.9: Look Ahead Optimization on Flixster and DBLP: (a) and (b) show the effects of different look-ahead values ` on running time; (c) and (d) show the number of Backtrack calls reduced by Look Ahead Optimization. heuristic for each dataset. On an average, Vertex Cover Optimization reduces the num- ber of calls to Simpath-Spread by approximately 50%. On Look Ahead Optimization. We show the effectiveness of Look Ahead Optimization on Flixster and DBLP (results are similar on other two datasets). First, we choose five values to compare running time: 1 (equivalent to no look ahead), 2, 4, 6, and 10 (Fig. 3.9 (a)-(b)). We also include Sps-Celf++ (which is not compatible with this optimization) as baseline. In both cases we select 100 seeds. On both Flixster and DBLP, Simpath with small ` (1 or 2) performs poorly and is slower than Sps-Celf++. For DBLP, ` = 4 is the best choice, while ` = 6 is the best for Flixster. When ` increases to 10, the running time goes up slightly on both datasets, suggesting that to take a batch of 10 candidates introduces more overhead than the benefit brought by the optimization (see Section 3.5.B). In Fig. 3.9 (c)-(d), we show the number of Backtrack calls reduced by using the Look Ahead Optimization. On both datasets, without look-ahead, the number of 44 3.7. Summary and Future Work Table 3.4: Pruning threshold η as a trade-off between quality of seed sets and efficiency. |S| = 50. Running time in minutes. δ NetHEPT DBLP σ(S) Time σ(S) Time 10−1 1160 0.02 16592 1.02 10−2 1362 0.03 17868 2.02 10−3 1408 0.18 18076 12.0 10−4 1414 1.3 18151 104.3 10−5 1416 9.9 18350 927.2 Backtrack calls grows drastically and fluctuates when |S| increases, while with look-ahead, it grows gently and steadily, being mostly around the value of |S|. On Pruning Threshold of Simpath. To study how effectively the pruning threshold δ represents a trade-off between efficiency and quality of seed set, we run Simpath with different values of δ on one moderate dataset (NetHEPT) and one large (DBLP). The look-ahead value ` is set to 4. The results in Table 3.4 clearly show that on both datasets, as δ decreases, the running time of Simpath rises, while the estimated spread of influence σ(S) is improving. For instance, when we decrease δ from 10−3 to 10−4, the running time increases 7.7 folds while the spread is increased only by 0.41%. Other datasets follow similar behavior. It suggests that 0.001 is indeed a good choice for δ. It is worth mentioning that when δ is relatively small (e.g., 10−4 and 10−5), Simpath can even produce seed sets with larger spread than those of Mc-Celf with 10, 000 simulations (which give a spread of 1408 on NetHEPT). On Number of Hops. The next analysis we perform is how the choice of the pruning threshold is related to the average number of hops explored. Fig. 3.10 shows the distribution. On all the four datasets, the distribution follows a bell curve with the mean of either 3 or 4. For instance, on Flixster, for 60K users, the influence decays below 10−3 in 3 hops on an average. We also found that for any user, on all four datasets, the influence decays below 10−3 in a maximum of 8 hops. These statistics support our conjecture that the majority of the influence flows in a small neighborhood, and thus, even though enumerating simple paths in #P-hard in general, computation of influence spread by enumerating simple paths can be done efficiently and accurately by focusing on a small neighborhood. To summarize, our experiments demonstrate that Simpath consistently outperforms other Influence Maximization algorithms and heuristics. It is able to produce seed sets with quality comparable to those produced by Mc-Celf, but is far more efficient and scalable. Also, Simpath is shown to have higher seed set quality, lower memory footprint, and better scalability than other well-established heuristics and the state of the art Ldag. 3.7 Summary and Future Work Designing a scalable algorithm delivering high quality seeds for Influence Maximization problem under the LT model is the main goal of this chapter/section. The simple greedy 45 3.7. Summary and Future Work 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fr eq ue nc y (x 10 00 ) Average Number of Hops 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fr eq ue nc y (x 10 00 ) Average Number of Hops 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fr eq ue nc y (x 10 00 ) Average Number of Hops 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fr eq ue nc y (x 10 00 ) Average Number of Hops (a) NetHEPT (b) Last.fm (c) Flixster (d) DBLP Figure 3.10: Frequency distribution of average number of hops. algorithm is known to produce the best possible seed sets (in terms of influence spread) in PTIME but suffers from severe performance issues. The Celf optimization [91] helps reduce the number of spread estimation calls significantly, except in the first iteration. On the other hand, the Ldag heuristic proposed by Chen et al. [37], the current state of art, is shown to be significantly faster than the greedy algorithm and is often found to generate a seed set of high quality. We propose an alternative algorithm Simpath that computes the spread by exploring simple paths in the neighborhood. Using a parameter δ, we can strike a balance between running time and desired quality (of the seed set). Simpath leverages two optimiza- tions. The Vertex Cover Optimization cuts down the spread estimation calls in the first iteration, thus addressing a key limitation of Celf, while the Look Ahead Optimization improves the efficiency in subsequent iterations. Through extensive experimentation on four real data sets, we show that Simpath outperforms Ldag, in terms of running time, memory consumption and the quality of the seed sets. Currently, we are investigating extension of our techniques for other propagation models. 46 Chapter 4 Learning Influence Probabilities in Social Networks Recently, there has been tremendous interest in the phenomenon of influence propagation in social networks. The studies in this area assume they have as input to their problems a social graph with edges labeled with probabilities of influence between users. However, the question of where these probabilities come from or how they can be computed from real social network data has been largely ignored until now. Thus it is interesting to ask whether from a social graph and a log of actions by its users, one can build models of influence. This is the main problem attacked in this chapter. In addition to proposing models and algorithms for learning the model parameters and for testing the learned models to make predictions, we also develop techniques for predicting the time by which a user may be expected to perform an action. We validate our ideas and techniques using the Flickr data set consisting of a social graph with 1.3M nodes, 40M edges, and an action log consisting of 35M tuples referring to 300K distinct actions. Beyond showing that there is genuine influence happening in a real social network, we show that our techniques have excellent prediction performance. This chapter is based on our WSDM 2010 paper [56]. This study has been done in collab- oration with Francesco Bonchi and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. 4.1 Introduction In recent years, there has been tremendous interest in the phenomenon of influence exerted by users of an online social network on other users and in how it propagates in the network. The idea is that when a user sees their social contacts performing an action such as joining an online community (say TapIt30), that user may decide to perform the action themselves. In truth, when a user performs an action, she may have any one of a number of reasons for doing so: she may have heard of it outside of the online social network and may have decided it is worthwhile; the action is very popular (e.g., buying an iPhone 4G may be such an action); or she may be genuinely influenced by seeing her social contacts perform that action. If there is genuine influence, it can be leveraged for a number of applications, arguably the most famous among which is viral marketing [42, 78, 109]. Other applications include personalized recommendations [124, 125] and feed ranking in social networks [117]. Besides, patterns of influence can be taken as a sign of user trust and exploited for computing trust propagation [49, 64, 127, 143] in large networks and in P2P systems. 30TapIt is a water bottle refilling network founded in 2008 to give people free access to clean sus- tainable water on the go: tapitwater.com. 47 4.1. Introduction While many of the applications mentioned above essentially assume that influence exists as a real phenomenon, two key pieces are missing from the picture. First, while some empirical studies have reported evidences of influence propagating on the social linkage [31, 68], others authors have challenged the fact that influence really exists and that it propagates between users. Indeed, Watts [136–138] challenges the very notion of influential users that are often assumed in viral marketing papers. As well, in a recent paper, Anagnostopoulos et al. [6] have developed techniques for showing that influence is not genuine and using them, showed that in the Flickr tagging data, while there is substantial social correlation in tagging behavior, it cannot be attributed to influence. This raises the question, is there evidence of genuine influence in any real social network data? The second missing piece is a systematic study of models of influence. In particular, all viral marketing papers assume that they are given as input a social graph with edges labeled by the probability with which a user’s action will be influenced by her neighbor’s actions. To our knowledge, the question how or from where one can compute these probabilities of influence has been largely left open. In this chapter, our goal is to address both the issues above: we devise various probabilistic models of influence, and w.r.t. them we show that influence is genuinely happening in a real- world social network. The starting observation is that while real social networks don’t come with edges labeled with influence probabilities, they do come with an action log. Informally, an action log is a table that chronicles any actions performed by every user. It is thus interesting to ask whether by analyzing the action log together with the network, we can study the two questions above. In undertaking such a study, two things should be kept in mind. First, any models proposed for influence should be compatible with the assumptions made in applications such a viral marketing. Viral marketing papers typically assume a diffusion model of influence which satisfies a property known as submodularity. While we defer a formal definition to Section 4.3, intuitively it can be thought of as a law of diminishing returns. Second, the action log is huge in size. Thus, any algorithms developed for learning and testing the influence models should make minimal number of scans over this data. In this chapter, we make the following contributions: • We propose a solution framework. By starting with the diffusion models assumed in viral marketing, we elicit desiderata for models of probabilistic influence. These include a mandatory submodularity property and a desirable, but not mandatory incrementality property. • We propose a variety of probabilistic models of influence between users in a social net- work. We show that all of them satisfy submodularity while all with the exception of one satisfies incrementality. Intuitively, an incremental model allows efficient testing. • We develop algorithms for learning (the parameters of) all the proposed models, taking as input a social graph and an action log. We optimize the scans and show that our algorithms can learn all the models in no more than two scans. A highlight is that some of our models let us predict not just whether a user will perform an action but the time by which she will perform it. 48 4.2. Problem Definition • One of the most accurate models is what we call continuous time model. Unfortunately, it is the most expensive to test (it’s not incremental). To mitigate this, we develop an approximate model called discrete time model, which is incremental and is much more efficient to test. • It turns out evaluating (testing) the learned models is far from trivial. Thereto, we develop algorithms for testing all the models learned. The algorithms require just one scan over the action log. • Last but not the least, we put the models and algorithms to test on the Flickr data set where for actions, we take users joining online communities. The data set consists of a graph with 1.3M nodes and more than 40M edges and an action log with 35M tuples referring to 300K different actions. Our results show there is genuine influence between users. In particular, we introduce the metrics of user influenceability and action influence quotient. Users (actions) with high values for this metric do experience genuine influence compared to those with low values. Our results also show that all proposed models have a reasonable performance, and continuous time model has the best performance. Discrete time model has an almost identical performance while it is much more efficient to test. We also show that our models can predict the time at which a user will perform an action with an impressive error margin. In Section 4.2, we give a formal statement of the problem studied while in Section 4.3, we develop a solution framework and in Section 4.4 we present the models for probabilistic influence. Section 4.5 presents the algorithms for learning the models and for evaluating them, while Section 4.6 presents results from an extensive set of experiments. 4.2 Problem Definition We are given a social graph in the form of an undirected graphG = (V,E, T ) where the nodes V are users. An undirected edge (u, v) ∈ E between users u and v represents a social tie between the users. T : E → N is a function labeling each edge with the timestamp at which the social tie was created.31 We’re also given an action log, a relation Actions(User,Action, T ime), which contains a tuple (u, a, tu) indicating that user u performed action a at time tu. It contains such a tuple for every action performed by every user of the system. We will assume that the projection of Actions on the first column is contained in the set of nodes V of the social graph G. In other words, users in the Actions table correspond to nodes of the graph. We let A denote the universe of actions. In the following, we assume for ease of exposition that a user performs an action at most once. We denote with Au the number of actions performed by user u in the training set, with Au&v the number of actions performed by both u and v in the training set, with Au|v the number of actions either u or v performs in the training set. Clearly, Au|v = Au+Av−Au&v. We also use Av2u to denote the number of actions propagated from v to u in the training set. We next define propagation of actions. 31For convenience, we assume social ties are never broken. This assumption is inessential. 49 4.3. Solution Framework Definition 1 (Action propagation). We say that an action a ∈ A propagates from user vi to vj iff: (i) (vi, vj) ∈ E; (ii) ∃(vi, a, ti), (vj , a, tj) ∈ Actions with ti < tj; and (iii) T (vi, vj) ≤ ti. When this happens we write prop(a, vi, vj ,∆t) where ∆t = tj − ti. Notice that there must be a social tie between vi and vj , both must have performed the action after the moment in which their social tie was created. This leads to a natural notion of a propagation graph, defined next. Definition 2 (Propagation graph). For each action a, we define a propagation graph PG(a) = (V (a), E(a)), as follows. V (a) = {v | ∃t : (v, a, t) ∈ Actions}; there is a directed edge vi ∆t−−→vj in E(a) whenever prop(a, vi, vj ,∆t). The propagation graph consists of users who performed the action, with edges connecting them in the direction of propagation. Observe that the propagation graph is a DAG. Each node can have more than one parent; it is directed, and cycles are impossible due to the time constraint which is the basis for the definition of propagation. Note that the propaga- tion graph can possibly have disconnected components. In other words, the propagation of an action is just a directed instance (a flow) of the undirected graph G, and the log of ac- tions Actions(User,Action, T ime) can be seen as a collection of propagations. When a user performs an action, we say that it is activated w.r.t. that action. Once a user activates, it becomes contagious and cannot de-activate. It may now influence all its inactive friends. The power to influence the neighbors is what we model as influence probability. The problem we tackle in this chapter is how to learn influence probabilities among the users, by mining the available set of past propagations. Formally, we want to learn a function p : E → [0, 1]× [0, 1] assigning to both directions of each edge (v, u) ∈ E the probabilities: pv,u and pu,v. 4.3 Solution Framework In the following, we introduce the framework we adopt which is an instance of the General Threshold Model. Consider an inactive user u and the set of its activated neighbors S, and suppose that each neighbor v ∈ S activates after v and u became neighbors. To predict whether u will activate, we need to determine pu(S), the joint influence probability of S on u. If pu(S) ≥ θu, where θu is the activation threshold of user u, we can conclude that u activates. For ease of exposition, assume individual probabilities of influence between users are static, i.e., are independent of time. We do not need this assumption for our results. Since influence probabilities are meant for use in viral marketing [78] [79], our definitions must be consistent with the diffusion models used in these papers. These papers typically assume the diffusion models are monotone, which says the function pu(S) should satisfy: pu(S) ≤ pu(T ) whenever S ⊆ T . Moreover, it should be submodular, i.e., pu(S∪{w})−pu(S) ≥ pu(T ∪ {w}) − pu(T ) whenever S ⊆ T . There can be various ways to define pu(S). In this chapter, for computational ease, we assume that the probability of various friends influencing u are independent of each other. Hence, the joint probability pu(S) can be defined as follows: pu(S) = 1− ∏ v∈S (1− pv,u) (4.1) 50 4.3. Solution Framework In the context of testing a learned model, we need to be able to compute and update the influence probabilities on the fly. That is, as new neighbors get activated, the joint influence probability needs to be updated. We should be able to compute pu(S ∪ {w}) incrementally without revisiting the neighbor set influence probabilities, i.e., solely in terms of pu(S) and pw,u. This is not part of the requirement imposed by the diffusion models assumed for viral marketing. Thus, this is a desirable, but not mandatory property. Theorem 3. The joint influence probability as defined in Eq. 4.1 is monotone and submodular. Besides, it can be updated incrementally if the individual influence probabilities pv,u are static. Proof. Let S be the set of neighbors of u that are active and suppose a new neighbor w of u gets activated. The new joint influence probability pu(S ∪ {w}) can be computed incrementally from pu(S) as follows. pu(S ∪ {w}) = 1− (1− pw,u) ∗ ∏ v∈S (1− pv,u) = 1− (1− pw,u) ∗ (1− pu(S)) = pu(S) + (1− pu(S)) ∗ pw,u (4.2) The monotonicity can be seen from Eq. 4.2. The difference pu(S ∪ {w})− pu(S) is clearly non-negative as the domain of individual probabilities is [0, 1]. Similarly, submodularity can be shown as follows. pu(S ∪ {w})− pu(S)− pu(T ∪ {w}) + pu(T ) = (1− pu(S)) ∗ pw,u − (1− pu(T )) ∗ pw,u = (pu(T )− pu(S)) ∗ pw,u ≥ 0 since, by monotonicity, pu(T ) ≥ pu(S). User Influenceability. As mentioned in the introduction, there can be three reasons which prompt any user to perform an action. First, influence from friends and family members. Second, she is affected by some external event(s). And the last is that she is a very active user and is doing things without getting influenced by anyone. In this work, we mainly focus on modeling and learning the influence propagation from neighbors. For some users, external influence plays a significant role and for others that is not the case. Users who are initiators of actions and who are more influenced by external factors are unpredictable or less influenceable. So, we define an influenceability score representing how influenceable a user is, as the ratio between the number of actions for which we have evidence that the user was influenced, over the total number of actions performed by the user. More precisely we define: infl(u) = |{a | ∃v,∆t : prop(a, v, u,∆t) ∧ 0 ≤ ∆t ≤ τv,u}}| Au (4.3) 51 4.4. Models In the equation above, we can use any appropriate value for the parameter τv,u. We propose to use the average time delay, defined as follows: τv,u = ∑ a∈A (tu(a)− tv(a)) Av2u (4.4) where tu(a) is the time when u performs a and A is the set of actions in the training data. We conjecture that users with a high value for infl(u) may exhibit a high degree of being influenced by their neighbors compared to those with a low value for this metric. Action Influenceability. We define the influence quotient for an action to distinguish be- tween actions for which there is more evidence of influence propagation from the rest of the actions. More precisely, we define: infl(a) = |{u | ∃v,∆t : prop(a, v, u,∆t) ∧ 0 ≤ ∆t ≤ τv,u}}| number of users performing a (4.5) We expect that for actions with high infl(a), predictions (based on influence models) of user performing those actions will yield a relatively higher precision and recall values compared to other actions. We will revisit this in the experimental section. 4.4 Models Recall from the previous section that we assume the probabilities of influence by individual neighbors of a user are independent. Thus, if we have a model for capturing individual influ- ences, we can compute the joint influence using Eq. 4.1. Next, we propose 3 types of models to capture pv,u, the probability with which u is influenced by its neighbor v. The first class of models assumes the influence probabilities are static and do not change with time. The second class of models assumes they are continuous functions of time. As a preview, it will turn out continuous time models are by far the most accurate, but they are very expensive to test on large data sets. Thus, we propose an approximation known as Discrete Time Models where the joint influence probabilities can be computed incrementally and thus efficiently. In all the models we propose, we also discuss how to learn estimates of various parameters from the training data set. 4.4.1 Static Models These models are independent of time and are the simplest to learn and test. We present three instances of static models. Bernoulli distribution. Under this model, any time a contagious user v tries to influence its inactive neighbor u, it has a fixed probability of making u activate. If u activates, it is a successful attempt. Each attempt, which is associated with some action, can be viewed as a Bernoulli trial. The Maximum Likehood Estimator (MLE) of success probability is the ratio 52 4.4. Models 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 n u m be r o f e dg es (in m illio n) time difference (interval of 10 min) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 n u m be r o f e dg es (in m illio n) time difference (interval in hours) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 50 100 150 200 250 n u m be r o f e dg es (in m illio n) time difference (interval in weeks) (a) (b) (c) Figure 4.1: Frequency of common actions vs the time difference between two users performing actions. (a) during the first hour at a granularity of 10 minutes; (b) during the first week at hourly granularity (without considering the cases in which the time difference is less than one hour, i.e., the cases in (a)); (c) the rest of the dataset with weekly granularity of number of successful attempts over the total number of trials. Hence, influence probability of v on u using MLE is estimated as: pv,u = Av2u Av (4.6) Jaccard Index. The Jaccard index is often used to measure similarity between sample sets, and is defined as the size of the intersection divided by the size of the union of the sample sets. We adapt the Jaccard index to estimate pv,u as follows: pv,u = Av2u Au|v (4.7) Partial Credits (PC). When a user u in a network is influenced to perform an action, it may be influenced by the combination of its neighbors who have performed the action before. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that each of these predecessors shares the “credit" for influencing u to perform that action. Suppose user u performs an action a at time tu(a) and S its set of activated neighbors such that ∀v ∈ S, T (v, u) ≤ tv(a) < tu(a). Let |S| = d. Then, in the partial credits model, we give each of u’s neighbors an equal credit 1/d for making u perform the action. In general, the credit given to user v ∈ S who performed an action a before u can be defined as: creditv,u(a) = 1∑ w∈S I(tw(a) < tu(a)) (4.8) where I is an indicator function. The notion of partial credit is orthogonal to whether we use Bernoulli or Jaccard as the base model. Thus, we have two additional models. In the Bernoulli model with partial credit, 53 4.4. Models the influence probability is estimated as follows: pv,u = ∑ a∈A creditv,u(a) Av (4.9) where A is the set of actions in the training data. In the Jaccard model with partial credit, the influence probability is estimated as follows: pv,u = ∑ a creditv,u(a) Au|v (4.10) In case of static models, the joint influence probability pu(S) as defined in equation 4.1 can be computed incrementally as stated in Theorem 3. 4.4.2 Continuous Time (CT) Models In reality, influence probability may not remain constant independently of time. It is natural to expect that when a user first comes to see/hear of its neighbor(s) performing an action, it may feel the urge to explore it and that, with time, this urge (i.e., influence) may decay. To understand whether this is true in practice, we computed the number of actions that propagated between pairs of neighbors in Flickr and plotted it against the time that elapsed between them: see Figure 9.3. The figure shows the behavior at three levels of granularity – weeks, hours, and intervals of 10 minutes. In all cases, the data consistently shows an exponential decay behavior, confirming our intuition above. Accordingly, we define ptv,u, the probability of v influencing its neighbor u at time t, as follows. ptv,u = p 0 v,ue −(t−tv)/τv,u (4.11) where p0v,u is the maximum strength of v influencing u. In the exponential decay model, the maximum strength is realized right after v performing the action, i.e., when t = tv. This maximum strength, p0v,u, can be estimated in exactly the same was as for the static models. Thus, we can have four variations of the continuous time model corresponding to the four static models discussed earlier. We omit the obvious detail. The parameter τv,u is called the mean life time. It corresponds to the expected time delay between v performing an action and u performing the same action. Once ptv,u is defined, we can derive the joint probability of influence, ptu(S), of u being influenced at time t by the combination of its active neighbors, can be derived exactly as for static models. More precisely, we have: ptu(S) = 1− ∏ v∈S (1− ptv,u) (4.12) The parameter τv,u can be estimated as the average time delay in propagating an action from v to its neighbor u in the training set. Formally, it is defined as in equation 4.4. In this class of continuous time models, the joint influence probability ptu(S) changes as each time step as it is a continuous function of time. As a new neighbor activates and becomes 54 4.5. Algorithms contagious, there may be a sharp increase in ptu(.) and then it starts decreasing again with time. Hence, the function ptu(.) is a piecewise continuous function. Since the probability ptv,u changes at each time step, the joint influence probability cannot be computed incrementally. Every time a new neighbor activates, we have to compute it from scratch. If the size of set S is d, then there would be at most d local maxima for the function. If max t {ptu(.)} ≥ θu, the activation threshold of u, we conclude that u activates. In addition to predicting the activation state of an user, this class of models enables us to predict time at which the user is most likely to perform the action. The details appear in Section 4.5.3. 4.4.3 Discrete Time (DT) Models As noted above, Continuous Time Models are not incremental in nature, hence they are very expensive in terms of run time required for testing. Therefore, in this section, we propose an approximation to Continuous Time Models, called Discrete Time Models. Here, we say that the influence of an active user v on its neighbor u remains constant at pv,u for a time window of τv,u after v performs the action. After that it drops to 0, i.e. a user v is contagious for u in the time interval [tv, tv + τv,u]. It allows us to use the incrementality property established in Theorem 3. Here, the definition of S needs to be modified such that it contains only contagious neighbors of u. Hence, when a contagious neighbor w becomes non-contagious, we need to update pu(S) and it can be incrementally updated as follows. pu(S \ w) = pu(S)− pw,u 1− pw,u (4.13) Analogous to Static Models, there can be 4 variations of Discrete Time models depending on how the constant influence probability pv,u is estimated, i.e., using Bernoulli, Jaccard, or their particl credit variants. For brevity, we only give the equation for partial credits here as other cases are easier. The Partial Credit definition (4.8) for discrete time should be modified as credit τv,u v,u (a) = 1∑ w∈S I(0 < tu(a)− tw(a) ≤ τv,u) (4.14) where I is the indicator function. The new influence probability pv,u can be computed as stated in equations 4.9 and 4.10 with the new definition of credit. As we show in the experiments section, these models provide an efficient yet effective approximation for Continuous Time Models. 4.5 Algorithms In this section, we present algorithms for learning the parameters of the various models pro- posed in the previous section, as well as algorithms for testing the learned models. One of the key aspects we pay attention to is efficiency of not just the training algorithms (which 55 4.5. Algorithms Figure 4.2: (a) Undirected social graph containing 3 nodes and 3 edges with timestamps when the social tie was created; (b) Action log; (c) Propagation graph for action a1 (d) Propagation graph for action a2 (e) Propagation graph for action a3 (f) Influence Matrix. learn the parameters) but also that of the testing algorithms which apply the models on the test data and make predictions. As mentioned before, any model that enjoys the incremental property affords an efficient testing algorithm. The input to these algorithms consists of a social graph together with an action log. We assume the action log is sorted on action-ids and tuples on an action are chronologically ordered. This allows the algorithms to process the data one action at a time. In practice, action log tends to be huge (from tens to hundreds of millions of tuples) so we optimize our algorithms to minimize the number of scans over the action log. 4.5.1 Learning the Models As in any machine learning approach, the first step is to learn the parameters of a model. We note that our algorithms are able to learn all the models simultaneously in no more than two scans of the (training sub-set of the) action log table. Furthermore, to learn parameters for static and continuous time Models, the algorithm needs only one scan of the actions log. The overview is presented in Algorithm 8. To illustrate our algorithms, we will use a running example shown in Figure 4.2. Recall, action log is sorted on action-ids and then by time. The algorithm maintains the tuples for the current action a in a tree-based data structure current_table indexed on user-ids. As it reads a new tuple of the form (u, a, tu) saying user u performs the action a at time tu, we look into the current_table for those neighbors v of 56 4.5. Algorithms u, such that the link between u and v has been established before either of them performs a. Etv represents the set of edges in the social graph at time tv. It is worth noting that we don’t need to assume social ties are never broken, as long as we can efficiently find Etv . Since the data is sorted in chronological order, tv ≤ tu. Algorithm 8 Learning - Phase1 1: for each action a in training set do 2: current_table = φ 3: for each user tuple < u, a, tu > in chronological order do 4: increment Au 5: parents = φ 6: for each user v : (v, a, tv) ∈ current_table && (v, u) ∈ Etv do 7: if tu > tv then 8: increment Av2u 9: update τv,u 10: insert v in parents 11: end if 12: increment Av&u 13: end for 14: for each parent v ∈ parents do 15: update creditv,u 16: end for 17: add (u, a, tu) to current_table 18: end for 19: end for Lines 1-6 of the algorithm are self-explanatory. The condition in line 7 ensures that we avoid the cases when the two users perform a at the same time as then it is questionable whether propagation actually happened. Next, for all the interesting neighbors from which the action propagated, we update the required counts/parameters (lines 8-11). As an example, Figure 4.2(a) shows a social graph containing three users P , Q and R with three edges among them. The edges are labeled with timestamps at which the two users became friends. The action log containing 3 actions a1, a2 and a3 is presented in Figure 4.2(b). Using the social graph and action log, the propagation graphs for actions a1, a2 and a3 are shown in Figure 4.2(c), (d) and (e). Edges are directed in Propagation Graphs and labeled with time taken to propagate the action. Note that even though both Q and R perform a1, PG(a1) doesn’t contain the edge from Q to R because when Q performed a1 at time 10, R was not in its neighborhood. They became friends at time 11. Define the influence matrix of a model to be an (n × n) matrix IM , with IM [i, j] = (pi,j , τi,j) or IM [i, j] = (p0i,j , τi,j), depending on whether it’s a discrete or continuous time model. Figure 4.2(f) shows the influence matrix containing parameters learnt for Continuous Time Model with Bernoulli as the base model for computing p0i,j . For instance, the entry IM [P,Q] shows that p 0 P,Q is 1/2 and τP,Q is 5. For learning partial credits, we maintain the tree-based data structure parents containing the contagious neighbors from which the action has been propagated. Next, the algorithm goes through the parents list again and updates the partial credits as defined in Eq. 4.8 (lines 12-13). Finally, the tuple (u, a, tu) from the action log is added to current_table (line 14). 57 4.5. Algorithms Notice that static models and continuous time models are learned in one scan. To learn infl(u), τ (learned from first scan) is needed and this requires a second scan of the action log. Similarly, learning parameters of discrete time models also requires τ beforehand. The second phase of the learning algorithm is described in Algorithm 9. The algorithm is very similar to Algorithm 8 except in Step 6 we require that tu − tv ≤ τv,u. Notice that infl(u) is updated whenever we find at least one neighbor from which u is influenced. Algorithm 9 Learning - Phase2 1: for each action a in training set do 2: current_table = φ 3: for each user tuple < u, a, tu > in chronological order do 4: parents = φ 5: for each user v : (v, a, tv) ∈ current_table && (v, u) ∈ Etv do 6: if 0 < tu − tv < τv,u then 7: increment Av2u 8: insert v in parents 9: end if 10: end for 11: for each parent v ∈ parents do 12: update creditτv,uv,u 13: end for 14: if parents != φ then 15: update infl(u) 16: end if 17: add (u, a, tu) in current_table 18: end for 19: end for 4.5.2 Evaluating the Models An overview of the evaluation algorithm for Static Models is given in Algorithm 10. We assume the same sort order for the action log as for the training algorithms. We maintain a results_table with entries of the form < u, pu, performu > as we scan the action log, where the flag performu represents whether the user u has actually performed the action in question or not: its value is 0 if u never performs the action but at least one of its neighbors does, is 1 if u performs it and at least one of its neighbors performs it before it, and is 2 if u is the initiator of the action in its neighborhood. pu represents the probability of the user u performing the action given its neighbors who have already performed the action. At any instant, the results_table contains all the activated users for the current action and their neighbors. As we scan the actions log and read a new tuple of the form < v, a, tv >, we add v and all its neighbors to the results_table with the appropriate influence probability and performv flag. It may be possible that v is already present in the table because one or more of its neighbors are already active. In that case, we just update the performv flag to 1 (lines 4-5). If it is not present in the table, then that means it is the initiator of the current action in its neighborhood, hence the performv flag should be set to 2 (lines 6-7). Similarly, some of 58 4.5. Algorithms its neighbors may already be present in the table and in that case, we update the influence probability of v over them incrementally (lines 8-10). At the end of reading all tuples for an action, the results_table contains all the users who are active or are neighbors of one or more active users. We depict the performance of our models using ROC curves, which plot the true positive rate (TPR = TP/(TP+FN)) against the false positive rate (FPR = FP/(FP+TN)), where TP represents true positives, FN represents false negatives etc. The appropriateness of ROC curves over precision recall curves for binary classification has been recognized [105]. The closer the hump of the curve to the point (0, 1) the better the performance. In our problem setting, we ignore all the cases when none of the user’s friends is active, as then the model is inapplicable. Hence, we define TP as cases when user performs the action, at least one of its neighbors performs the action before it and model estimates it performs the action. FP is the number of cases when user doesn’t perform the action, at least one of its neighbors performs action and model estimates it performs the action. Similarly, TN is the number of cases when user doesn’t perform the action, and at least one of its neighbors performs the action and the model estimates it doesn’t perform the action. Finally, FN is the number of cases when the user performs the action, at least one of its neighbors performs the action before it and the model estimates it doesn’t perform the action. After processing all the tuples for an action, the algorithm scan the results_table to update TP, FN, FP and TN (lines 13-17). It is straightforward to adapt this algorithm to evaluate Discrete Time Models. We omit the details here due to the lack of space. Algorithm 10 Evaluate-Basic 1: for each action a in test set do 2: results_table = φ 3: for each user tuple < v, a, tv > in chronological order do 4: if v ∈ results_table then 5: set performv flag to 1 6: else 7: add v to results_table with pv=0 and performv=2 8: end if 9: for each user u : (v, u) ∈ Etv do 10: if u ∈ results_table then 11: update pu incrementally as in Theorem 1 12: else 13: add u to results_table with appropriate pu and performu=0 14: end if 15: end for 16: end for 17: for each entry < u, pu, performu > in results_table do 18: if (performu == 1 && pu ≥ θu) it is TP 19: if (performu == 1 && pu < θu) it is FN 20: if (performu == 0 && pu ≥ θu) it is FP 21: if (performu == 0 && pu < θu) it is TN 22: end for 23: end for 59 4.5. Algorithms In case of continuous time models, testing becomes complex. Algorithm 11 provides an overview. Here, we store in the results_table the time tu at which user u performs the action a. Once the results_table is formed for an action (in lines 2-10), the algorithm iterates over all the entries in it. For each entry 〈u, pu, performu, tu〉, it collects all the relevant neighbors and keeps them in chronological order in sorted_parents table (lines 11-14). Next, the algorithm tries to find the global maximum of joint influence probability of u performing the action w.r.t time. Whenever a new neighbor performs the action, the joint influence probability increases sharply and then starts decreasing again until another neighbor gets activated. So, if there are d neighbors who perform a, then the joint probability distribution would have (up to) d local maxima. To find the global maximum, we have to analyze all the local maxima (lines 15-18). If it is more than the threshold θu, then we conclude that u activates. The required metrics: TP, FN, FP and TN are updated accordingly (lines 19-23). Algorithm 11 Evaluate-Complex 1: for each action a in test set do 2: results_table = φ 3: for each user tuple < u, a, tu > in chronological order do 4: if u ∈ results_table then 5: set performu flag to 1 6: else 7: add u to results_table with pu=0 and performu=2 8: end if 9: for each user v : (v, u) ∈ Etu do 10: if v /∈ results_table then 11: add v in results_table with pv=0 and performv=0 12: end if 13: end for 14: end for 15: sorted_parents = φ 16: for each entry < u, pu, performu, tu > in results_table do 17: for each user v : performv! = 0, (v, u) ∈ Etv do 18: add v to sorted_parents 19: end for 20: for each neighbor vi ∈ sorted_parents list do 21: compute pu(tvi) at time tvi considering neighbors from v1 to vi 22: if pu(tvi) > pu then 23: update pu 24: end if 25: end for 26: end for 27: for each entry < u, pu, performu, tu > in results_table do 28: if (performu == 1 && pu ≥ θu) it is TP 29: if (performu == 1 && pu < θu) it is FN 30: if (performu == 0 && pu ≥ θu) it is FP 31: if (performu == 0 && pu < θu) it is TN 32: end for 33: end for 60 4.6. Experimental Evaluation As an example, consider the social graph and influence probabilities in Figure 4.2. Let us assume there is an action a4 in test set whose action log is given in Figure 4.3(a). The corresponding propagation graph is shown in Figure 4.3(b). Finally, the probability of R performing the action w.r.t. is plotted in 4.3(c). Figure 4.3: (a) Action Log; (b) Propagation graph for action a4 (c) pR(.) w.r.t time for Continuous Time Model with Bernoulli. 4.5.3 Predicting Time Time conscious models like CT and DT enable us not only to predict whether a user performs a particular action or not, but also to predict the time interval [b, e] in which she is most likely to do it. We next explain how. Whenever a new neighbor activates, there is a sharp increase in the joint influence proba- bility which makes it a piecewise continuous function. We assume that user u is most likely to get activated in the first region where ptu(.) ≥ θu. In other terms, we take the first local maximum of the joint probability function which is not less than θu. We say the user has now entered into the contagious interval and can activate anytime. We label this time t as the left-bound of the interval b. For the right-bound e, we add to b the half life period32 of the influence of v over u, or more specifically, τv,u ∗ ln(2), where v is the neighbor of u by virtue of which u entered the contagious zone. Intuitively, by time τv,u ∗ ln(2), half the actions that are propagated from w to u have indeed been picked up by u. Thus, we predict that given an action a that did propagate from v to u, by the half life period after v performs a, u would have performed a. Since it would be complex to asses prediction accuracy w.r.t. an interval [b, e] we decide for our experiments to predict an exact point in time. In viral marketing applications, tightness of lower bound is not critical, as in case the user performs the action early, it does not hurt. Hence, we decide to perform our experiments on the upper bound e. 61 4.6. Experimental Evaluation 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 TP R FPR Static Bernoulli Static Jaccard Static PC Bernoulli Static PC Jaccard Figure 4.4: ROC comparisons of Static Models. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 TP R FPR DT Bernoulli DT Jaccard DT PC Bernoulli DT PC Jaccard Figure 4.5: ROC comparisons of Discrete Time Models. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 TP R FPR Static Bernoulli CT Bernoulli DT Bernoulli Figure 4.6: ROC comparisons of Static, CT, and DT mod- els. 4.6 Experimental Evaluation Dataset preparation. In our problem setting, we need both the social network and the actions log. We consider Flickr social network and we consider “joining a group” as the action33. We started with 6,2 millions users having 71 millions edges. We projected this graph on the subset of users who is a member of at least one group. This gave us 1,450,347 users with 40,562,923 edges among them. This social graph has 34,766 connected components where the largest connected component consist of 1,319,573 users with 40,450,082 edges (99.72%). Rest of the components have less than 75 users, so we ignore them. Total number of tuples in action log after the filtering are 35,967,169. As in any machine learning approach, we split the dataset into a training and a test set. In our experiments, we split the dataset based on actions such that each action can appear completely either in training or test dataset. Qualitative Evaluation. We compare the different models by means of ROC curves. Each point in ROC curve corresponds to one possible value of activation threshold θu which is same for all users. Figure 4.4 compares the four Static Models introduced in Section 4.4.1. Similarly, Figure 4.5 examines the 4 variants of Discrete Time (DT) models (Section 4.4.3). These figures show that Bernoulli is slightly better than Jaccard model and among two Bernoulli variants, Partial Credit wins by a small margin. In the rest of the section, we only use Bernoulli model to compare different classes of models. Figure 4.6 shows the comparisons between the three different classes of models. It veri- fies the claim that time conscious models work far better than Static Models. Among time conscious models, CT and DT perform equally well. Figure 4.7 reports the ROC curves for different slices of users influenceability (a) and actions influenceability (b). The plots confirm the intuition that larger influenceability leads to an easier prediction of influence. Predicting Time. While for DT models it is inexpensive to compute both lower and upper bounds of the contagious time interval, we found the upper bound computed is not tight. Hence, we conclude that while DT models are good in predicting the activation state of the 32http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life 33http://www.flickr.com/groups 62 4.6. Experimental Evaluation 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 TP R FPR infl(u)>=0.8 infl(u)>=0.4 infl(u)>=0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 TP R FPR infl(a)>=0.8 infl(a)>=0.4 infl(a)>=0 (a) (b) Figure 4.7: CT Bernoulli model: ROC curves for different slices of users influenceability (a) and actions influenceability (b). users w.r.t. actions, they are not capable of predicting the time range in which the user is most likely to perform the action. Therefore in the following we focus on CT models (in particular Bernoulli). In figures 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10, we show the power of CT models to predict the time by which users are likely to perform actions. The model attempts to predict the upper bound on time only when the user is active and prediction of activation state is correct, i.e. the TP cases. Figure 4.8 shows the root mean square error (RMSE) in days against the accuracy of predicting upper bound. Accuracy of time prediction is defined as the ratio between the number of cases when the prediction of upper bound by the model is correct, over the total number of cases it examines. In this plot we removed the 2.5% outliers both from the negative and positive side. The RMSE value revolves around 70-80 days. If we try to increase accuracy beyond 85%, RMSE increases sharply. In the subsequent figures, we choose an operating point for CT model corresponding to 82.5% TPR and 17.5% FPR. This is chosen as the intersection point of the ROC curve and diagonal line from [1,0] to [0,1]. At this point, Accuracy is 73% and RMSE is 75 days. In figure 4.9, X-axis is the error in predicting time and Y-axis is the number of times the CT model makes that error. It clearly shows that most of the time, the error in prediction is very small. Finally, Figure 4.10 shows the coverage of CT model. Here, a point (x, y) means that for y% of cases, the error is within ±x. In particular, for 95% cases, the error is within 20 weeks. Scalability evaluation. Figure 4.11 (a) and (b) shows the scalability of our algorithms. In the training phase, the runtime is a linear function of number of the tuples read. Memory usage (not reported in the figure) remains constant and independent of the number of tuples read, both in training and testing phases. Since Static and DT models are incremental in nature, they are far more efficient than CT models for testing. In conclusion, DT models achieves the same quality as CT models but much more efficiently. 63 4.7. Conclusions and Discussion 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 R M SE (in da ys ) Accuracy CT RMSE Figure 4.8: Root Mean Square Error (in days) vs Ac- curacy in predicting time for CT models. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 fre qu en cy (in 10 00 ) error in time prediction (in weeks) Figure 4.9: Distribution of er- ror in time prediction. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 ra tio o f c as es c ov er ed error in time prediction (in weeks) Figure 4.10: Coverage of CT models as a function of time prediction error. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 tim e ta ke n (in m in) tuples read (in million) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 tim e ta ke n (in ho urs ) tuples read (in million) Static Models CT Models DT Models 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 m e m o ry u se d (in M B) tuples read (in million) Static Models CT Models DT Models (a) (b) (c) Figure 4.11: (a) Training runtime. (b) Testing runtime comparison of all 3 classes of models. (c) Memory usage comparison of all 3 models in testing. 4.7 Conclusions and Discussion Previous works about influence propagation in social networks typically assume the social graph which is input to the problem has its edges labeled with probabilities of influence. In this chapter we studied how to learn such probabilities form a log of past propagations. We proposed both static and time-dependent models for capturing influence, presented algorithms for learning the parameters of the various models and for testing the models. Our algorithms are optimized to minimize the scans over the action log, a key input to the problem of inferring probabilities of influence. This is significant since the action log tends to be huge. We ran an extensive set of experiments to test our learning algorithms. One of the highlights is that in addition to predicting whether a user will perform an action, we also observed that the predictions of our algorithms on users with a high influenceability score tend to have a high precision. In addition, we are able to predict, to within tight margins, the time by which an influenced user will perform an action after its neighbors have performed the action. In addition to demonstrating these aspects, our experiments also show that while testing the proposed continuous time model is very expensive, the discrete time model can be tested much more efficiently and yet can yield accuracy levels very close to that of the continuous 64 4.7. Conclusions and Discussion time model. Several challenges remain. While this work was motivated by the assumptions of viral marketing, it’s interesting to consider the impact of this work in the reverse direction. For instance, viral marketing works essentially ignore the effect of time and assume edges have constant influence probabilities as labels. It is important to formulate and solve viral mar- keting taking into account the time varying nature of influence. Similarly, factoring in user influenceability and action influence quotient is important. Indeed, a user with low influence- ability might “attenuate” some of the incoming influence from neighbors. The same user may be more influenced by neighbors on actions with high influence quotient than on other actions. Accounting for these phenomena in viral marketing is an interesting direction for future work. Last but not the least, learning optimal user activation thresholds would be an interesting future work. 65 Chapter 5 A Data-Based Approach to Social Influence Maximization Influence Maximization is the problem of finding a set of users in a social network, such that by targeting this set, one maximizes the expected spread of influence in the network. Most of the literature on this topic has focused exclusively on the social graph, overlooking historical data, i.e., traces of past action propagations. In this chapter, we study Influence Maximization from a novel data-based perspective. In particular, we introduce a new model, which we call credit distribution, that directly leverages available propagation traces to learn how influence flows in the network and uses this to estimate expected influence spread. Our approach also learns the different levels of influenceability of users, and it is time-aware in the sense that it takes the temporal nature of influence into account. We show that Influence Maximization under the credit distribution model is NP-hard and that the function that defines expected spread under our model is submodular. Based on these, we develop an approximation algorithm for solving the Influence Maximization problem that at once enjoys high accuracy compared to the standard approach, while being several orders of magnitude faster and more scalable. This chapter is based on our VLDB 2011 paper [57]. This investigation was done in collaboration with Francesco Bonchi and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. 5.1 Introduction Motivated by applications such as viral marketing [42], personalized recommendations [124], feed ranking [72], and the analysis of Twitter [13, 139], the study of the propagation of influence exerted by users of an online social network on other users has received tremendous attention in the last years. One of the key problems in this area is the identification of influential users, by targeting whom certain desirable outcomes can be achieved. Here, targeting could mean giving free (or price discounted) samples of a product and the desired outcome may be to get as many customers to buy the product as possible. Kempe et al. [78] formalized this as the Influence Maximization problem: find k “seed” nodes in the network, for a given number k, such that by activating them we can maximize the expected influence spread, i.e., the expected number of nodes that eventually get activated, according to a chosen propagation model. The propagation model governs how influence diffuses or propagates through the network (see Chapter 2.1 for background on the most prominent propagation models adopted by [78]). Following this seminal paper, there has been substantial work in this area (see Chapter 2). In this chapter we study Influence Maximization as defined by Kempe et al., but from a 66 5.1. Introduction Figure 5.1: The standard Influence Maximization process (in light blue), and our approach (in magenta). novel, data-based perspective. Influence Maximization requires two kinds of data – a directed graph G and an as- signment of probabilities (or weights) to the edges of G, capturing degrees of influence. E.g., in Figure 5.1, the probability of the edge (v, u) is 0.25 and it says there is a probability 0.25 with which user v influences u and thus v’s actions will propagate to u with probability 0.25. In real life, while the digraph representing a social network is often explicitly available, edge probabilities are not. Facing difficulties in gathering real action propagation traces from which to “learn” edge probabilities, previous work has resorted to simply making assumptions about these probabilities. The methods adopted for assignment of probabilities to edges include the following: (i) treating them as constant (e.g., 0.01), (ii) drawing values uniformly at random from a small set of constants, e.g., {0.1, 0.01, 0.001} in the so-called trivalency “model”, or (iii) defining them to be the reciprocal of a node’s in-degree, in the so-called weighted cascade “model” (see e.g., [35, 36, 78]). Only recently researchers have shown how to learn the edge probabilities from real data on past propagation traces of actions performed by users (nodes) [56, 114]. Given that there have been several ad hoc assumptions about probability assignment as well as recent techniques for learning edge probabilities from real data, some natural questions arise. What is the relative importance of the graph structure and the edge probabilities in the Influence Maximization problem? To what extent different methods of edge probability assignment accurately describe the influence propagation phenomenon? In particular, how do the various edge probability assignments considered in earlier literature compare with proba- 67 5.2. Why Data Matters bilities learned from real data when it comes to accurately predicting the expected influence spread? Learning edge probabilities from real data is prone to error either owing to noise in the data or to the inherent nature of mining these probabilities. How robust are solutions to Influence Maximization against such noise? As we discuss in the Chapter 2, the Influence Maximization process based on Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is computationally expensive, even when the edge probabilities are given as input. Having to learn these probabilities, from a large database of traces, only adds to the complexity. Can we avoid the costly learning and simulation approach, and directly mine the available log of past action propagation traces to build a model of the spread of any given seed set? Our research is driven by the questions above, and it achieves the following contributions. • We conduct a detailed empirical evaluation of different methods of edge probability assign- ment as well probabilities learned from real propagation traces and show that methods that don’t learn probabilities from real data end up choosing very different seed sets than those that do. Secondly, we show the spread predicted by methods based on edge probability assignment suffers from large errors, compared to methods that learn edge probabilities from real data. This offers some evidence that the former class of methods risk choosing poor quality seeds (Section 5.2). • We develop a new model called credit distribution, built on top of real propagation traces that allows us to directly predict the influence spread of node sets, without any need for learning edge probabilities or conducting MC simulations (Section 5.3). • We show that Influence Maximization under credit distribution is NP-hard. However, we show the function defining influence spread under this model is monotone and submod- ular. Using this, we develop a greedy algorithm that guarantees a (1−1/e)-approximation to the optimal solution and is scalable (Section 5.4). • We conduct a comprehensive set of experiments on large real-world datasets (Section 5.5). We compare our proposal against the standard approach of [78] with edge probabilities learned from real data, and show that the credit distribution model provides higher accu- racy. We also demonstrate the scalability of our approach by showing our results on very large real world networks, on which the standard approach is not practical. 5.2 Why Data Matters What is the relative importance of the network structure and the edge probabilities in de- termining influence propagation? How important is it to accurately learn probabilities from real propagation traces? We have seen that a large majority of the literature assumes edge probabilities to be randomly chosen from an arbitrary fixed set or to be determined by node degrees. How do these methods compare with that of learning edge probabilities from real data, in terms of the quality of seeds selected? To answer this, we compare the performance of Algorithm 1 under the IC model, with different methods of assigning edge probability. To this end, we present two kinds of experiments that, to the best of our knowledge, have never been reported before. 68 5.2. Why Data Matters 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 R M SE Actual Spread TV WC UN EM/PT 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Es tim at ed S pr ea d Actual Spread 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 R M SE Actual Spread (a) (b) (c) Figure 5.2: Error as a function of actual spread on (a) Flixster_Small, (c) Flickr_Small; (b) Scatter plot of predicted spread vs. actual spread on Flixster_Small. The legend in all the plots follows from (a). Datasets. We take two real world datasets: Flixster and Flickr, both consisting of an un- weighted directed social graph, along with an associated action log. An action log is a set of triples (u, a, t) which say user u performed action a at time t. We refer to the set of triples in the action log corresponding to a specific action a as the propagation trace (propagation for short) associated with a. Flixster (www.flixster.com) is one of the main players in the mobile and social movie rating business [74]. Here, an action is a user rating a movie. In other words, if user v rates “The King’s Speech”, and later on v’s friend u does the same, we consider the action of rating “The King’s Speech” as having propagated from v to u. Flickr is a popular photo sharing platform. Here, an action is a user joining an interest group (e.g., “Nikon Selfportrait”, “HDR Panoramas”). The raw versions of both datasets are very large and as a result, experiments that require repeated MC simulations cannot be run within any reasonable time on the full data set. While the large version of the datasets are useful for testing scalability of our proposal, for other experiments we have to sample smaller datasets. In what follows, we use samples that correspond to taking a unique “community”, obtained by means of graph clustering performed using Graclus34. The resulting datasets are named Flixster_Small and Flickr_Small (statistics in Table 5.1). Flixster Flickr Flixster Flickr Large Large Small Small #Nodes 1M 1.32M 13K 14.8K #Dir. Edges 28M 81M 192.4K 1.17M Avg.degree 28 61 14.8 79 #propagations 49K 296K 25K 28.5K #tuples 8.2M 36M 1.84M 478K Table 5.1: Statistics of datasets. One of the goals of the experiments is to determine which method more accurately predicts the expected spread of node sets. So we split the action log into two sets of propagation traces 34http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dml/Software/graclus.html 69 5.2. Why Data Matters – training and test sets. The edge probabilities are learnt from the training set and thus, it is crucial that the splitting is performed in such a way that a propagation trace in its entirety falls into training or test set. Taking care that similar distributions of propagation sizes are maintained in the two sets, we place 80% and 20% of the propagations in training and test set respectively. Precisely, we sorted the propagation traces based on their size and put every fifth propagation in this ranking in the test set. As a result, the number of propagations in the training set are 5.1K and 5.7K for Flixster_Small and Flickr_Small respectively. The number of tuples in the training set are 1.5M and 385.3K respectively. The training set is used to learn the edge probabilities according to the EM-based method of Saito et al. [114]. One issue in using their method is that in their work, Saito et al. assume that the input action log data is as though it was generated by an IC model: i.e., time is discrete, and if user u activates at time t, then at least one of the neighbors of u was activated at time t − 1. In real-world propagations this is not the case. To close this gap between their model and the real data, we let all previously activated neighbors of a node be its possible influencers. Methods experimented. In both our experiments, we consider the IC model together with the following methods of edge probability assignment based on previous work [35, 36, 78, 114]: WC: probability on an edge (v, u) is 1/in-degree(u) (known as weighted cascade); TV: probabilities are selected uniformly at random from the set {0.1, 0.01, 0.001} (triva- lency). UN: all edges are uniformly assigned probability p = 0.01. EM: probabilities are learned from the training set using the EM-based method [114]. PT: Finally, in order to assess how robust the greedy method is to noise in the probability learning phase, we take EM-learnt probability and add noise. More precisely, for each edge (v, u) we randomly pick a percentage from the interval [−20%, 20%] to perturb pv,u, rounding to 0 or 1 in cases that go below 0 or over 1 respectively. We call this method PT (EM perturbed). Experiment 1: Seed set intersection. The goal of this experiment is to understand the extent to which choice of edge probabilities affects the decisions of different methods in seed set selection. We run Algorithm 1 under the IC model35 with the various methods of probability assignment above, as well as with edge probabilities learned from the training data set using EM. In each case, we used the algorithm to produce a seed set of size k = 50. Table 5.2 reports the size of the intersection for each pair of seed sets. We can see that EM, the method using real data to learn the influence probabilities has a very small, almost empty, intersection with all other methods, with the exception of its own perturbed version PT. Thus, we conclude all methods that use edge probabilities based on ad hoc assumptions select seed sets very different from the method that uses propagation trace data to learn edge probabilities. Secondly, noise in the learned edge probabilities does not affect the seed set selection too drastically, as shown by the intersection between EM and PT. What can we say about the quality of seed sets chosen by the methods UN, TV, and WC, compared to EM? This is addressed next. 35We found the greedy algorithm on Flickr_Small is too slow to complete in a reasonable time, even with CELF optimization. Hence we use the PMIA heuristic [35] (discussed in Section 2.2) in order to speed up IC 70 5.2. Why Data Matters UN WC TV EM PT PT EM TV WC UN 50 25 5 6 6 UN 0 0 44 19 50 50 9 3 2 WC 0 0 17 50 50 3 2 TV 0 0 50 50 44 EM 44 50 Flixster_Small 50 PT 50 Flickr_Small Table 5.2: Size of seed set intersection for k = 50 on Flixster_Small (left) and Flickr_Small (right). Experiment 2: Spread prediction. In the second experiment, we address the question, how good each of the methods is at predicting the actual spread. For that end, for a given seed set S, we compute the expected spread σIC(S) predicted by each of the methods and compare it with the actual spread of S according to ground truth. For ground truth, for each propagation (movie in Flixster and group in Flickr) in the test set, we take the set of users that are the first to rate the movie (or join the group in case of Flickr) among their friends, i.e., the set of “initiators” of the action, to be the seed set. The actual spread is the number of users who performed that action, also called propagation size. This allows for a fair comparison of all methods from a neutral standpoint, which is a first in itself. Figures 5.2(a) and (c) report the root mean squared error (RMSE) between predicted and actual spread on the two datasets: propagations in the test set are grouped in bins with respect to their size36 and RMSE is computed inside each bin. On Flixster_Small, uniform method (UN) works well but only for small propagations, and trivalency (TV) and weighted cascade (WC) work well but only for very large propagations (which are only few cases, i.e., outliers), and this is explainable with the fact that they always tend to predict the spread as very high. This is clearly shown in Figure 5.2(b), which shows a scatter plot between predicted and actual spread on Flixster_Small. In the case of Flickr_Small, EM clearly outperforms all the other methods for all sizes of actual spread (Figure 5.2(c)). In all cases, the performance of EM and PT are so close that they are almost indistinguishable. Overall, even if EM tends to underestimate the spread when this gets larger, it is by far the most accurate method with respect to the ground truth. The other methods that do not use the real propagation traces to learn influence probabilities are found to be unreliable in predicting the true spread. By putting the results of the two experiments together, we can draw the first conclusion of this chapter: methods UN, TV, and WC select seed sets that are very different from EM and since they can be quite inaccurate in predicting the true spread, they can end up selecting seed sets of poor quality. It is thus extremely important to exploit available past propagation traces to learn the probabilities right. This finding strengthens the motivation for the rest of our work. computation. [35] empirically showed PMIA produces results very close to greedy. 36In Flixster_Small bins are defined at multiples of 100, in Flickr_Small at multiples of 20. 71 5.3. Credit Distribution Model 5.3 Credit Distribution Model The propagation models discussed in Section 2.1 are probabilistic in nature. In the IC model, coin flips decide whether an active node will succeed in activating its peers. In the LT model it is the node threshold chosen uniformly at random, together with the influence weights of active neighbors, that decides whether a node becomes active. Under both models, we can think of a propagation trace as a possible world, i.e., a possible outcome of a set of probabilistic choices. Given a propagation model and a directed and edge-weighted social graph G = (V,E, p), let G denote the set of all possible worlds. Independently of the model m chosen, the expected spread σm(S) can be written as: σm(S) = ∑ X∈G Pr[X] · σXm(S) (5.1) where σXm(S) is the number of nodes reachable from S in the possible world X. The number of possible worlds is clearly exponential. Indeed, computing σm(S) under the IC and LT models is #P-hard [35, 37], and the standard approach (see [78]) tackles influence spread computation from the perspective of Eq. (5.1): sample a possible world X ∈ G, compute σXm(S), and repeat until the number of sampled worlds is large enough. We now develop an alternative approach for computing influence spread, by rewriting Eq. (5.1), giving a different perspective. Let path(S, u) be an indicator random variable that is 1 if there exists a directed path from the set S to u and 0 otherwise. Moreover let pathX(S, u) denote the outcome of the random variable in a possible world X ∈ G. Then we have: σXm(S) = ∑ u∈V pathX(S, u) (5.2) Substituting in (5.1) and rearranging the terms we have: σm(S) = ∑ u∈V ∑ X∈G Pr[X] pathX(S, u) (5.3) From the definition of expectation, we can rewrite this to σm(S) = ∑ u∈V E[path(S, u)] = ∑ u∈V Pr[path(S, u) = 1] (5.4) That is, the expected spread of a set S is the sum over each node u ∈ V , of the probability of the node u getting activated given that S is the initial seed set. The standard approach samples possible worlds from the perspective of Eq. (5.1). To leverage available data on real propagation traces, we observe that these traces are similar to possible worlds, except they are “real available worlds”. Thus, in this chapter, we approach the computation of influence spread from the perspective of Eq. (5.4), i.e., we estimate directly Pr[path(S, u) = 1] using the propagation traces that we have in the action log. Data Model. We are given a social graph G = (V,E), with nodes V corresponding to users and directed (unweighted) edges E corresponding to social ties between users, and an action 72 5.3. Credit Distribution Model log, i.e., a relation L(User,Action, T ime) where a tuple (u, a, t) ∈ L indicates that user u performed action a at time t. It contains such a tuple for every action performed by every user of the system. We will assume that the projection of L on the first column is contained in the set of nodes V of the social graph G. We let A denote the universe of actions, i.e., the projection of L on the second column. Moreover, we assume that a user performs an action at most once, and define the function t(u, a) to return the time when user u performed action a (the value of t(u, a) is undefined if u never performed a, and t(u, a) < t(v, a) is false whenever either of t(u, a), t(v, a) is undefined). We say that a propagates from node u to v iff u and v are socially linked, and u performs a before v (we also say that u influences v on a). This defines a propagation graph of a as a directed graph G(a) = (V (a), E(a)), with V (a) = {v ∈ V | ∃t : (v, a, t) ∈ L} and E(a) = {(u, v) ∈ E | t(u, a) < t(v, a)}. Note that the propagation graph of an action a is the graph-representation of the propagation trace of a, and it is always a DAG: it is directed, each node can have zero or more parents, and cycles are impossible due to the time constraint. The action log L is thus a set of these DAGs representing propagation traces through the social graph. We denote by Nin(u, a) = {v | (v, u) ∈ E(a)} the set of potential influencers of u for action a and din(u, a) = |Nin(u, a)| to be the in-degree of u for action a. Finally, we call a user u an initiator of action a if u ∈ V (a) and din(u, a) = 0, i.e., u performed action a but none of its neighbors performed it before u did. Table 5.3 summarizes the notation used. The Sparsity Issue. In order to estimate Pr[path(S, u) = 1] using available propagation traces, it is natural to interpret such quantity as the fraction of the actions initiated by S that propagated to u, given that S is the seed set. More precisely, we could estimate this probability as |{a ∈ A|initiate(a, S) &∃t : (u, a, t) ∈ L}| |{a ∈ A|initiate(a, S)}| where initiate(a, S) is true iff S is precisely the set of initiators of action a. Unfortunately, this approach suffers from a sparsity issue which is intrinsic to the Influence Maximization problem [78]. If we need to be able to estimate Pr[path(S, u) = 1] for any set S and node u, we will need an enormous number of propagation traces corresponding to various combinations, where each trace has as its initiator set precisely the required node set S. It is clearly imprac- tical to find a real action log where this can be realized. To overcome this obstacle, we propose a different approach to estimating Pr[path(S, u) = 1] by taking a “u-centric” perspective: we assign “credits” to the possible influencers of a node u whenever u performs an action. The model is formally described next. Credit Distribution. When a user u performs an action a, we want to give direct influence credit, denoted by γv,u(a), to all v ∈ Nin(u, a), i.e., all neighbors of u that have performed the same action a before u. We constrain the sum of the direct credits given by a user to its neighbors to be no more than 1. We can have various ways of assigning direct credit: for ease of exposition, we assume for the moment to give equal credits to each neighbor v of u, i.e., γv,u(a) = 1/din(u, a) for all v ∈ Nin(u, a). Later we will see a more sophisticated method of assigning direct credit. Intuitively, we also want to distribute influence credit transitively backwards in the prop- agation graph G(a), such that not only u gives credit to the users v ∈ Nin(u, a), but they in 73 5.3. Credit Distribution Model Au Number of actions performed by u. Nin(u, a) Neighbors of u which activated on action a before. i.e., u’s potential influencers on action a. γv,u(a) Direct influence credit given to v for influencing u for action a. Γv,u(a) Total credit given to v for influencing u for action a. κv,u Total credit given to v for influencing u for all actions. ΓWx,u(a) Total credit given to x for influencing u for action a considering the paths that are completely contained in W ⊆ V . τv,u Average time taken by actions to propagate from user u to user v. Table 5.3: Notation adopted in the next sections in this chapter. turn pass on the credit to their predecessors in G(a) and so on. This suggests the following definition of total credit given to a user v for influencing u on action a, corresponding to multiple propagation paths: Γv,u(a) = ∑ w∈Nin(u,a) Γv,w(a) · γw,u(a) (5.5) where the base of the recursion is Γv,v(a) = 1. Sometimes, when the action is clear from the context, we can omit it and simply write γv,u and Γv,u. From here on, as a running example, we consider the influence graph in Figure 5.1 as the propagation graph G(a) with edges labeled with direct credits γv,u(a) = 1/din(u, a). For instance, Γv,u = Γv,v · γv,u + Γv,t · γt,u + Γv,w · γw,u + Γv,z · γz,u = 1 · 0.25 + 0.5 · 0.25 + 1 · 0.25 + 0.5 · 0.25 = 0.75. We next define the total credit given to a set of nodes S ⊆ V (a) for influencing user u on action a as follows: ΓS,u(a) = { 1 if v ∈ S;∑ w∈Nin(u,a) ΓS,w(a) · γw,u(a) otherwise Consider again the propagation graph G(a) in Figure 5.1. Let S = {v, z}. Then, ΓS,u is the fraction of flow reaching u that flows from either v or z: ΓS,u = ΓS,w · γw,u + ΓS,v · γv,u + ΓS,t · γt,u + ΓS,z · γz,u = 1 · 0.25 + 1 · 0.25 + 0.5 · 0.25 + 1 · 0.25 = 0.875. Aggregating Over All Actions and All Nodes. The next question is how to aggregate the influence credit over the whole action log L. Consider two nodes v and u: the total influence credit given to v by u for all actions in A, is simply obtained by taking the total credit over all actions and normalizing it by the number of actions performed by u (denoted Au). This is justified by the fact that credits are assigned by u backward to its potential influencers. We define: κv,u = 1 Au ∑ a∈A Γv,u(a) (5.6) 74 5.4. Influence Maximization Intuitively, it denotes the average credit given to v for influencing u, over all actions that u performs. Similarly, for the case of a set of nodes S ⊆ V , we can define the total influence credit for all the actions in A as: κS,u = 1 Au ∑ a∈A ΓS,u(a) (5.7) Note that κS,u corresponds, in our approach, to Pr[path(S, u) = 1] in Eq. 5.4. Finally, inspired by Eq. 5.4, we define the influence spread σcd(S) as the total influence credit given to S from the whole social network: σcd(S) = ∑ u∈V κS,u (5.8) In the spirit of Influence Maximization (Problem 1), this is the objective function that we want to maximize. In the next section we formally state the problem of maximizing influence under the CD model. We prove that the problem is NP-hard and that the function σcd(.) is submodular, paving the way for an approximation algorithm. Assigning Direct Credit. We now revisit the problem of defining the direct credit γv,u(a) given by a node u to a neighbor v for action a. In our previous work [56], we observed that influence decays over time in an exponential fashion and that some users are more influenceable than others. Motivated by these ideas, we propose to assign direct credit as: γv,u(a) = infl(u) Nin(u, a) · exp ( − t(u, a)− t(v, a) τv,u ) (5.9) Here, τv,u is the average time taken for actions to propagate from user v to user u. The exponential term in the equation achieves the desired effect that influence decays over time. Moreover, infl(u) denotes the user influenceability, that is, how prone the user u is to influence by the social context [56]. Precisely, infl(u) is defined as the fraction of actions that u performs under the influence of at least one of its neighbors, say v, i.e., u performs the action, say a, such that t(u, a) − t(v, a) ≤ τv,u; this is normalized by Nin(u, a) to ensure that the sum of direct credits assigned to neighbors of u for action a is at most 1. Note that both infl(u) and τ·,u are learnt from (the training subset of) L. Discussion. It should be pointed out that unlike classical models such as IC and LT, the credit distribution model is not a propagation model. Instead, it is a model that, based on available propagation data, learns the total influence credit accorded to a given set S by any node u and uses this to predict the influence spread of S. It is not susceptible to the sparsity issue discussed above, and it obviates the need to perform expensive MC simulations for the purpose of estimating influence spread. 5.4 Influence Maximization We next formally define the problem studied in this chapter. Problem 2 (Influence Maximization- CD model). Given a directed social graph G = (V,E), an action log L, and an integer k ≤ |V |, find a set S ⊆ V , |S| = k, that maximizes σcd(S). 75 5.4. Influence Maximization Theorem 4. Influence Maximization under the credit distribution model is NP-hard. Proof. We prove the hardness by reducing the well-known NP-complete problem Vertex Cover [48] to our problem. Given an instance I of Vertex Cover, consisting of an undirected graph G = (V,E) and a number k, create an instance J of the Influence Maximization problem under CD as follows. The directed social graph G′ = (V,E′) associated with J has the same node set as G. E′ two directed edges (u, v) and (v, u) in place of every undirected edge (u, v) ∈ E. We express the action log L associated with J in terms of propagation graphs, for convenience. For each edge (v, u) ∈ E, create two propagation graphs, corresponding to two actions a1 and a2 in L, consisting of only two nodes v and u. In the propagation graph G(a1), create an edge from v to u indicating that the corresponding action is being propagated from v to u. In the propagation graph G(a2), create an edge from u to v. Assign direct credits γv,u(a1) = γu,v(a2) = α where α ∈ (0, 1]. For instance, if we assign direct credits simply as γv,u(a) = 1/din(u, a), then α = 1. Similarly, if we assign direct credits as in equation 5.9, then α = 1/e. The reduction clearly takes polynomial time. We next prove that a set S ⊆ V , with |S| ≤ k, is a vertex cover of G if and only if its influence spread σcd(S) in the instance J is at least k + α · (|V | − k)/2. Only if: Suppose S is a vertex cover of G in the instance I. Consider any arbitrary node u. If u ∈ S, then κS,u = 1 by definition. On the other hand, if u /∈ S, then κS,u =∑ a ΓS,u(a)/(2 · deg(u)). Since u is not in the vertex cover, all its neighbors must be in S and thus, for exactly half of the actions a that u performs, ΓS,u(a) = α. These are the actions that u performs after its neighbor. Hence, ∑ a ΓS,u(a) = α · deg(u) and κS,u = α/2, where deg(u) is u’s degree in G. This implies σcd(S) = ∑ u∈V κS,u = k + α · (|V | − k)/2. If: Let S be any seed set whose spread is at least k + α · (|V | − k)/2 in instance J . Let N(u) be the set of neighbors of u in G, that is, N(u) = {v ∈ V |(v, u) ∈ E}. Consider an arbitrary node u /∈ S. For each node v in N(u) ∩ S, v has a credit of α over u, for the unique action whose propagation graph is the edge (v, u), and a null credit for all the other actions. Therefore κv,u = α/(2 · deg(u)). Aggregating over the whole seed set S we have that κS,u = α·|N(u)∩S|/(2·deg(u)). Hence, σcd(S) = ∑ u∈V κS,u = k+ ∑ u∈V \S α·|N(u)∩S|/(2·(deg(u)). From our assumption, σcd(S) ≥ k + α · (|V | − k)/2, it follows that ∑ u∈V \S |N(u) ∩ S|/deg(u) ≥ |V | − k. As |N(u) ∩ S| ≤ deg(u), this is possible only when ∀u ∈ V \ S : |N(u)∩S| = deg(u), implying that all neighbors of u must be in S and therefore, S is a vertex cover in instance I. Since the problem is NP-hard, we are interested in developing an approximation algorithm. We prove that the influence spread function is submodular under the CD model, paving the way for efficient approximation. Theorem 5. σcd(S) is monotone and submodular. Proof. It suffices to show that ΓS,u(a) is monotone and submodular as a positive linear com- bination of monotone, submodular functions is also monotone and submodular [103]. Clearly it is monotone. We prove submodularity by induction on path lengths. Note that the propa- gation graph for a given action is acyclic and hence the maximum path length is |V | − 1. Let 76 5.4. Influence Maximization ΓS,u(a, `) denote the total credit obtained by the set S for influencing u, restricting attention to paths of length ≤ `. Thus, ΓS,u(a) = ΓS,u(a, |V | − 1). Let S and T be two node sets such that S ⊆ T and let x /∈ T . Recall that the function Γ is submodular iff ΓS+x,u(a) − ΓS,u(a) ≥ ΓT+x,u(a) − ΓT,u(a). We call the left hand side of the inequality the marginal gain of x with respect to S (implicitly understood to be on u) and similarly for the right hand side. Base Case: In the base case, ` = 0. Depending on u, the base case can be split into various sub-cases: (a) If u ∈ S, then the marginal gain of x with respect to both S and T is 0; (b) If u ∈ T, u /∈ S, then while x’s marginal gain with respect to T is 0, its marginal gain with respect to S is no less than 0 as the function Γ(·) is monotone; (c) If u = x, then the marginal gain of x with respect to both S and T is exactly 1; (d) If u 6= x and u /∈ T , then the total credits on u from S, S + x, T and T + x are 0. This proves the base case. Induction Step: Assume that the function Γ is submodular when restricted to path lengths ≤ `, that is, ∀w ∈ V : ΓS+x,w(a, `)− ΓS,w(a, `) ≥ ΓT+x,w(a, `)− ΓT,w(a, `) (5.10) We will prove that the function remains submodular for paths of length `+ 1 for any node u ∈ V . Consider the marginal gain of x with respect to S on u when restricted to paths of length ≤ `+ 1, that is, consider ΓS+x,u(a, `+ 1)−ΓS,u(a, `+ 1). By definition, this is equal to∑ w∈Nin(u,a) ΓS+x,w(a, `) · γw,u(a)− ∑ w∈Nin(u,a) ΓS,w(a, `) · γw,u(a). Taking the common factor γw,u(a) out and applying induction hypothesis (Eq. 5.10), this is ≥ ∑ w∈Nin(u,a) (ΓT+x,w(a, `)− ΓT,w(a, `)) · γw,u(a) = ΓT+x,u(a, `+ 1)− ΓT,u(a, `+ 1) This was to be shown. In the remaining sub-sections, we develop an efficient approximation algorithm to solve the Influence Maximization problem under the CD model. 5.4.1 Overview of Our Method In the previous section, we show that while Influence Maximization under the CD model is NP-hard, the influence spread function is monotone and submodular. Consequently, the greedy algorithm (Algorithm 1) provides a (1− 1/e)-approximation to the optimum solution [103]. However, the greedy algorithm by itself does not guarantee efficiency as it requires to compute the marginal gain of a candidate seed node with respect to the current seed set, i.e., σcd(S + w) − σcd(S) (line 3 of Algorithm 1). For the IC and LT models, this is done by expensive MC simulations. For the CD model, the marginal gain can be directly computed from the action log L. A naive way to do this would be to scan L in each iteration. But this approach would be very inefficient. Hence, we focus our attention on computing the marginal gain efficiently by carefully exploiting some properties of our model. 77 5.4. Influence Maximization From here on, with a superscript W ⊆ V on the function Γ(·), we denote the function to be evaluated on the sub-graph induced by nodes in W . For example, ΓWx,u(a) is the total credit given to node x for influencing node u to perform action a considering the paths that are contained completely in the sub-graph induced by V (a) ∩W . That is, the sub-graph of the propagation graph for action a, induced by the nodes W ∩ V (a). When the superscript is not present the graph considered is the whole propagation graph for action a, i.e., Γx,u(a) = Γ V (a) x,u (a). It should be noted that the direct credit γx,u is always assigned considering the whole propagation graph. The following result is key to the efficiency of our algorithm. Theorem 6. σcd(S + x)− σcd(S) = ∑ a∈A ( (1− ΓS,x(a)) · ∑ u∈V 1 Au · Γ V−S x,u (a) ) Intuitively, the theorem says that the marginal gain of a node x equals the sum of normal- ized marginal gain of x on all actions. We give more insights into this equation in the proof. The theorem provides us an efficient method to compute the marginal gain, given values of ΓS,x(a) and ΓV−Sx,u (a): this is the key idea behind the efficiency of our algorithm, which can be abstractly summarized as follows: 1. Initially, scan the action log L and compute Γv,u(a) for all combinations of v, u and a (Algorithm 12). Note that at the beginning, S = ∅ and hence ΓS,x(a) = 0 for all combinations of x and a. 2. In each iteration of the greedy method, a node that provides the maximum marginal gain is added to the seed set. For this step we adopt the Celf [91] optimization idea (Algorithm 13). 3. To compute the marginal gain of a node x efficiently, we use Theorem 6. It requires values of ΓV−Sv,u (a) and ΓS,x(a) (Algorithm 14). 4. Once a node is added to the seed set, ΓV−Sv,u (a) and ΓS,x(a) are updated using Lemmas 2 and 3 (Alg. 15). 5.4.2 Proof of Theorem 6 The proof of Theorem 6 is non-trivial and we need to prove a few auxiliary claims first. In the process, we also derive equations to update the total credit (step 4 in the outline of our algorithm above). Lemma 1. ΓS,u(a) = ∑ v∈S Γ V−S+v v,u (a) We first explain the claim by means of an example by taking the influence graph in Figure 5.1 as a propagation graph G(a) with direct credit γv,u(a) = 1/din(u, a). Let S = {v, z}, according to Lemma 1 (dropping the argument a), ΓS,u = ΓV−zv,u + ΓV−vz,u = (0.25 + 0.25 + 0.5 · 0.25) + 0.25 = 0.875. Note that the credit given to v via the path v → t→ z → u is ignored. Next, we formally prove the claim. 78 5.4. Influence Maximization Proof of Lemma 1: By induction on path lengths. Recall that ΓS,u(a, l) denotes the total credit given to set S for influencing node u over paths of length no more than l. Base Case: l = 0 implies only u can get credit for influencing itself. Therefore if u /∈ S, both sides of the equality become 0. When u ∈ S, the total credit given to S for influencing u (left hand side) is 1 by definition, while in the right hand side all terms in the summation are 0 except the case v = u, that is ΓV−S+uu,u (a, 0) = 1. Induction Step: Assume that the lemma is true for path lengths no more than l. We prove it for path length up to l + 1. We start with definition of ΓS,u(a, l + 1) (Eq. 5.5). ΓS,u(a, l+ 1) = ∑ w∈Nin(u,a) ΓS,w(a, l) · γw,u(a). Applying induction hypothesis, the right hand side becomes: = ∑ w∈Nin(u,a) (∑ v∈S ΓV−S+vv,w (a, l) ) · γw,u(a) = ∑ v∈S ∑ w∈Nin(u,a) ΓV−S+vv,w (a, l) · γw,u(a) = ∑ v∈S ΓV−S+vv,u (a, l + 1) This concludes the proof. Next, we show how the total credit can be updated incrementally, when the induced sub-graph under consideration changes. Consider the sub-graph induced by the nodes W = V −S where S is the current seed set. Let ΓWv,u(a) be the total credit given to node v for influencing u in this sub-graph. Suppose node x is added to the seed set, then we are interested in computing ΓW−xv,u (a). This is clearly the total credit given to v minus the total credit given to v via paths that go through x. More precisely, we have: Lemma 2. ΓW−xv,u (a) = ΓWv,u(a)− ΓWv,x(a) · ΓWx,u(a). As an example, consider again the propagation graph in Figure 5.1 with S = {t, z}. The total credit given to v for influencing u on the subgraph induced by nodes in V − {t, z} is 1 ·0.25+0.25 = 0.5. Suppose w is added to the seed set S, then ΓV−S−wv,u = 0.5−1 ·0.25 = 0.25. The next lemma shows how to update incrementally the total credit of influence given to a set S by a node u, after x is added to the set. This is needed in step 4 of our method as sketched in previous section. Lemma 3. ΓS+x,u(a) = ΓS,u(a) + ΓV−Sx,u · (1− ΓS,x(a)) Proof: Since we refer to a single action, we drop the argument a and assume it implicitly. We use Lemma 1 to expand ΓS+x,u and ΓS,u: ΓS+x,u − ΓS,u = ∑ v∈S+x ΓV−S−x+vv,u − ∑ v∈S ΓV−S+vv,u = ΓV−Sx,u − ∑ v∈S (ΓV−S+vv,u − ΓV−S−x+vv,u ) Applying Lemma 2 to the terms inside the summation (with W = V − S + v), the right hand side becomes = ΓV−Sx,u − ∑ v∈S (ΓV−S+vv,x · ΓV−S+vx,u ) 79 5.4. Influence Maximization The terms inside the summation denote the total credit given to v for influencing u con- sidering the paths that go through x in the sub-graph induced by the nodes V − S + v. Since the graph is acyclic, if ΓV−S+vv,x is non-zero, then any path from x to u cannot pass through v. Hence, ΓV−S+vv,x ·ΓV−S+vx,u = ΓV−S+vv,x ·ΓV−Sx,u . Note that this equality holds even when ΓV−S+vv,x = 0 as both sides would be 0 in that case. Thus, ΓS+x,u−ΓS,u = ΓV−Sx,u − ∑ v∈S(Γ V−S+v v,x ·ΓV−Sx,u ). The term ΓV−Sx,u can be taken out of the summation and applying Lemma 1 gives∑ v∈S Γ V−S+v v,x = ΓS,x, from which the lemma follows. Finally, we are ready to prove Theorem 6. Proof of Theorem 6: By definition, σcd(S + x)− σcd(S) = ∑ u∈V 1 Au ∑ a∈A (ΓS+x,u(a)− ΓS,u(a)) Applying lemma 3, the right hand side becomes = ∑ u∈V 1 Au ∑ a∈A (ΓV−Sx,u (a) · (1− ΓS,x(a))) Rearranging the terms, we get σcd(S + x) − σcd(S) =∑ a∈A ( (1− ΓS,x(a)) · ∑ u∈V 1 Au · ΓV−Sx,u (a) ) , which was to be shown. 5.4.3 Algorithms In this section, we present our algorithm which builds on the properties developed in previous sections and whose outline was given in Section 5.4.1. Initially, we scan the action log L and then, we use the greedy algorithm with Celf optimization to select the seed set. While scanning the action log, we maintain all the information needed to select k seeds later. In particular, we compute total credit given to each node v for influencing any other node u for all actions a and record it into the data structure UC (User Credits). Each entry UC[v][u][a] corresponds to ΓV−Sv,u (a), that is, total credit given to v for activating u on the graph induced by V − S where S is the current seed set. We also maintain another data structure SC (Set Credits) where each entry SC[x][a] refers to the total credit given to the current seed set S by a node x for an action a, that is, ΓS,x(a). Since S is empty in the beginning, SC is not used in the first iteration. Algorithm 12 describes the first step of our method that scans L. L is maintained sorted, first by action and then by time. It processes one action at a time and in chronological order. We use current_table to maintain the list of users who have performed the current action and have been seen so far, and Au to denote the number of actions performed by user u in L, and Parents(u) for the list of parents of each user u with respect to the current action a, that is, Nin(u, a). For each action a and for each user u that performs it, we scan current_table to find its neighbors that already performed a and add them to the list of parents of u. Then for each parent v of u, we compute the direct credit γv,u(a) appropriately (line 9). For the ease of exposition, here we assume the simple definition γv,u(a) = 1/Nin(u, a), that can be implemented as γ = 1/|Parents(u)|. If we want to use the more complex definition of 80 5.4. Influence Maximization Algorithm 12 Scan Input: G,L, λ Output: UC 1: UC ← ∅ 2: for each action a in L do 3: current_table← ∅ 4: for each tuple 〈u, a, tu〉 in chronological order do 5: Parents(u)← ∅; Au ← Au + 1; UC[∗][u][a]← 0 6: while ∃v : (v, u) ∈ G, v ∈ current_table do 7: Parents(u)← Parents(u) ∪ {v} 8: end while 9: for each v ∈ Parents(u) do 10: compute γv,u 11: if γv,u ≥ λ then 12: UC[v][u][a]← UC[v][u][a] + γv,u 13: for each w such that UC[w][v][a] · γv,u ≥ λ do 14: UC[w][u][a]← UC[w][u][a] + γv,uUC[w][v][a] 15: end for 16: end if 17: end for 18: end for 19: current_table← current_table ∪ {u} 20: end for direct credit given in Eq. (5.9), we need to learn the parameters τv,u for all edges and infl(u) for all nodes in advance and pass them on to Algorithm 12 as input, similarly to what the standard method does for influence probabilities. Although it is straightforward to learn these parameters by means of a preliminary scan of L, we refer the reader to [56] for an efficient way to learn them. The total credit given to various nodes for influencing u is then computed using equation 5.5 (lines 10-13). For the sake of reducing memory requirements, we use a truncation threshold λ and discard credits that are below the threshold. In the experiments we will assess the effect of this truncation. Algorithm 13 Greedy with Celf Input: UC, k Output: seed set S 1: SC ← ∅; S ← ∅; Q← ∅ 2: for each u ∈ V do 3: x.mg ← computeMG(x); x.it← 0; add x to Q 4: end for 5: while |S| < k do 6: x← pop(Q) 7: if x.it = |S| then S ← S ∪ {x}; update(x, UC, SC) 8: else 9: x.mg ← computeMG(x, UC, SC); 10: x.it← |S|; Reinsert x into Q and heapify 11: end while 81 5.4. Influence Maximization Once the first phase is completed, we use the standard greedy algorithm with the Celf optimization [91] to select the seeds (Algorithm 13). The algorithm maintains a queue Q where an entry for a user x is stored in the form 〈x,mg, it〉, where mg represents the marginal gain of user x with respect to seed set in iteration it. Q is always kept sorted in decreasing order of mg. Initially, the influence spread of each node is computed and Q is built (lines 2-3). In each iteration, the top element x of Q is analyzed. If x is analyzed before in the current iteration (that is, x.it = |S|), then it is picked as the next seed node and the subroutine update is called (line 6). On the other hand, if x.it < |S|, we recompute the marginal gain of x with respect to S by calling the subroutine computeMG (line 8). Then x.it is set appropriately and x is re-inserted into Q (line 9). Algorithm 14 computeMG Input: x, UC, SC Output: mg 1: mg = 0 2: for each action a such that ∃u : UC[x][u][a] > 0 do 3: mga ← 1/Ax 4: for each user u such that UC[x][u][a] > 0 do 5: mga ← mga + UC[x][u][a]/Au 6: end for 7: mg ← mg +mga(1− SC[x][a]) 8: end for Algorithm 15 update Input: x, UC, SC 1: for each action a such that ∃u : UC[x][u][a] > 0 do 2: for each u such that UC[x][u][a] > 0 do 3: for each v such that UC[v][x][a] > 0 do 4: UC[v][u][a]← UC[v][u][a]− UC[v][x][a] · UC[x][u][a] 5: end for 6: SC[u][a]← SC[u][a] + UC[x][u][a] · (1− SC[x][a]) 7: end for 8: end for Algorithm 14 computes the marginal gain of a node x with respect to the current seed set S. It leverages Theorem 6 to do this efficiently. For an action a, lines 3-5 compute the term∑ u∈V 1 Au ·ΓV−Sx,u (a) and line 6 multiplies it by the term (1−ΓS,x(a)). Finally, whenever a user x is added to the seed set, the subroutine update is invoked and Algorithm 15 updates both UC and SC, using Lemmas 2 and 3. Memory requirements: Our algorithm requires to maintain the data structure UC whose size is potentially of the order of ∑ a∈A |V (a)|2. In reality, total credit decreases sharply with the length of paths. Thus by ignoring values that are below a given truncation threshold λ, the memory usage by our algorithm can be kept reasonable. We study the effect of λ in the experiments in the next section. 82 5.5. Experimental Evaluation 5.5 Experimental Evaluation The goals of our experiments are manifold. At a high level, we want to evaluate the different models and the optimization algorithms based on them with respect to accuracy of spread prediction, quality of seed selection, running time, and scalability. We perform additional experiments on the CD model and on the influence maximization algorithm based on it, to explore the impact of training data size on the quality of the solution and the impact of truncation threshold on the quality, running time, and memory usage. The source of the code used in our experiments is available at http://people.cs.ubc.ca/~goyal/code-release. php. We experiment on the same two real world datasets of Section 5.2 (Table 5.1). While we use the “large” versions of the datasets only to study the scalability of our method, “small” versions of the datasets are used to compare our algorithm with other methods (that do not scale to the large versions). Methods Compared. Since methods based on arbitrarily assigning edge probabilities are dominated by those that learn them from the past propagation traces (see Section 5.2), in our evaluation, we focus only on the following models. IC model with edge probabilities learnt from the training set by means of the EM method [114]. In all the experiments we run 10k MC simulations. LT model with 10k MC simulations. We take ideas from [78] and [56] and learn weights as pv,u = Av2u/N where Av2u is the number of actions propagated from v to u in the training set and N is the normalization factor to ensure the sum of incoming weights on each node is 1. CD model with direct credit assigned as described in Equation (5.9). Unless otherwise mentioned, the truncation threshold λ is set to 0.001 (see section 5.4.3). Later we also study effect of different truncation thresholds. Accuracy of Spread Prediction. In Section 5.2 (“Experiment 2”), we evaluated methods using IC and LT models where edge probabilities are arbitrarily assigned and methods that learn them from available data, with respect to the accuracy of spread prediction. We conduct a similar experiment to compare the IC, LT, and CD models. Fig. 5.3 shows the RMSE (computed exactly in the same way as in Section 5.2) in the spread predicted by the IC, LT, and CD models, as a function of actual spread for both datasets. An interesting observation from the figure is that while IC beats LT by a large margin on Flixster_Small, it loses to LT on Flickr_Small by a considerable margin. On the other hand, the CD model performs very well on both the datasets. In order to have a better understanding of the results, we conduct a detailed analysis. Fig. 5.4 depicts the proportion of propagation traces captured within a given absolute error, which is the absolute difference between the estimated spread and actual spread. More pre- cisely, for a given method, a point (x, y) on its plot says that the fraction of propagation traces (in the test set) on which the (absolute) prediction error of that method is ≤ x, is y. For instance, on Flixster_Small, for absolute error ≤ 30, CD model captures 67% of propagations (that is, 3391 out of 5128 propagations). On the other hand, the percentages of propagations captured within the same error by IC and LT model are 46% and 26% respec- 83 5.5. Experimental Evaluation 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 R M SE Actual Spread LT IC CD 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 R M SE Actual Spread IC LT CD Figure 5.3: RMSE vs propagation size on Flixster_Small (left) and Flickr_Small (right). 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 R at io o f p ro pa ga tio ns c ap tu re d Absolute Error CD IC LT 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 R at io o f p ro pa ga tio ns c ap tu re d Absolute Error CD LT IC Figure 5.4: Number of propagations captured against absolute error on Flixster_Small (left) and Flickr_Small (right). tively. Once again, it can be seen that while IC performs better than LT on Flixster_Small, it’s the other way round on Flickr_Small. This plot shows conclusively that within any given error tolerance, CD is able to capture a much higher fraction of propagation traces than IC and LT, on both data sets, confirming that CD model is more accurate when it comes to predicting the influence spread of a given seed set. Seed Set Intersection. Having established that CD is much more accurate in predicting actual spread, we next examine the question, how close to each other are the (near) optimal seed sets for the influence maximization problem, obtained by running the greedy algorithm under different models. Fig. 5.5 shows that the intersection of seed sets obtained from IC model with the seed sets obtained from LT and CD models is empty. On the other hand, there is a significant (∼50%) overlap between CD and LT models. We note since the greedy algorithm with MC simulations runs too slow on Flickr_Small (more on this later), in Fig. 5.5 we use PMIA [35] (for IC model) and LDAG [37] (for LT model) heuristics to obtain the seed set (only for Flickr_Small) in order to finish this experiment within a reasonable 84 5.5. Experimental Evaluation IC LT CD CD LT IC 50 0 0 IC 0 0 50 50 26 LT 28 50 50 CD 50 Figure 5.5: Size of seed set intersection for k = 50 on Flixster_Small (left) and Flickr_Small (right). time.37 This shows that the seed sets obtained from IC and LT models are very different from CD model. The difference is much more pronounced in the case of IC model. These findings are significant since together with the results of the previous experiment, they offer some evidence that the seeds chosen by IC and LT models run the risk of being poor with respect to the actual spread they achieve. We strengthen this evidence by conducting the next experiment. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 In flu en ce S pr ea d Seed Set Size CD LT High Degree PageRank IC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 In flu en ce S pr ea d (x 10 00 ) Seed Set Size CD LT High Degree PageRank IC Figure 5.6: Influence spread achieved under CD model by seed sets obtained by various models on Flixster_Small (left) and Flickr_Small (right). Spread Achieved. In this experiment, we compare the influence spread achieved by the seed sets obtained from the three methods. For the sake of completeness, we also include the heuristics High Degree and PageRank which select as seeds the top-k nodes with respect to degree and PageRank score respectively, as done in [35, 78]. One issue we face is that due to the sparsity issue, we cannot determine the actual spread of an arbitrary seed set from the available data. The next best thing we can do is pick a model that enjoys the least error in spread prediction and treat the spread predicted by it as actual spread. In this way, for any given seed set, we can use that model to tell us (its best estimate of) the actual spread. Given that CD model is found to be closest to reality in predicting the spread of a seed set (see Fig. 5.3 and 5.4), we use the spread predicted by it as the actual spread. The results of this experiment, depicted in Fig. 5.6, confirm that on both data sets the spread achieved by the seed sets found by methods using the IC and LT 37Chen et al.[35, 37] have shown the spread obtained from PMIA and LDAG are very close to those obtained via MC simulations for IC and LT. 85 5.5. Experimental Evaluation models falls far short of the actual spread, which is best approximated using the CD model. A surprising observation is that IC model performs poorly, even worse than heuristics like High Degree and PageRank. We looked in the data and found that the seeds picked by IC model are nodes which perform a very small number of actions, often just one action, and should not be considered as high influential nodes. We investigate the reasons below. For instance, on Flixster_Small, the first seed picked by the IC model is the user with Id 168766. While its influence spread under IC model is 499.6, it is only 1.08 under CD model. In the data, the user 168766 performs only one action and this action propagates to 20 of its neighbors. As a result, the EM method [114] ends up assigning probability 1.0 to the edges from 168766 to all its 20 neighbors, making it a high influence node, so much that it is picked as the first seed. Obviously, in reality, 168766 cannot be considered as a highly influential node since its influence is not statistically significant. In an analogy with Association Rules, the influence of user 168766 can be seen as a maximum confidence rule, but which occurs only once (absolute support = 1). A deeper analysis tells us that most of the seeds picked by the IC model are of this kind: not very active nodes that, in the few cases they perform an action, do have some followers. We checked and found that the average number of actions performed by these seeds is 30.3 (against the global average of 167). On the other hand, the average number of actions performed by seed set obtained from our CD model is 1108.7. We found a similar behavior in Flickr_Small. 1 10 100 1000 10000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 R un tim e (in m in) Seed Set Size IC LT CD Figure 5.7: Running time comparison. Running Time. In this experiment, we first show results on the small versions of the data sets, for all three models, as a function of number of seed nodes selected. All the experiments are run on an Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5570 @ 2.93GHz machine with 64GB RAM run- ning Opensuse 11.3. The algorithms are implemented in C++. Fig. 5.7 reports the time taken (in minutes, on log scale) by the vari- ous models. It can be seen that our method is several orders of magnitude faster. For instance, to select 50 seeds on Flixster_Small, while the greedy al- gorithm (with Celf optimization) takes 40 and 25 hours under IC and LT model respectively, our algorithm takes only 3 minutes. We do not show a similar plot for Flickr_Small as the experiment takes too long to complete (for IC and LT models). At the time of writing the corresponding paper for this chapter [57], while the experiment for IC model ran for 27 days without even selecting a single seed, the experiment for LT model took the same time to pick only 17 seeds. On the other hand, our algorithm takes only 6 minutes to pick 50 seeds. Scalability. Next, we show the scalability of our algorithm with respect to the size of the 86 5.5. Experimental Evaluation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 R un tim e (in m in) Number of tuples (x 1M) Flickr_Large Flixster_Large 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 M em or y Us ag e (in G B) Number of tuples (x 1M) Flickr_Large Flixster_Large Figure 5.8: Runtime (left) and memory usage (right) against number of tuples. action log, in number of tuples. For this purpose, we created the training data set by randomly choosing propagation traces from the complete action log and selecting all the corresponding action log tuples. In Fig. 5.8 and 5.9, the x-axis corresponds to the number of tuples in the training set. Fig. 5.8 (left) shows the time taken by our algorithm to select 50 seeds against the number of tuples used. It should be noted that most of the time taken by our algorithm is consumed in scanning the action log. For example, it takes 15 minutes to select the seed set when 5M tuples are used on Flixster_Large, out of which, 11.6 minutes are spent on scanning the action log and only 3.4 minutes are incurred in selecting the seed set. Fig. 5.8 (right) presents the memory usage with respect to the number of action log tuples used to select the seed set of size 50. Our algorithm’s memory usage is proportional to the number of training tuples used: on Flixster_Large using 6.5M tuples, it requires approximately 16GB, while on 13M tuples on Flickr_Large, it requires approximately 46GB. This raises the question how much training data is needed to select a good seed set, which we study next. Effect of Training Data Size. Fig. 5.9 shows the convergence of the output of our algorithm with respect to number of tuples used to select the seeds. Both plots have a double y-axis (left and right). On the left side, we have the spread of influence by the seed set obtained using a sample of training data, while on the right side, we have the overlap of the seed set found with the “true seeds”, i.e., the seeds selected by using the complete action logs, i.e., all 6.5M tuples in Flixster_Large and all 13M tuples in Flickr_Large. As can be seen, the quality of the seed set obtained by using only 1M tuples is as good as using all 6.5M tuples in case of Flixster_Large. Similarly, in Flickr_Large, the influence spread “converges” after 8M tuples. These observations suggest that we need to use only a small sample of the propagation traces (or action log) to select the seed set and as a result, even though our algorithm can in principle be memory intensive when the action log is huge, in reality, the memory requirements are not that high. Effect of truncation threshold. Finally, we show the effect of truncation threshold λ on 87 5.6. Conclusions and Discussion 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 20 30 40 50 In flu en ce S pr ea d # of T ru e Se ed s Di sc ov er ed Number of tuples (x 1M) Influence Spread # of True Seeds Discovered 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 In flu en ce S pr ea d (x 10 00 ) # of T ru e Se ed s Di sc ov er ed Number of tuples (x 1M) Influence Spread # of True Seeds Discovered Figure 5.9: Influence spread achieved and number of “true” seeds with respect to number of tuples used on Flixster_Large (left) and Flickr_Large (right). the accuracy, memory usage and running time of our algorithm in Table 5.4. As expected, as we decrease the truncation threshold, while accuracy (measured in terms of number of “true” seeds discovered and influence spread achieved) improves, memory requirement and running time increase. Both the influence spread and “true seeds discovered” essentially saturate at λ = 0.001. Note that in all our previous experiments, we used λ = 0.001 which is a good choice as can be seen from the table. The results on Flickr_Large and on small versions of the datasets are similar. λ Influence True seeds Memory Runtime Spread discovered usage (GB) (in min) 0.1 2959 38 2.1 5.25 0.01 3220 45 6 8.62 0.001 3267 48 18.8 21.25 0.0005 3267 49 26 25.9 0.0001 3270 50 51 46.7 Table 5.4: Effect of truncation threshold λ on Flixster_Large. “True seeds” are the ones obtained when λ = 0.0001. 5.6 Conclusions and Discussion While most of the literature on Influence Maximization has focused mainly on the so- cial graph structure, in this chapter we proposed a novel data-based approach, that directly leverages available traces of past propagations. Our Credit Distribution model directly estimates influence spread by exploiting historical data, thus avoiding the need for learning influence probabilities, and more importantly, avoid- ing costly Monte Carlo simulations, the standard way to estimate influence spread. Based on this, we developed an efficient algorithm for Influence Maximization. We demonstrated 88 5.6. Conclusions and Discussion the accuracy on real data sets by showing the CD model by far is closest to ground truth. We also showed that our algorithm is highly scalable. Beyond the main contributions, this chapter achieves several side-contributions: (1) Meth- ods which arbitrarily assign influence probabilities suffer from large error in their spread pre- diction compared with those that learn these probabilities from data. (2) The former methods end up choosing seed sets very different from the latter ones, suggesting the seeds they rec- ommend may well have a poor spread. (3) The greedy algorithm using learned influence probabilities is robust against some noise in the probability learning step. (4) The IC and LT models, using learned influence probabilities, choose seed sets very different from each other, and in turn different from the CD model, which is by far closest to ground truth. These observations further highlight the need for devising techniques and benchmarks for comparing different influence models and the associated Influence Maximization methods. Acknowledgments. Thanks to Jamali and Ester for sharing the Flixster dataset [74]. 89 Chapter 6 On Minimizing Budget and Time in Influence Propagation over Social Networks In recent years, study of influence propagation in social networks has gained tremendous attention. In this context, we can identify three orthogonal dimensions – the number of seed nodes activated at the beginning (known as budget), the expected number of activated nodes at the end of the propagation (known as expected spread or coverage), and the time taken for the propagation. We can constrain one or two of these and try to optimize the third. In their seminal paper, Kempe, Kleinberg and Tardos constrained the budget, left time unconstrained, and maximized the coverage: this problem is known as Influence Maximization. In this chapter, we study alternative optimization problems which are naturally motivated by resource and time constraints on viral marketing campaigns. In the first problem, termed Minimum Target Set Selection (or MINTSS for short), a coverage threshold η is given and the task is to find the minimum size seed set such that by activating it, at least η nodes are eventually activated in the expected sense. This naturally captures the problem of deploying a viral campaign on a budget. In the second problem, termed MINTIME, the goal is to minimize the time in which a predefined coverage is achieved. More precisely, in MINTIME, a coverage threshold η and a budget threshold k are given, and the task is to find a seed set of size at most k such that by activating it, at least η nodes are activated in the expected sense, in the minimum possible time. This problem addresses the issue of timing when deploying viral campaigns. Both these problems are NP-hard, which motivates our interest in their approximation. For MINTSS, we develop a simple greedy algorithm and show that it provides a bicriteria approximation. We also establish a generic hardness result suggesting that improving this bicriteria approximation is likely to be hard. For MINTIME, we show that even bicriteria and tricriteria approximations are hard under several conditions. We show, however, that if we allow the budget for number of seeds k to be boosted by a logarithmic factor and allow the coverage to fall short, then the problem can be solved exactly in PTIME, i.e., we can achieve the required coverage within the time achieved by the optimal solution to MINTIME with budget k and coverage threshold η. Finally, we establish the value of the approximation algorithms, by conducting an experi- mental evaluation, comparing their quality against that achieved by various heuristics. This chapter is based on our SNAM 2012 journal manuscript [58]. This study has been done in collaboration with Francesco Bonchi and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan and Suresh Venkata- 90 6.1. Introduction subramanian. 6.1 Introduction The study of how influence and information propagate in social networks has recently received a great deal of attention [2, 13, 24, 32, 35–37, 42, 55, 56, 78, 79, 82, 109, 139]. One of the central problems in this domain is the problem of Influence Maximization [78]. Consider a social network in which we have accurate estimates of influence among users. Suppose we want to launch a new product in the market by targeting a set of influential users (e.g., by offering them the product at a discounted price), with the goal of starting a word-of-mouth viral propagation, exploiting the power of social connectivity. The idea is that by observing its neighbors adopting the product, or more generally, performing an action, a user may be influenced to perform the same action, with some probability. Influence thus propagates in steps according to one of the propagation models studied in the literature, e.g., the independent cascade (IC) or the linear threshold (LT) models [78]. The propagation stops when no new user gets activated. In this context, we can identify three main dimensions – the number of seed nodes (or users) activated at the beginning (known as the budget), the expected number of nodes that eventually get activated (known as coverage or expected spread)38, and the number of time steps required for the propagation. In their seminal paper Kempe, Kleinberg and Tardos [78] introduced the problem of Influence Maximization which asks for a seed set with a budget threshold k that maximizes the expected spread (time being left unconstrained). They showed that under the standard propagation models IC and LT, Influence Maximization is NP- hard, but that a simple greedy algorithm that exploits properties of the propagation function yields a (1− 1/e− φ)-approximation, for any φ > 0 (as discussed in detail in Section 6.2). In this chapter, we explore the other dimensions of influence propagation. The problem of Minimum Target Set Selection (MINTSS) is motivated by the observation that in a viral marketing campaign, we may be interested in the smallest budget that will achieve a desired outcome. The problem can therefore be defined as follows. We are given a threshold η for the expected spread and the problem is to find a seed set of minimum size such that activating the set yields an expected spread of at least η. In both MINTSS and Influence Maximization, the time for propagation is not consid- ered. Indeed, with the exception of a few papers [see e.g., 91], the temporal dimension of the social propagation phenomenon has been largely overlooked. This is surprising as the timeli- ness of a viral marketing campaign is a key ingredient for its success. Beyond viral marketing, many other applications in time-critical domains can exploit social networks as a means of communication to spread information quickly. This motivates the problem of Minimum Prop- agation Time (MINTIME), defined as follows: given a budget k and a coverage threshold η, find a seed set that satisfies the given budget and achieves the desired coverage in as little time as possible. Thus, MINTIME tries to optimize the propagation time required to achieve a desired coverage under a given budget. 38We use the terms coverage and expected spread interchangeably throughout the article. 91 6.1. Introduction 6.1.1 Our Contributions We now summarize the main results in this chapter. • Firstly, we show (Section 6.4, Theorem 7) that for all instances of MINTSS where the coverage function is submodular, a simple greedy algorithm yields a bicriteria approxima- tion: given a coverage threshold η and a shortfall parameter > 0, the greedy algorithm will produce a solution S: σ(S) ≥ η − and |S| ≤ (1 + ln(η/))OPT , where OPT is the optimal size of a seed set whose coverage is at least η. That is, the greedy solu- tion exceeds the optimal solution in terms of size (budget) by a logarithmic factor while achieving a coverage that falls short of the required coverage by the shortfall parameter. We prove a generic hardness result (Section 6.4, Theorem 9) suggesting that improving this approximation factor is likely to be hard. • For MINTIME under IC and LT model (or any model with monotone submodular cov- erage functions), we show that when we allow the coverage achieved to fall short of the threshold and the budget k for number of seed nodes to be overrun by a logarithmic factor, then we can achieve the required coverage in the minimum possible propaga- tion time, i.e., in the time achieved by the optimal solution to MINTIME with budget threshold k and coverage threshold η (Section 6.5, Theorem 12). • On the other hand, for MINTIME under the IC model, we show that even bicriteria and tricriteria approximations are hard. More precisely, let ROPT be the optimal propagation time required for achieving a coverage ≥ η within a budget of k. Then we show the following (Section 6.5, Theorem 10): there is unlikely to be a PTIME algorithm that finds a seed set with size under the budget, which achieves a coverage better than (1− 1/e)η. Similarly, if we limit the budget overrun factor to less than ln(η), then it is unlikely that there is a PTIME algorithm that finds a seed set of size within the overrun budget which achieves a coverage better than (1− 1/e)η. In both cases, the result holds even when we permit any amount of slack in the resulting propagation time. • The above results are bicriteria bounds, in that they allow slack in two of the three parameters governing MINTIME problems. We also show a tricriteria hardness result (Section 6.5, Theorem 11). Namely, if we limit the budget overrun factor to be β < ln(η), then it is unlikely that there is a PTIME algorithm that finds a seed set with a size within a factor β of the budget that achieves a coverage better than (1−1/eβ)η. Similar bounds hold if we place hard limits on the coverage approximation and try to balance overrun in the other parameters. • Often, the coverage function can be hard to compute exactly. This is the case for both IC and LT models [78]. All our results are robust in that they carry over even when only estimates of the coverage function are available. • We show the value of our approximation algorithms by experimentally comparing their quality with that of several heuristics proposed in other contexts, using two real data sets. We discuss our findings in Section 6.6. 92 6.2. Problems Studied Related work is discussed in Section 6.3. Section 6.7 concludes the chapter and discusses interesting open problems. 6.2 Problems Studied The necessary background is covered in Chapter 2. We directly jump to the problems we study in this chapter. Let m stand for any propagation model with a submodular coverage function σm(.). Problem 3 (MINTSS). Let G = (V,E) be a social graph. Given a real number η ≤ |V |, find a set S ⊆ V of the smallest size |S|, such that the expected spread, denoted σm(S), is no less than η. Problem 4 (MINTIME). Let G = (V,E) be a social graph. Given an integer k, and a real number η ≤ |V |, find a set S ⊆ V , |S| ≤ k, and the smallest t ∈ N, such that the expected spread at time t, denoted σtm(S), is no less than η. The MINTSS problem is closely related to the real-valued submodular set cover (RSSC) problem. In the submodular set cover (SSC) problem we are given a monotone submodular set function f over a ground set X and a modular cost function c over X and are asked to find a set S ⊆ X minimizing c(S) := ∑s∈S c(s) subject to the constraint that f(S) = f(X ). The RSSC problem, which generalizes SSC, is defined as follows: given a submodular function f : 2X → R and a threshold η, find a set S ⊆ X of the least size (or minimum cost, when elements of X are weighted) such that f(S) ≥ η. MINTSS under any propagation model such as IC and LT, for which the coverage function is submodular is clearly a special case of RSSC, an observation we exploit in Section 6.4. MINTIME is closely related to the Robust Asymmetric k-center (RAKC) problem in di- rected graphs, defined as follows: given a digraph G = (V,E), a (possibly empty) set of forbidden nodes and thresholds k and η, find k or fewer nodes S such that they cover at least η non-forbidden nodes in the minimum possible radius, i.e., each of the η nodes are reachable from some node in S in the minimum possible distance. 6.3 Related Work While to the best of our knowledge MINTIME has never been studied before, some work has been devoted to MINTSS [16, 33]. Both studies focus on a variant of LT model (DLT model) where a deterministic threshold θu is chosen for each node. While coverage under the LT model is submodular, it is not submodular under the DLT model. There have been some recent works that evaluate classical propagation models like IC and LT against real world datasets [17, 57]. We are not aware of any such studies on the DLT model. In this chapter, we study both MINTSS and MINTIME under the classic propagation models IC and LT, under which the coverage function is submodular. Chen [33] shows that under the DLT propagation model, MINTSS cannot be approximated within a factor of O(2log 1−δ n) unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)), and also gives a polynomial 93 6.3. Related Work time algorithm for MINTSS on trees. Ben-Zwi et al. [16] build upon [33] and develop a O(nO(w)) algorithm for solving MINTSS exactly under the DLT model, where w is the tree width of the graph. They show the problem cannot be solved in nO( √ w) time unless all problems in SNP can be solved in sub-exponential time. A few classical cover-problems are related to the problems we study. One such problem is Maximum Coverage (MC): given a collection of sets S over a ground set U and budget k, find a subcollection C ⊆ S such that |C| ≤ k and |⋃ C| is maximized. The problem can be approximated within a factor of (1− 1/e) and it cannot be improved [44, 80]. Similar results by Khuller et al. [80] and Sviridenko [126] exist for the weighted case. Another relevant problem is Partial Set Cover (PSC): given a collection of sets S over the ground set U and a threshold η, the goal is to find a subcollection C ⊆ S such that |⋃ C| ≥ η and |C| is minimized. While PSC can be approximated within a factor of dln ηe, Feige [44] showed that it cannot be approximated within a factor of (1 − δ) ln η, for any fixed δ > 0, unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)). Our results on MINTSS exploit its connection to the real-valued submodular set cover (RSSC) problem. There has been substantial work on submodular set cover (SSC) in the presence of integer-valued submodular functions[14, 44, 46, 47, 123]. Relatively much less work has been done on real-valued SSC. For non-decreasing real-valued submodular functions, Wolsey [140] has shown, among other things, that a simple greedy algorithm yields a solution to a special case of SSC where η = f(X ), that is within a factor of ln[η/(η − f(St−1)] of the optimal solution, where t is the number of iterations needed by the greedy algorithm to achieve a coverage of η and Si denotes the greedy solution after i iterations. Unfortunately, this result by itself does not yield an approximation algorithm with any guaranteed bounds: in Section 6.3.1 we give an example to show that the greedy solution can be arbitrarily worse than the optimal one. Furthermore, Wolsey’s analysis is restricted to the case η = f(X ). Along the way to establishing our results on MINTSS, we show the greedy algorithm yields a bicriteria approximation for real-valued SSC that extends to the general case of partial cover with η ≤ f(X ), and where elements are weighted. Our results on MINTIME leverage its connection to the robust asymmetric k-center prob- lem (RAKC). It has been shown that, while asymmetric k-center problem can be approximated within a factor of O(log∗ n) [104], RAKC cannot be approximated within any factor unless P = NP [92]. 6.3.1 Example Illustrating Performance of Wolsey’s Solution The following example shows the greedy solution with threshold η can be arbitrarily worse than the optimum. Example (Illustrated also in Figure 6.1). Consider a ground set X = {w1, w2, v1, v2, ..., vl} with elements having unit costs. Figure 6.1 geometrically depicts the definition of a function f : 2X→R, where for any set S ⊂ X , f(S) is defined to be the area (shown shaded) covered by the elements of S. Specifically, f(w1) = f(w2) = 1− 1/2l+1 and f(vi) = 1/2i−1, 1 ≤ i ≤ l. Notice, f({v1, ..., vl}) = Σli=11/2i−1 = 2 − 1/2l−1 < 2 − 1/2l = f({w1, w2}). The greedy algorithm will first pick v1. Suppose it picks S = {v1, ..., vi} in i rounds. Then f(S∪{vi+1})− f(S) = 1/2i > 1 − 1/2l+1 − 1 + 1/2i = 1 − 1/2l+1 − 1/2(2 − 1/2i−1) = f(S ∪ {w1}) − f(S). 94 6.4. Minimum Target Set Selection Figure 6.1: Example. Rectangles represent the elements in the universe. The shaded area within a rectangle represents the coverage function f for the element. e.g., f(v1) = 1/2+1/2 = 1. Thus, greedy will never pick w1 or w2 before it picks v1, ..., vl. Suppose η = 2− 1/2l. Clearly, the greedy solution is X whereas the optimal solution is {w1, w2}. Here l can be arbitrarily large. 6.4 Minimum Target Set Selection 6.4.1 A Bicriteria Approximation Our main result of this section is that a simple greedy algorithm, Algorithm Greedy-Mintss, yields a bicriteria approximation to (weighted) MINTSS, for any propagation model whose coverage function is monotone and submodular. Algorithm 16 Greedy-Mintss Input: G, η, , σm Output: seed set S 1: S ← ∅ 2: while σm(S) < η − do 3: u← arg maxw∈V \S(min(σm(S∪{w}),η)−σm(S)c(w) ); 4: S ← S ∪ {u} 5: end while In order to prove the results in the most general setting, we consider digraphs G = (V,E) which have non-negative node weights: we are given a cost function c : V → R+ in addition to the coverage threshold η, and need to find a seed set S such that σm(S) ≥ η and c(S) =∑ x∈S c(x) is minimum. Clearly, this generalizes the unweighted case. 95 6.4. Minimum Target Set Selection Theorem 7. Let G = (V,E) be a social graph, with node weights given by c : V → R+. Let m be any propagation model whose coverage function σm(.) is monotone and submodular. Let §∗ be a seed set of minimum cost such that σm(§∗) ≥ η. Let > 0 be any shortfall and let S be the greedy solution with chosen threshold η − . Then, c(S) ≤ c(S∗) · (1 + ln(η/)). In the rest of this section, we prove this result. We first observe that every instance of MINTSS where the coverage function σm(.) is monotone and submodular is an instance of RSSC. Thus, it suffices to prove Theorem 7 for RSSC, for which we adapt a bicriterion approximation technique by [123]. Let X = {x1, x2, ..., xm} be a ground set, c : X→R+ be a cost function, f : 2X→R a non-negative monotone submodular function and η a given threshold. Apply the greedy algorithm above to this instance of RSSC. Let Si be the (partial) solution obtained by the greedy algorithm after i iterations. Let t be the smallest number such that f(St) ≥ η. We define g(S) = min(f(S), η). Clearly, g is also monotone and submodular. In each iteration, the greedy algorithm picks an element which provides the maximum marginal gain per unit cost (w.r.t. g), i.e., it picks an element x for which g(S∪{x})−g(S)c(x) is positive and is maximum. Let c(S∗) = κ and define ηi = η − g(Si), i.e., the shortfall in coverage after i iterations of the greedy algorithm. Lemma 4. At the end of iteration i, there is an element x ∈ X \ §i: g(Si∪{x})−g(§i)c(x) ≥ ηiκ . Proof. Let §∗i = §∗ − §i. Let §∗i = {y1, ..., yt} and c(S∗i ) = κi. Suppose ∀x ∈ X \ §i : g(§i∪{x})−g(§i) c(x) < ηi κ . Consider adding the elements in §∗i to §i one by one. Clearly, at any step j ≤ t, we have by submodularity that g(§i ∪ {y1, ..., yj})− g(§i ∪ {y1, ..., yj−1}) ≤ g(§i ∪ {yj})− g(§i) < c(yj) · ηi κ Iterating over all j, this yields g(§i ∪ {y1, ..., yj})− g(§i) < ηiκ · (c(y1) + ...+ c(yj)) resulting in g(§i ∪ {y1, ..., yt}) < g(Si) + ηiκ · ∑ 1≤j≤t c(yj) ≤ η which is a contradiction since the left hand side is no less than the optimal coverage. Proof of Theorem 7: It follows from Lemma 4 that ηi ≤ ηi−1(1 − ci/κ) where ci is the cost of the element added in iteration i. Using the well known inequality (1+z) ≤ ez, ∀z, we get ηi ≤ ηi−1 ·e−ci/k. Expanding, ηi ≤ η·e− 1k · ∑ i ci . Let the algorithm take l iterations to achieve coverage g(Sl) ≥ η− such that g(Sl−1) < η− . At any step, g(Si+1)−g(Si) ≤ ηi. Thus, ci ≤ κ, and in particular, the cost of the last element picked can be at most κ. So, c(Sl) ≤ κ+ c(Sl−1). g(Sl−1) < η − implies ηl−1 > . Hence, we have ηe− 1 κ c(Sl−1) > which implies c(Sl−1) < κ ln(η/). Thus, c(Sl) ≤ κ(1 + ln(η/)). Using a similar analysis, it can be shown that when the costs are uniform, the approxima- tion factor can be improved to dln(η/)e. For propagation models like IC and LT, computing the coverage σm(S) exactly is #P-hard [35, 37] and thus we must settle for estimates. To address this, we “lift” the above theorem to the case where only estimates of the function f(.) are available. We can show: 96 6.4. Minimum Target Set Selection Theorem 8. For any φ > 0, there exists a δ ∈ (0, 1) such that using (1 − δ)-approximate values for the coverage function σm(·), the greedy algorithm approximates MINTSS under IC and LT models within a factor of (1 + φ) · (1 + ln(η/)). Proof. The proof involves a more careful analysis of how error propagates in the greedy algorithm if, because of errors, the greedy algorithm picks the wrong point. Here, we give the proof for the unit cost version only. Consider any monotone, submodular function f(·). Thus, in the statement of theorem, σm(·) = f(·). Let f ′(·) be its approximated value. In any iteration, the (standard) greedy algorithm picks an element which provides maximum marginal gain. Let Si be the set formed after iteration i. As we did in Lemma 4, it is straightforward to show that there must exists an element x ∈ X \ Si such that f(Si ∪ {x}) − f(Si) ≥ ηi/k where ηi = η − f ′(Si). Without loss of generality, let x be the element which provides the maximum marginal gain. Suppose that due to the error in computing f(.), some other element y is picked instead. Then, (1− δ)f(Si ∪ {x}) ≤ f ′(Si ∪ {x}) ≤ f ′(Si ∪ {y}) Moreover, f ′(Si) ≤ f(Si). Thus, ηi k ≤ f(Si ∪ {x})− f(Si) ≤ f ′(Si ∪ {y}) 1− δ − f ′(Si) =⇒ ηi k ≤ η − ηi+1 1− δ − η + ηi =⇒ ηi+1 ≤ ηi · (1− δ) · ( 1− 1 k ) + δ · η =⇒ ηi+1 ≤ η · (1− δ)i+1 · ( 1− 1 k )i+1 + δ · η · ( 1− (1− δ)i+1(1− 1/k)i+1 1− (1− δ)(1− 1/k) ) Let δ′ = δ/(1− (1− δ)(1− 1/k)). Let the greedy algorithm takes l iterations. Then, ηl ≤ η · (1− δ)l · ( 1− 1 k )l + δ′ · η · ( 1− (1− δ)l · ( 1− 1 k )l) = η · (1− δ)l · ( 1− 1 k )l (1− δ′) + δ′ · η Using (1− δ)l ≤ 1 and (1− 1/k)l ≤ e−l/k, ηl ≤ ηe−l/k(1− δ′) + δ′ · η 97 6.4. Minimum Target Set Selection The algorithm stops when ηl ≤ . The maximum number of iterations needed to ensure this are l ≤ k ( 1 + ln η(1− δ′) (1− δ′η/) ) Let x = η/. To prove the lemma, we need to prove that for any φ > 0, there exists δ ∈ [0, 1) such that x1+φ = x 1− δ′ 1− δ′x =⇒ δ ′ = xφ − 1 x1+φ − 1 Clearly, for any φ ≥ 0, δ′ ∈ [0, 1). Hence, 0 ≤ δ < 1− (1− δ)(1− 1/k) ⇐⇒0 ≤ δ < 1 This completes the proof for unit cost case. Using the slight modification in the greedy algorithm (as we did in proving theorem 1), the same result can be obtained for weighted version. 6.4.2 An Inapproximability Result Recall that every instance of MINTSS where the coverage function is monotone and submod- ular is an instance of RSSC. Consider the unweighted version of the RSSC problem. Let S∗ denote an optimal solution and let OPT = |S∗|. Theorem 9. For any fixed δ > 0, there does not exist a PTIME algorithm for RSSC that guarantees a solution § : |§| ≤ OPT (1 − δ) ln(η/), and f(§) ≥ η − for any > 0 unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)). Proof. Case 1: ≥ 1. Suppose there exists an algorithm A that finds a solution S of size ≤ OPT (1 − δ) ln(η/) such that f(S) ≥ η − for any ≥ 1. Consider an arbitrary instance I = 〈U ,S, η〉 of PSC, which is a special case of RSSC. Apply the algorithm A to I. It outputs a collection of sets C1 : |C1| ≤ OPT (1− δ) ln(η/) that covers ≥ η − elements in U . Create a new instance J = 〈U ′,S ′, η′〉 of PSC as follows. Let T = ⋃ C1 be the set of elements of U covered by C1. Define S ′ = {S \ T | § ∈ S \ C1}, U ′ = U \ T and η′ = . Set the new shortfall ′ = 1. Apply the algorithm A to J . It will output another collection of sets C2 : |C2| ≤ OPT (1−δ) ln which covers ≥ −1 elements in U ′.39 Let C = C1∪C2. The number of elements covered by C is ≥ η − + − 1 = η − 1. Clearly, |C| = |C1| + |C2| ≤ OPT (1 − δ) ln(η/) +OPT (1− δ) ln() = OPT (1− δ) ln(η). Thus, we have a solution for PSC with the approximation factor of (1−δ) ln(η), which is not possible unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)) [44]. This proves Case 1. Case 2: < 1. Assume an arbitrary instance I of RSSC with monotone submodular function f : 2X → R. Let η′ be the coverage threshold and ′ ≥ 1 be any given shortfall. 39If = 1, A outputs an empty collection. 98 6.5. MINTIME We now construct another instance J of RSSC as follows: Set the coverage function g(S) = f (S)/x, coverage threshold η = η′/x and shortfall = ′/x. Choose any value of x > 1 such that = ′/x < 1. We now show that if a solution is a (1 − δ) ln(η/)-approximation to the optimal solution for J then it is a (1− δ) ln(η′/′)-approximation to the optimal solution for I. Clearly, the optimal solution for both the instances are identical, so OPT I = OPTJ .40 Suppose there exists an algorithm for RSSC when the shortfall is ∈ (0, 1), that guarantees a solution § : |§| ≤ OPT (1− δ) ln(η/) and f (§) ≥ η − . Apply this algorithm to instance J to obtain a solution §J . We have: g(§J ) ≥ η− = (η′−′)/x. It implies f (§J ) = x·g(§J ) ≥ η′−′. Moreover, |§J | ≤ OPTJ (1− δ) ln(η/), implying |§J | ≤ OPT I(1− δ) ln(η′/′). Thus we have the solution SJ for instance I whose size is ≤ OPT I(1−δ) ln(η′/′). The theorem follows. In view of this generic result, we conjecture that improving the approximation factor for MINTSS to (1− δ) ln(η/) for IC and LT is likely to be hard. 6.5 MINTIME In this section, we study MINTIME under the IC model. Denote by σRm(S) the expected number of nodes activated under model m within time R, and let η be the desired coverage and k be the desired budget. Let ROPT denote the optimal propagation time under these budget and coverage constraints. Our first result says that efficient approximation algorithms are unlikely to exist under two scenarios: (i) when we allow a coverage shortfall of less than η/e and (ii) when we allow a budget overrun less than ln η. In the former scenario, we have a strict budget threshold and in the latter we have a strict coverage threshold. In both cases, we allow any amount of slack in propagation time. Theorem 10. Unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)), there does not exist a PTIME algorithm for MINTIME that guarantees (for any α ≥ 1): 1. a (α, γ)-approximation, such that |§| ≤ k, R = α · ROPT and σRm(§) ≥ γ · η where γ = (1− 1/e+ δ) for any fixed δ > 0; or 2. a (α, β)-approximation, such that |§| ≤ β · k, R = α · ROPT and σRm(§) ≥ η where β = (1− δ) ln η for any fixed δ > 0. Our second theorem says efficient approximation algorithms are unlikely to exist under more liberal scenarios than those given above: (i) when for a given budget overrun factor β < η, the fraction of the coverage we want to achieve is more than 1− 1/eβ and (ii) when for a given fraction γ ∈ (0, 1− 1/η] of the coverage we want to achieve, the budget overrun factor we allow is less than ln(1/(1 − γ)). As before, we allow any amount of slack in propagation time. Theorem 11. Unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)) there does not exist a PTIME algorithm for MINTIME that guarantees (α, β, γ)-approximation factor (for any α ≥ 1) such that |§| ≤ β ·k, R = α ·ROPT and σRm(§) ≥ γ · η where 40Here, OPTI and OPTJ represent the size of the optimal solution for instances I and J respectively. 99 6.5. MINTIME 1. β ∈ [1, ln η) and γ = 1− 1/eβ + δ for any fixed δ > 0; or 2. γ ∈ ( 0, 1− 1η ] and β = (1− δ) ln ( 1 1−γ ) for any fixed δ > 0. Finally, on the positive side, we show that when a coverage shortfall of > 0 is allowed and a budget boost of (1 + ln(η/)) is allowed, we can in PTIME find a solution which achieves the relaxed coverage under the relaxed budget in optimal propagation time. More precisely, we have: Theorem 12. Let the chosen coverage threshold be η−, for > 0 and chosen budget threshold be k(1+ln(η/)). If the coverage function σRm(·) can be computed exactly, then there is a greedy algorithm that approximates the MINTIME problem within a (α, β, γ) factor where α = 1, β = 1 + ln(η/) and γ = 1 − /η for any > 0. Furthermore, for every φ > 0, there is a δ > 0 such that by using a (1 − δ)-approximate values for the coverage function σRm(·), the greedy algorithm approximates the MINTIME problem within a (α, β, γ) factor where α = 1, β = (1 + φ)(1 + ln(η/)) and γ = 1− /η. 6.5.1 Inapproximability Proofs We next prove Theorems 10 and 11. We first show that MINTIME under the IC model generalizes the RAKC problem. In a digraph G = (V,E) and sets of nodes S, T ⊂ V , say that R-covers T if for every y ∈ T , there is a x ∈ S such that there is a path of length ≤ R from x to y. Given an instance of RAKC, create an instance of MINTIME by labeling each arc in the digraph with a probability 1. Now, it is easy to see that for any set of nodes S and any 0 ≤ R ≤ n−1, S R-covers a set of nodes T iff activating the seed nodes S will result in the set of nodes T being activated within R time steps. Notice that since all the arcs are labeled with probability 1, all influence attempts are successful by construction. It follows that RAKC is a special case of MINTIME under the IC model. The tricriteria inapproximability results of Theorem 11 subsume the bicriteria inapprox- imability results of Theorem 10. Still, in our presentation, we find it convenient to develop the proofs first for bicriteria. Since we showed that MINTIME under IC generalizes RAKC, it suffices to prove the theorems in the context of RAKC. It is worth pointing out [92] proved that it is hard to approximate RAKC within any factor unless P = NP . Their proof only applies to (the standard) unicriterion approximation. For a set of nodes S in a digraph we denote by fR(S) the number of nodes that are R-covered by S. Recall the problems MC and PSC (see Section 6.3). Proof of Theorem 10: It suffices to prove the theorem for RAKC. For claim 1, we reduce Maximum Coverage (MC) to RAKC and for claim 2, we reduce PSC to RAKC. The reduction is similar and is as follows: Consider an instance of the decision version of MC (equivalently PSC) I = 〈U ,S, k, η〉, where we ask whether there exists a subcollection C ⊆ S of size ≤ k such that |⋃S∈S S| ≥ η. Construct an instance J = 〈G, k′, η′〉 of RAKC as follows: the graph G consists of two classes of nodes – A and B. For each S ∈ S, create a class A node vS and for each u ∈ U , create a class B node vu. There is a directed edge (vS , vu) of unit length iff u ∈ S. Notice, a set of nodes S in G R-covers another non-empty set of nodes iff S 1-covers the latter set. Moreover, x sets in S cover y elements in U iff G has a set of x nodes which 100 6.5. MINTIME 1-covers y+x nodes. The only-if direction is trivial. For the if direction, the only way x nodes can 1-covers y + x nodes in G is when the x nodes are from class A. Next, we prove the first claim. Set k′ = k and η′ = η + k. Assume there exists a PTIME (α, γ)-approximation algorithm A for RAKC such that f R(§) ≥ (1−1/e+δ) ·(η′) for any fixed δ > 0, for some R ≤ αROPT . Apply algorithm A to the instance J . Notice, for our instance, ROPT = 1. The coverage by the output seed set § will be f R(§) ≥ (1−1/e+δ)·(η+k) nodes, for some R ≤ α ·1, implying that the number of class B nodes covered is ≥ (1−1/e+δ) ·(η+k)−k = (1 − 1/e + δ − (1/e − δ)k/η)η. Thus the algorithm approximates MC within a factor of( 1− 1e + δ − ( 1 e − δ ) k η ) . Let δ′ = δ − (1e − δ) kη . If we show δ′ > 0, we are done, since MC cannot be approximated within a factor of (1 − 1/e + δ′) for any δ′ > 0 unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)) [44, 80]. Clearly, δ′ is not always positive. However, for a given δ and k, δ′ is an increasing function of η and reaches δ in the limit. Hence there is a value η0 : ∀η ≥ η0, δ′ > 0. That is, there are infinitely many instances of PSC for which A is a (1− 1/e+ δ′)-approximation algorithm, where δ′ > 0, which proves the first claim. Next, we prove the second claim. Set k′ = k and η′ = η + x. The value of x will be decided later. Assume there exists a PTIME (α, β)-approximation algorithm A for RAKC where β = (1 − δ) ln(η′) for any fixed δ > 0. Apply the algorithm to J . It gives a solution S such that |S| ≤ k · (1 − δ) ln(η + x) that covers ≥ η + x nodes. A difficulty arises here since δ can be arbitrarily close to 1 making k · (1 − δ) ln(η + x) arbitrarily small, for any given η and k. However, as we argued in the proof of claim 1, for sufficiently large η, we can always find an x: k ≤ x ≤ k · (1− δ) ln(η + x). That is, on infinitely many instances of PSC, algorithm A finds a set of |S| class A nodes which R-covers η + x nodes, for some R ≤ α · 1. Without loss of generality, we can assume x ≤ η. Choose the smallest value of x such that the solution S covers ≥ η class B nodes. This implies the number of class A nodes covered is ≤ x and so |S| ≤ x. Thus, on all such instances, algorithm A gives a solution S of size ≤ x: k ≤ x ≤ k · (1− δ) ln(η + x) that covers ≥ η nodes. If we show that the upper bound is equal to k · (1 − δ′) ln η for some δ′ > 0, we are done, since PSC cannot be approximated within a factor of (1− δ′) ln η unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)) [44]. Let (1−δ′) ln η = (1−δ) ln(η+x), which yields δ′ = 1−(1−δ) ln(η+x)ln η . It is easy to see that by choosing sufficiently large η, we can make the gap between δ and δ′ arbitrarily small and thus can always ensure δ′ > 0 on infinitely many instances of PSC, on each of which algorithm A will serve as an (1− δ′) ln η-approximation algorithm proving claim 2. Note, in the proofs of both claim 1 and 2 in the above theorem, by choosing η sufficiently large, we can always ensure for any given k and δ > 0, the corresponding δ′ is always greater than 0. To prove the tricriteria hardness results, we need the following lemma. Lemma 5. In the MC (or PSC) problem, let k be the minimum number of sets needed to cover ≥ η elements. Then, unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)), there does not exist a PTIME algorithm that is guaranteed to select βk sets covering ≥ γη elements where 1. β ∈ [1, ln η) and γ > 1− 1/eβ; or 2. γ ∈ ( 0, 1− 1η ] and β = (1− δ) ln ( 1 1−γ ) for any fixed δ > 0. 101 6.5. MINTIME Proof: Suppose there exists an algorithm A that selects βk sets which covers γη elements. Apply A to an arbitrary instance 〈U ,S, η〉 of PSC . The output is a collection of sets C1 such that |C1| ≤ βk and | ⋃ §∈C1 §| ≥ γη. Next, discard the sets that have been selected and the elements they cover, and apply again the algorithm A on the remaining universe. Repeat this process until 1 or fewer elements are left uncovered.41 Let ηi denote the number of elements uncovered after iteration i. In iteration i, the algo- rithm picks βk sets and covers at least γηi−1 elements. Hence, ηi ≤ ηi−1 · (1− γ). Expanding, ηi ≤ η · (1 − γ)i. Suppose after l iterations, ηl = 1. The total number of sets picked is lβk. η · (1− γ)l = 1 implies l = ln η ln 1 1−γ . We now prove the first claim. Let γ > 1− 1/eβ , then ln ( 1 1−γ ) > β. This yields a PTIME algorithm for PSC which outputs a solution of size lβk = βk · ln η/ ln 11−γ ≤ c ·k ln η (for some c < 1) This yields an c · ln η-approximation for PSC for some c < 1, which is not possible unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)) [44]. To prove the second claim, assume β ≤ (1 − δ) ln ( 1 1−γ ) . This gives a PTIME algorithm for PSC which outputs a solution of size lβk = βk · ln η/ ln 11−γ ≤ (1− δ)k · ln η which is not possible unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)). We are now ready to prove Theorem 11. Proof of Theorem 11: Again, it suffices to prove the theorem for RAKC. For claim 1, we reduce MC to RAKC and for claim 2, we reduce PSC to RAKC. The reduction is the same as in the proof of Theorem 10 and we skip the details here. Below, we refer to instances I and J as in that proof. We first prove claim 1. Given any β, set k′ = k and η′ = η + βk. Assume there exists a PTIME (α, β, γ)-approximation algorithm A for RAKC which approximates the problem within the factors as mentioned in claim 1. Apply algorithmA to the instance J . The coverage by the output seed set § will be f R(§) ≥ (1− 1/eβ + δ) · (η+ βk) nodes, implying the number of class B nodes covered is ≥ (1−1/eβ + δ) · (η+βk)−βk = (1−1/eβ + δ− (1/eβ− δ)βk/η)η. Thus the algorithm approximates MC within a factor of ( 1− 1 eβ + δ − ( 1 eβ − δ) βkη ). If we show δ − ( 1 eβ − δ) βkη > 0, then the claim follows, since MC cannot be approximated within a factor of (1 − 1/eβ + δ′) for any δ′ > 0 unless NP ⊆ DTIME(nO(log logn)), by Lemma 5. Let δ′ = δ − ( 1 eβ − δ) βkη . For any β ∈ [1, ln η), δ′ is an increasing function of η which approaches δ in the limit. Thus, given any fixed δ > 0, there must exist some ηo such that for any η ≥ ηo, δ′ > 0. This proves the first claim (by an argument similar to that in Theorem 10). Next, we prove the second claim. Set k′ = k and η′ = η + x. The value of x will be decided later. Assume that there exists a PTIME (α, β, γ)-approximation algorithm A for RAKC where the factors α, β and γ satisfy the conditions as mentioned in claim 2. Apply the algorithm to instance J . For any γj ∈ (0, 1 − 1/(η + x)], it gives a solution of size ≤ k · (1−δ) ln(1/(1−γj)) that covers γj · (η+x) nodes. There can be |S| possible choices of x. 41Instead of 1, we could be left with a constant number of elements. Asymptotically, it does not make a difference. 102 6.6. Empirical Assessment Pick the smallest x such that number of nodes covered in class B is at least γjη, implying that the number of nodes picked from class A is γjx. Thus, γjx ≤ k · (1 − δ) ln(1/(1 − γj)). The existence of x satisfying this inequality can be established as done for claim 2 in Theorem 10. Thus, algorithm A gives the solution instance I of size ≤ k · (1 − δ) ln(1/(1 − γj)) that covers γjη elements in U where γj ∈ (0, 1−1/(η+x)]. If we show that for any given δ > 0 and γj in the range, there exists some δ′ > 0 and γi ∈ (0, 1−1/η] such that γiη ≥ γj(η+x) and (1− δ′) ln(1/(1−γi)) = (1−δ) ln(1/(1−γj)), then the claim follows. Let Z = ( ln 11−γj ) / ( ln 11−γi ) , then δ′ = 1− (1− δ)Z. Whenever γj ≤ 1 − 1/η, we can always choose γi ≥ γj such that δ′ > 0. The non-trivial case is when γj ∈ (1 − 1/η, 1 − 1/(η + x)]. In this case, by choosing a large enough η, we can make Z arbitrarily close to 1 and make δ′ > 0. In other words, there exists some η0: for all η ≥ η0, δ′ > 0, and by an argument similar to that for claim 2 in Theorem 10, the claim follows. 6.5.2 A Tri-criteria Approximation We now consider upper bounds for MINTIME. It is interesting to ask what happens when either the budget overrun or the coverage shortfall is increased. We show that under these conditions, a greedy strategy combined with linear search yields a solution with optimal prop- agation time. This proves Theorem 12. Algorithm Greedy-Mintss computes a small seed set S that achieves coverage σm(S) = η− . Recall that σRm(S) denotes the coverage of S under propagation model m within R time steps. It is easy to see that Greedy-Mintss can be adapted to instead compute a seed set that yields coverage η − within R time steps: we call this algorithm Greedy-MintssR. Given such an algorithm, a simple linear search over R = 0 . . . n − 1 yields the bounds specified in Theorem 12, after setting coverage threshold as η − and the chosen budget threshold as budg = k(1 + ln(η/)). The approximation factors in the theorem follow from Theorem 7 and Lemma 8. These bounds continue to hold if we can only provide estimates for the coverage function (rather than computing it exactly) and also extend to weighted nodes. We conclude this section by noting that the algorithm above can be naturally adapted to the RAKC problem. The bounds in Theorem 12 apply to RAKC as well, since MINTIME under IC generalizes RAKC. 6.6 Empirical Assessment We conducted several experiments to assess the value of the approximation algorithms by com- paring their quality against that achieved by several well-known heuristics, as well as against the state-of-the-art methods developed for Influence Maximization that we adapt in or- der to deal with MINTSS and MINTIME. In particular, the goals of experimental evaluation are two-fold. First, we have previously established from theoretical analysis that the Greedy algorithm (Greedy-Mintss for MINTSS and Greedy-MintssR for MINTIME) provides the best possible solution that can be obtained in PTIME, which we would like to validate 103 6.6. Empirical Assessment NetHEPT Meme #Nodes 15233 7418 #Arcs 62794 39170 Avg.degree 4.12 5.28 #CC (strong) 1781 4552 maxCC (strong) 6794 (44.601%) 2851 (38.434%) clustering coefficient 0.31372 0.06763 Table 6.1: Networks statistics: number of nodes and directed arcs with non-null probabil- ity, average degree, number of (strongly) connected components, size of the largest one, and clustering coefficient. empirically. Second, we study the gap between the solutions obtained from various heuristics against the Greedy algorithm, the upper bound, in terms of quality. In what follows we assume the IC propagation model. Datasets, probabilities and methods used. We use two real-world networks, whose statistics are reported in Table 6.1. The first network, called NetHEPT, is the same used in [35–37]. It is an academic collabo- ration network extracted from “High Energy Physics - Theory” section of arXiv42, with nodes representing authors and edges representing coauthorship. This is clearly an undirected graph, but we consider it directed by taking for each edge the arcs in both the directions. Following [35, 36, 78], we assign probabilities to the arcs in two different ways: uniform, where each arc has probability 0.1 (or probability 0.01) and weighted cascade (WC), i.e, the probability of an arc (v, u) is pv,u = 1/din(u), where din(·) indicates in-degree [78]. Note that WC is a special case of IC where probabilities on arcs are not necessarily uniform. Random Simply add nodes at random to the seed set, until the stopping condition is met. High Degree Greedily add the highest degree node to the seed set, until the stopping condition is met. Page Rank The popular index of nodes’ importance. We run it with the same setting used in [35]. Sp The shortest-path based heuristic for the greedy algorithm introduced in [82]. Pmia The maximum influence arborescence method of [35] with parameter θ = 1/320. Greedy Algorithm Greedy-Mintss for MINTSS and Algorithm Greedy-MintssR for MINTIME. Table 6.2: The methods used in our experiments. The second one, called Meme, is a sample of the social network underlying the Yahoo! Meme43 microblogging platform. Nodes are users, and directed arcs from a node u to a node v indicate that v “follows” u. For this dataset, we also have the log of posts propagations during 2009. We sampled a connected sub-graph of the social network containing the users that participated in the most re-posted items. The availability of posts propagations is significant 42http://www.arXiv.org 43http://meme.yahoo.com/ 104 6.6. Empirical Assessment 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Se ed S et S ize Coverage Threshold Random High Degree PageRank SP PMIA Greedy 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Se ed S et S ize Coverage Threshold Random High Degree PageRank PMIA SP Greedy 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Se ed S et S ize Coverage Threshold Random High Degree PageRank SP PMIA Greedy (a) NetHEPT- WC (b) NetHEPT- uniform (c) Meme Figure 6.2: Experimental results on MINTSS. since it allows us to directly estimate actual influence. In particular, here a propagation is defined based on reposts: a user posts a meme, and if other users like it, they repost it, thus creating cascades. For each memem and for each user u, we know exactly from which other user she reposted, that is we have a relation repost(u, v,m, t) where t is the time at which the repost occurs, and v is the user from which the information flowed to user u. The maximum likelihood estimator of the probability of influence corre- sponding to an arc is pv,u = Mv2u/Mvu where Mvu denotes the number of memes that v posted before u, and Mv2u denotes the number of memes m such that repost(u, v,m, t). For the sake of comparison, we adapt the state-of-the-art methods developed for Influ- ence Maximization (also see Section 6.3) to deal with MINTSS and MINTIME. For most of the techniques the adaptation is straightforward. The methods that we use in the experi- mentation are succinctly summarized in Table 6.2. It is noteworthy that PMIA is one of the state-of-the-art heuristic algorithms proposed for Influence Maximization under the IC model by [35]. In all our experiments, we run 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations for estimating coverage. MINTSS - Our experimental results on the MINTSS problem are reported in Figure 6.2. In each of the three plots, we report, for a given coverage threshold (x-axis), the minimum size of a seed-set (budget, reported on y-axis) achieving such coverage. As Greedy provides the upper bound on the quality that can be achieved in PTIME, in all the experiments it outperforms the other methods, with Random and High Degree consistently performing the worst. We analyzed the probability distributions of the various data sets we experimented with. At one extreme is the model with uniformly low probabilities (0.01). In Meme, about 80% of the probabilities are ≤ 0.05. In NetHEPT WC, on the other hand, approximately 83% of the probabilities are ≥ 0.05 and about 66% of the probabilities are ≥ 0.1. However, the combination of a power law distribution of node degrees in NetHEPT together with assignment of low probabilities for high degree nodes (since it’s the reciprocal of in-degree) has the effect of rendering central nodes act as poor influence spreaders. And the arcs with high influence probability are precisely those that are incident to nodes with a very low degree. This makes for a low influence graph overall, i.e., propagation of influence is limited. Finally, at the other extreme is the model with uniformly high probabilities (0.1) which corresponds to a high 105 6.6. Empirical Assessment 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Ti m e St ep s Coverage Threshold Random High Degree Pagerank SP PMIA Greedy 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Ti m e St ep s Coverage Threshold Random High Degree Pagerank SP PMIA Greedy 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Ti m e St ep s Coverage Threshold Random High Degree Pagerank SP PMIA Greedy (a) NetHEPT- WC, Budget=75 (b) NetHEPT- Uniform, Budget=75 (c) Meme, Budget=150 Figure 6.3: Experimental results on MINTIME with fixed budget. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Ti m e St ep s Seed Set Size Greedy/SP PMIA Pagerank High Degree 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Ti m e St ep s Seed Set Size Greedy SP PMIA Pagerank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Ti m e St ep s Seed Set Size Greedy PMIA SP Pagerank High Degree (a) NetHEPT- WC, η=1000 (b) NetHEPT- Uniform, η=1000 (c) Meme, η=1000 Figure 6.4: Experimental results on MINTIME with fixed Coverage Threshold. influence graph. We tested uniformly low probabilities (0.01), and we observed that with such low proba- bilities, there is limited propagation happening: for instance, in order to achieve a coverage of 150, even the best method requires more than 100 seeds. This forces the quality of all algorithms to look similar. On data sets where there is a non-uniform mix of low and high probabilities, but the probabilities being predominantly low, as well as on data sets corresponding to low influence graphs, the Pmia method of [35] and the Sp method of [82], originally developed as efficient heuristics for the Influence Maximization problem, when adapted to the MINTSS problem, continue to provide a good approximation of the results achieved by the Greedy algorithm (Figure 6.2(a), (c)). In these situations, the Random and HighDegree heuristics provide seed sets much larger thanGreedy. In NetHEPTWC (Figure 6.2(a)), PageRank has a performance that is close to the Greedy solution, while in Meme(Figure 6.2(c)), the seed set generated by PageRank is much larger than Greedy. In data sets with uniformly high probabilities (0.1), the gap between between Greedy and other heuristics is substantial (Figure 6.2(b)). Greedy can achieve a target coverage η = 750, with just 5 seeds, while Pmia and Sp need 35 and 21 seeds respectively; similarly Greedy can achieve a target coverage η = 1000, with just 58 seeds, while Pmia and Sp need 117 and 90 seeds respectively. It is worth noting that Random, HighDegree, and the PageRank heuristic all generate seed sets much larger than Greedy on this data set. To sum, the gap between the sizes of the seed sets obtained by the heuristics one the one hand and the Greedy algorithm on the other, varies depending on the 106 6.6. Empirical Assessment influence probabilities on the edges. In general, on graphs with high influence, the gap can be substantial. MINTIME - Our experimental results on the MINTIME problem are reported in Figures 6.3 and 6.4. In Figure 6.3, we report, for a coverage threshold given on the x-axis, and a fixed budget (75 for NetHEPT, 150 for Meme), the minimum time steps needed to achieve such coverage with the given budget (y-axis). As expected, Greedy outperforms all the heuristics. All the plots show that after a certain time, there is no further gain in the coverage, indicating the influence decays over time. Figure 6.3(a) compares the various heuristics with theGreedy on the NetHEPT dataset under WC model. On this data set, Pmia, Sp and Greedy exhibit comparable performance. The Pagerank heuristic comes close to them. Figure 6.3(b) shows the results for the NetHEPT dataset under IC model with uniform probability 0.1. Here, Greedy outperforms all the other heuristics. For instance, when coverage threshold η is 900 and budget is 75, Greedy achieves the coverage in 5 time steps, and Sp in 6 time steps, Pmia in 14 time steps. Random, High Degree and Pagerank fail to find a solution. Similarly, when coverage threshold is 1000 and budget is 75, Greedy achieves the coverage in 6 steps whereas all other heuristics fail to find a solution with this coverage. Finally, Figure 6.3(c) shows the results on Meme dataset. As we increase the target cover- age, the other heuristics fail to give a solution, one by one. Beyond η = 1600, all but Sp, and Pmia fail and beyond η = 2000, all but Pmia fail. On this data set, Pmia provides a good approximation to the performance of Greedy. In Figure 6.4, we fix the coverage threshold (η = 1000 for all the plots). The plots show the minimum time steps needed to achieve the coverage w.r.t. different seed set sizes (budget). In all the cases, Random fails to find a solution and hence is not shown in the plots. The performance of the High Degree algorithm is poor as well and it fails to find a solution in case of NetHEPT with uniform probabilities 0.1. As expected, Greedy outperforms all the heuristics and provides us the lower bound on time needed to achieve the required coverage with a given budget. Overall, we notice that the performance quality of all other heuristics compared toGreedy follows a similar pattern to that observed in case of MINTSS: as the graph changes from a low influence graph to a high influence graph, the heuristics’ performance drops substantially compared to Greedy. Another key takeaway from the MINTIME plots is the following. For a given budget, as observed above, the choice of the seed set plays a key role in determining whether a given coverage threshold can be reached or not, no matter how much time we allow for the influence to propagate. Even if the given coverage threshold is achieved, the choice of the seed set can make a big difference to the number of time steps in which the coverage threshold is reached. Often, for a given budget, relaxing the coverage threshold can dramatically change the propagation time. E.g., In Figure 6.3(a) (budget fixed to 75), while Greedy takes 8 time steps to achieve a coverage of 1200, when we relax the threshold to 1100, the propagation time decreases by 50%, that is, to just 4 time steps. A similar phenomenon is observed when the budget is boosted w.r.t. a fixed coverage threshold. For instance, in Figure 6.4(c), while using 15 seeds, Greedy takes 6 time steps to achieve a coverage of 1000, it achieves the same 107 6.7. Conclusions coverage by 30 seeds in 33% of the time, that is, in 2 time steps. These findings further highlight the importance of the MINTIME problem. 6.7 Conclusions In this chapter, we study two optimization problems in social influence propagation: MINTSS and MINTIME. We present a bicriteria approximation for MINTSS which delivers a seed set larger than the optimal seed set by a logarithmic factor (1 + ln(η/)), that achieves a coverage of η − , which falls short of the coverage threshold by . We also show a generic tightness result that indicates improving the above approximation factor is likely to be hard. Turning to MINTIME, we give a greedy algorithm that provides a tricriteria approxima- tion when allowed a budget overrun by a factor of (1 + ln(η/)) and a coverage shortfall by , and achieves the optimal propagation time under these conditions. We also provide hardness results for this problem. We conduct experiments on two real-world networks to compare the quality of various popular heuristics proposed in a different context (with necessary adap- tations) with that the greedy approximation algorithms. Our results show that the greedy algorithms outperform the other methods in all the settings (as expected) but depending on the characteristics of the data, some of the heuristics perform competitively. These include the recently proposed heuristics Pmia [35] and Sp [82] which we adapted to MINTSS and MINTIME. Several questions remain open, including proving optimal approximation bounds for MINTSS and MINTIME, as well as complexity results for these problems under other propa- gation models. 108 Chapter 7 A Pattern Mining Framework to Discover Community Leaders We introduce a novel frequent pattern mining approach to discover leaders and tribes in social networks. In particular, we consider social networks where users perform actions. Actions may be as simple as tagging resources (urls) as in del.icio.us, rating songs as in Yahoo! Music, or movies as in Yahoo! Movies, or users buying gadgets such as cameras, handhelds, etc. and blogging a review on the gadgets. The assumption is that actions performed by a user can be seen by their network friends. Users seeing their friends’ actions are sometimes tempted to perform those actions. We are interested in the problem of studying the propagation of such “influence”, and on this basis, identifying which users are leaders when it comes to setting the trend for performing various actions. We consider alternative definitions of leaders based on frequent patterns and develop algorithms for their efficient discovery. Our definitions are based on observing the way influence propagates in a time window, as the window is moved in time. Given a social graph and a table of user actions, our algorithms can discover leaders of various flavors by making one pass over the actions table. We run detailed experiments to evaluate the utility and scalability of our algorithms on real-life data. The results of our experiments confirm on the one hand, the efficiency of the proposed algorithm, and on the other hand, the effectiveness and relevance of the overall framework. To the best of our knowledge, this the first frequent pattern based approach to social network mining. This chapter is based on our CIKM 2008 paper [55]. This study has been done in collabo- ration with Francesco Bonchi and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. We also built a demo “Gurumine” using the techniques proposed in this chapter. It appeared in ICDE 2009 [62]. For brevity, we do not explain Gurumine in this dissertation and focus on core concepts that we proposed in [55]. 7.1 Introduction Consider a social network where users perform various actions. As an example, in del.icio.us (http://del.icio.us/), users bookmark urls and annotate them with various tags. Here, tagging a url with a tag such as Ocean Kayaking is an action. As another example, a user in Yahoo! Movies (http://movies.yahoo.com/) may decide to rate the movie There will be blood, which is also an action. As a third example, a user in facebook (http://www.facebook.com/) may decide to buy a new camera and decide to write a review on it in her personal blog. In each of these examples, users may choose to let their network friends see their actions. Seeing actions performed by their friends may make users curious and may sometimes tempt some 109 7.1. Introduction (a) User Action Time u3 b 13 u2 b 13 u2 a 15 u1 b 15 u3 a 16 u5 b 16 u4 b 17 u5 a 18 u7 b 18 u4 a 19 u6 a 20 (b) (c) (d) Figure 7.1: (a) Example social graph; (b) A log of actions; (c) Propagation of action a and (d) of action b. fraction of the users to perform those actions themselves, some of the time. Informally, we can think of this as an influence (for performing certain actions) propagating from users to their network friends, potentially recursively. If such influence patterns repeat with some statistical significance, that can be of interest to companies, say for targeted advertising. E.g., if we know that there are a small number of “leaders” who set the trend for various actions, then targeting them for adoption of new products or technology could be profitable to the companies. Figure 7.1(a)-(b) shows an example of a social graph and a log of actions performed by users. By linking the actions log in Figure 7.1(b) to the social graph in Figure 7.1(a), we can trace the propagation of influence for performing actions. The result, for actions a and b, is shown in Figure 7.1(c)-(d). Observe that the graphs in Figure 7.1(c)-(d) are directed and labelled even though the original social graph is undirected and unlabelled. Direction is dictated by the order in which actions were performed. If x performed action a before y and there is a social tie between x and y in Figure 7.1(a), then Figure 7.1(c) contains a directed edge from x to y; while the label on the edge is given by the time elapsed between the two actions. Given a social graph together with a log of user actions, we can determine the propagation of influence for performing each of the actions. How can we leverage this for determining who are the leaders in setting the trend for performing actions? It turns out there are a number of options for defining leadership. First off, intuitively, we want to think of user u as a leader w.r.t. an action a provided u performed a and within a chosen time bound after u performed a, a sufficient number of other users performed a. Furthermore, we require that these other users are reachable from u thus capturing the role social ties may have played. Finally, we may want to extract leadership w.r.t. performing actions in general or performing a class of actions. For example, in Figure 7.1, if we choose the time bound to be 5 units, number of users to be influenced by a leader to be three, then user u2 is a leader w.r.t. both actions a and b, since users u4, u5, u6 are influenced by u2 in Figure 7.1(c), while u1, u4, u5, u7 are influenced by u2 in Figure 7.1(d). Notice that u3 is not a leader w.r.t. either action. If user u5 had performed b after u4, then u3 would be regarded a leader w.r.t. b, in addition to u2. A stronger notion 110 7.1. Introduction of leadership might be based on requiring that w.r.t. each of a class of actions of interest, the set of influenced users must be the same. To distinguish from the notion of leader illustrated above, we refer to this notion as tribe leader, meaning the user leads a fixed set of users (tribe) w.r.t. a set of actions. To appreciate the difference between leader and tribe leader, consider that we require two users to be influenced by a leader and these two users must be the same for both actions a and b. Then u2 is a tribe leader for the set of actions {a, b} since users u4 and u5 are influenced by u2 w.r.t. both a and b. Clearly, tribe leaders are leaders but not vice versa. The notion of leader admits several candidates. However, the influence emanating from some of them may be “subsumed” by others. As an example, in Figure 7.1(c), both u2 and u5 are leaders w.r.t. a when the required number of influenced users is two. However, it is clear that user 5’s influence is subsumed by that of user u2, as u5 is one of those influenced by u2. Thus, it is interesting to ask whether we can discover “genuine” leaders, i.e., leaders whose influence is not subsumed by others. Notice that a tribe leader may be genuine or not just as a leader may be genuine or not. In this chapter, we make the following contributions: • We formally define the problem of extracting leaders from a database consisting of a social graph plus a table representing the log of user actions. We define various notions of leader, tribe leader, and their confident and genuine variants (Section 7.3). • We develop efficient algorithms for extracting leaders of various flavors from an input data consisting of a social graph and a table of user actions. Our algorithms make one pass over the actions table. This is significant since we expect the table to be very large (Section 7.4). • We demonstrate the utility and scalability of our algorithms, via an extensive set of experiments (Section 7.5) on a real-world dataset obtained by joining data coming from Yahoo! Messenger (the social graph) and Yahoo! Movies (the action log, where the action corresponds to rating a movie). Influence propagation and leadership have been considered in the context of viral marketing [42, 78, 109]. There, the model is based on probabilistic causation: there is a probability with which a user will perform an action if his neighbors have performed it. These works focus on the optimization problem of finding the k best people to target an ad to in order to maximize the influence. The framework is entirely based on the social graph together with edge weights representing the probabilities of influence. Our problem setting is considerably different. The input includes not just a graph (which is not edge-weighted) but an actions table which plays a central role in the definition of leaders. Secondly, our focus is on finding all leaders based on the frequent pattern mining approach, which is different from the approach employed in the above works. To the best of our knowledge, our notions of leaders and our algorithms are novel. Related work appears in the next section. We summarize the chapter in Section 7.6 and discuss future work. 111 7.2. Related Work (a) (b) (c) Figure 7.2: The propagation graph of an action PG(a) in fig.(a), Inf8(u4, a) in fig.(b), Inf8(u2, a) in fig.(c). 7.2 Related Work As discussed in the introduction (Section 7.1), even if the general goal of this work and the problem of Influence Maximization is very similar, our problem setting is considerably different, as we have a different input and as we adopt a completely different mining approach, i.e., pattern discovery. Among the various kinds of patterns that we study, there is also tribe leaders, i.e., users that lead a fixed set of users for different actions. As a side effect of mining tribe leaders, we also mine tribes which can be considered as small communities. The problem of identifying communities in social networks has been studied extensively in the data mining literature, especially focusing on how to model community formation and evolution in time [11, 12, 45, 69, 70, 87, 130]. Again our problem statement is very different in that we focus on actions log, and in terms of the pattern discovery approach that drives our work. [93] considers a particular form of social network, called friendship-event network, made by the usual social ties, plus a series of events in which the various nodes of the network may be organizers or participants. Thus also in their context there is a kind of actions log, that is the events organization and participation. Our work is different as we consider actions in a more general sense than the organizer-participant relationship. Also the objective is different: [93] studies the notion of social capital based on the actor-organizer friendship relationship and the notion of benefit, based on event participation. 7.3 Problem Definition A social graph is an undirected graph G = (V,E) where the nodes are users. There is an undirected edge between users u and v representing a social tie between the users. The tie may be explicit in the form of declared friendship, or it may be derived on the basis of shared interests between users. Our discussion and algorithms are neutral to the source that gives rise to these edges. An action log is a relation Actions(User,Action, T ime), which contains a tuple (u, a, t) indicating that user u performed action a at time t. It contains such a tuple for every action performed by every user of the system. We will assume that the projection of Actions on the first column is contained in the set of nodes V of the social graph G. In 112 7.3. Problem Definition other words, users in the Actions table correspond to nodes of the graph. We let A denote the universe of actions. We next define propagation of actions. In the following, we assume for ease of exposition that a user performs an action at most once. Our algorithms do not assume this. In Section 7.5, we explain how our algorithms handle the case where users may perform an action multiple times. Definition 3 (Action propagation). We say that an action a ∈ A propagates from user vi to vj iff (vi, vj) ∈ E and ∃(vi, a, ti), (vj , a, tj) ∈ Actions with ti < tj. Notice that there must be a social tie between vi and vj , both must have performed the action, one strictly before the other. This leads to a natural notion of a propagation graph, defined next. Definition 4 (Propagation graph). For each action a, we define a propagation graph PG(a) = (V (a), E(a)), defined as follows. V (a) = {v | ∃t : (v, a, t) ∈ Actions}; there is a directed edge vi ∆t−−→vj whenever a propagates from vi to vj, with (vi, a, ti), (vj , a, tj) ∈ Actions, where ∆t = tj − ti. The propagation graph consists of users who performed the action, with edges connecting them in the direction of propagation. Observe that the propagation graph is a DAG. Each node can have more than one parent; it is directed, and cycles are impossible due to the time constraint which is the basis for the definition of propagation. Note that the propagation graph can possibly have disconnected components. In other words, the propagation of an action is just a directed instance (a flow) of the undirected graph G, and the log of actions Actions(User,Action, T ime) can be seen as a collection of propagations. Influence can propa- gate transitively. Thus, a definition of leader w.r.t. setting the trend for performing an action should take this into account. To aid in the definition of leaders, we define the notion of an influence graph next. The elapsed time along a (directed) path in a propagation graph is the sum of edge labels along the path. E.g., in Figure 7.1(c), the elapsed time on the path u2→u4→u6 is 4 + 1 = 5. Definition 5 (User influence graph). Given action a, a user u, and a maximum propagation time threshold pi, we define the influence graph of the user u, denoted Infpi(u, a) as the subgraph PG(a) rooted at u, such that it consists of those nodes of PG(a) which are reachable from u in PG(a) and such that every path from u to any other node in Infpi(u, a) has an elapsed time at most pi. In Figure 7.2 we show an example of propagation graph PG(a), and two user influence graphs.44 The propagation time threshold pi allows us to set limits on how long after an action is performed, we regard another user performing that action as influenced by the previous user. Given a threshold ψ, we say that user u acted as a leader w.r.t. action a whenever the size (in number of nodes) of Infpi(u, a) is at least ψ. The threshold ψ ensures sufficiently many users are influenced by the given user in the context of action a. Note that the two constraints defined by the thresholds pi and ψ are conflicting constraints. In fact, pi limits the influence 44W.r.t. some underlying social graph and action log, not shown. 113 7.3. Problem Definition graph rooted at u to be not grown after a certain elapsed time, while the second constraint requires to have an influence graph larger than ψ. A user to be identified as a leader must act as such sufficiently often, i.e., for a number of actions larger than a given action threshold σ. This may be seen as the minimum frequency constraint in pattern discovery and association rule mining [4]. Problem 5 (Leaders). Given a set of actions I ⊆ A, and three thresholds pi, ψ and σ, a user v ∈ V is a leader iff: ∃S ⊆ I, |S| ≥ σ : ∀a ∈ S . size(Infpi(v, a)) ≥ ψ The intuition behind the above definition is that for sufficiently many actions (≥ σ) at least ψ other users are influenced to perform the action within pi time units from when the given user v performed it. In this case, we regard v as a leader. Notice the definition does not force the set of influenced users for different actions to be the same. Problem 6 (Tribe-leaders). Given a set of actions I ⊆ A, and three thresholds pi, ψ and σ, a user v ∈ V is a tribe leader iff: ∃S ⊆ I, |S| ≥ σ, ∃U ⊂ V, |U | ≥ ψ : ∀a ∈ S .U ⊆ Infpi(v, a). The notions leader and tribe leader were illustrated in Section 7.1. Clearly, every tribe leader is a leader, but not vice versa. 7.3.1 Additional Constraints In addition to using an absolute lower bound on the number of actions in which a user acts as a leader, we could apply a “confidence threshold” (similarly to the classical measure of confidence in association rules [4]), requiring that a user is a leader for a large fraction of the actions he performs. More precisely, for a user v ∈ V , let P (v) = {a ∈ A | v performed a} and L(v) = {a ∈ A | v is a leader w.r.t. a}. Then the leadership confidence of v is the ratio conf(v) = |L(v)|/|P (v)|. We define: Problem 7 (Leaders with confidence measure). Given a set of actions I ⊆ A, and a confidence threshold 0 < ϕ ≤ 1, a user v is said to be a confidence leader if it is a leader and conf(v) ≥ ϕ. It may happen that one user acts as a leader according to the given definitions, but in concrete he is always a follower of the same leader. In some sense he benefits from the influence of a true leader, so that he also may seem a leader. To avoid this kind of “fake” leaders, we propose the following. Given the usual three thresholds pi, ψ and σ, for a user v, let gen(v) denote the ratio |{a ∈ L(v) | @u ∈ V : u is leader for a ∧ v ∈ Infpi(u, a)}| |L(v)| i.e., the fraction of actions led by v for which v’s leadership is genuine, in that it is not a consequence of v being present in the influence graph of some other leader w.r.t. that action. We call gen(v) the genuineness score of v. The notion of genuine leaders is defined next. 114 7.4. Algorithms Problem 8 (Genuine leaders). Given a set of actions I ⊆ A, and a threshold 0 < γ ≤ 1, we define a leader v to be a genuine leader provided the genuineness score of v is above the threshold, i.e., gen(v) ≥ γ. Both confidence and genuineness constraints can be applied to tribe leaders as well. Note that when we focus on a single action a, the notions of leader for a and tribe leader for a coincide. Thus we use the exact same definitions. So a genuine tribe leader is a tribe leader whose genuineness score is above a threshold, and similarly for confidence. Our goal is to efficiently extract leaders and tribe leaders, possibly with each of the other criteria (confidence and genuineness) or even with both. This leads to eight distinct problems: leaders and tribe leaders without additional constraints, with one of the two, or with both additional constraints. We provided the basic pattern discovery framework for mining leaders given the social graph and an action log. However, it should be noted that it is not mandatory for the final analyst to provide all the thresholds: she can query our system asking, e.g., the top-k users w.r.t. average number of followers per action given pi, or the top-k tribe leaders w.r.t. confidence. In fact, our algorithms by scanning the actions log, produce a summary of the influence for which only the pi threshold is needed. The various kinds of leaders then can be selected from this summary by a simple post-processing, as described in the next section. 7.4 Algorithms Any algorithm for extracting leaders must scan the action log table and traverse the graph. Our assumption is that the graph is large (in the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of nodes) and the action log contains millions of tuples. While the graph is large, given a (maximum propagation) time threshold pi, and a specific time interval with length pi, we assume the subgraph corresponding to users performing actions within the interval is small. This is confirmed by the real data sets we used for our experiments, where pi was set to several weeks. Thus, our focus is on minimizing the scans of the action log table. Our algorithms are able to extract the patterns (leaders and tribe leaders) in no more than one scan of the action log table Actions. The key insight behind this is as follows. We assume that the action log is stored in chronological order of actions. Given the threshold pi, we scan the Actions table by means of a window of width pi. Thus at any position of the window, a subset of tuples in Actions falls in the window. Let W denote the current position of the window. The position W induces a subgraph of the social graph G: GW = (VW , EW ), where VW is the set of users who performed some action within the windowW and an edge is present in EW iff it is present in E and both its endpoints are in VW . We call GW the subgraph of G visible from the window. By sliding the window chronologically backwards we can compute an influence matrix IMpi(U,A), where U is the number of users and A is the number of actions. The entry IMpi(u, a) is the number of users/nodes, influenced by u w.r.t. action a within time pi. This number includes u. So, a user u performed action a iff IMpi(u, a) > 0. Then leaders can be computed from the IMpi easily. When it comes to compute tribe leaders, influence matrix is inadequate: for tribe leaders, we need to check that a fixed set of ≥ ψ users were influenced by the leader on sufficiently many actions. To address this problem, we propose the influence 115 7.4. Algorithms cube. The influence cube is a User×Action×User cube with cells containing boolean entries: ICpi(u, a, v) = 1 if user v was influenced by user u w.r.t. action a, w.r.t. an underlying time threshold pi. From this, we can determine whether u is a tribe leader, as described later in Section 7.4.3. 7.4.1 Computing Influence Matrix We now describe the major steps in detail and discuss their efficient implementation. To illustrate our algorithms, we will use the running example shown in Figure 7.3. Figure 7.3(a) shows a schematic action log and shows the window at the bottom-most position, i.e., the most recent actions fall in the window. Figure 7.3(b) shows a possible subgraph of G visible from the window. Nodes in light grey and their incident edges are not yet visible. Algorithm 17 gives the algorithm at a high level. The steps are explained in detail next. We start by positioning the window at the bottom of the action log, thus seeing only most recent actions (step 1). We visit the nodes of GW by exploring G and computing necessary state at the visited nodes, e.g., the nodes influenced by a given node (steps 2-3). We move the window backward in time. Clearly, as the window moves existing action tuples may fall off the window (view) and other tuples may enter the window. This in turn causes parts of the visible graph GW to disappear and new parts to appear. Our algorithms make use of two key operations – update and propagate. For simplicity of exposition, let us focus on one action a, although our algorithms simultaneously keep track of the influence propagation information for several actions. When a node of GW disappears as the window moves, we need to update the state of existing nodes. When a new node appears in the window, we need to propagate the state from existing nodes to the new node so that its state can be computed efficiently (steps 6-8). By repeated application of update and propagate as the window is moved backward in time, we can compute the influence matrix IMpi(U,A). Algorithm 17 Compute Influence Matrix Input: Graph G; Action log Actions; Threshold pi. Output: Influence matrix IMpi(U,A). 1: Position a window of size pi at the end of table Actions. 2: Discover the visible subgraph GW of G on the fly from the tuples in the window. 3: Compute the state of every node by starting from the most recent tuples and working backward up the graph. 4: Fill in the cells IMpi(u, a) whenever we have the state for node u w.r.t. action a computed. 5: while top of Actions not reached do 6: Move the window from the most recent tuple in the window to the next earlier tuple. 7: For every tuple that drops off the window, update the state of every other node. 8: For every new tuple that appears in the window, compute the state of the corresponding node by propagating the state from its children in the visible graph. 9: Update the IMpi entries as needed. 10: end while Next we describe the update and propagate procedures in detail. We start with the rep- resentation of node (user) state. We use a bit vector to track which users are influenced by 116 7.4. Algorithms Figure 7.3: (a) Action log; (b) Propagation graph visible in current window for a action; (c) Influence Vector for the current nodes; (d) Queue for the current action; (e) Lock Bit Vector for the current action. a given user. Since the graph is huge and only a relatively small number of nodes are visible from any window, we would like to optimize the number of bits. However, as the window moves, the bits need to be dynamically allocated. Moreover, when we adapt the algorithm for computing tribe leaders, we would want to know for any user and action, not just the number of users influenced but which ones were influenced. We solve this problem of dynamic allocation of bits for user state, by maintaining a Lock Map for each position of the window. The lock map keeps track of which bit is allocated to which user in the current window. As shown in Figure 7.3(d), we keep the lock map as entries in a queue for efficient manipulation. E.g., it shows user R is assigned the right-most bit (0-th bit), user S is assigned the 6-th bit (from right), etc. To facilitate quick allocation of “free” bits, we keep a Lock Bit Vector in which set bits correspond to bits or locks owned by nodes and 0 bits correspond to “free” bit positions. E.g., bit positions 0, 1, 2, 4, 6 are owned by nodes R,W, V, T, S. When the window moves, the lock map entries and the Lock Bit Vector are kept updated as will be explained shortly. We represent the state of a node as an influence vector (IV ). There is one influence vector per action performed by the user in the current window. E.g., the influence vector of user S is 01000110. This says the users influenced by S correspond to bit positions 1, 2, 6. Positions 1, 2 correspond to users W,V , which are the users influenced by S. Algorithm 2 describes the procedure Propagate. When a new tuple is inserted, we issue a free lock to its associated node (step 1). Searching a free lock is as simple as finding the 117 7.4. Algorithms Algorithm 18 Propagate Input: A tuple τ in the form of < u, a, t >. 1: Issue the first free lock to u. Let its index be i. 2: Initialize the IV for u with only i-th bit set to 1. 3: for each element v of Queue(a) do 4: if there is an edge from u and v then 5: IV (u) = IV (u) OR IV (v). 6: end if 7: end for 8: Add the node for u at the tail of Queue(a) first 0 bit in the Lock Bit Vector (from the right). The IV for the new element u is initialized with its own index set to 1 (step 2). We then traverse the queue and search for a child of u. If there is an edge from u to the current element in the queue, then the IV of u is updated as the bit OR of IV of u and the IV of the current element. This way, we can compute the IV of every new node in the window (steps 3-5). When the time window moves up, a node may drop off the window. In such a case, we need to update the states of the remaining nodes. To do this, we traverse the queue and reset the lock index bit in IV of each element. Then the lock is released by resetting the bit in the Lock Bit Vector. Procedure Update describes the algorithm. Algorithm 19 Update Input: A tuple τ =< u, a, t > that has become invisible in the window. 1: i = lock index of u 2: for each element v in Queue(a) do 3: reset the index i in IV (v). 4: end for 5: Delete the element u from the Queue(a). 6: Release the lock. When the window is at its bottom-most position, we compute the state of every user by bit OR operations. Initialize the IV (for a given action) for every node to be the bit vector where only the bit owned by the node is set. In our running example, the IV of W is obtained as the bit OR of IV of V and the current IV ofW . This way, we can compute the IV of every node in the window by bit OR’ing it with the IV of its children. Suppose the window now moves such that node V drops off the window and nodes P and Q enter the window (along with their edges linking to nodes in the window). Notice the new edges can only be directed from nodes that just entered the window to nodes that are present in the window. First, we update the state of nodes R,S, T,W which are present in the old and new positions of the window. This is done by simply zeroing the bit corresponding to V , i.e., bit 2 (from the right) in all their states. Next, by examining the Lock Bit Vector, we allocate the first “free” bit to each new node – bit 3 to P and bit 5 to Q. Then, in order to compute the state of new nodes P and Q, we propagate the states from their children to those nodes. Node Q has no children in the window so its IV is just 100000. For node P , we can compute its IV as a bit OR with its default IV and the current IV of R,S,W . 118 7.4. Algorithms 7.4.2 Computing Leaders Once the influence matrix IMpi is available, we can compute leaders as follows. Given a user u and thresholds ψ, σ, let L(u) = {a | IMpi(u, a) > ψ}. Then u is a leader iff the count |L(u)| ≥ σ. Thus, leaders are computed by scanning the rows of the influence matrix. By the same token, confidence leaders are evaluated as follows. Given a confidence threshold ϕ, a user is a confidence leader iff |{a | IMpi(u, a) > ψ|/|{a | IMpi(u, a) > 0}| ≥ ϕ. The denominator corresponds to the number of actions performed by u. Recall, IMpi(u, a) keeps track of the number of users influenced by u, including u, for performing action a within the window pi. The genuineness score is computed by maintaining a fake counter for every user: fake(u) is incremented whenever u is found to be a leader for some action a and in the influence graph Infpi(v, a) of some other leader w.r.t. a. Then the numerator in the definition of gen(u) is simply |L(u)| − fake(u). 7.4.3 Computing Tribe Leaders As discussed previously influence matrix is inadequate for computing tribe leaders, we need the influence cube, i.e. a User × Action × User cube with cells containing boolean entries: ICpi(u, a, v) = 1 if user v was influenced by user u w.r.t. action a, w.r.t. an underlying time threshold pi. From this, we can determine whether u is a tribe leader by means of frequent itemsets mining. In fact, we can view each array ICpi(u, a, ∗) (where ‘∗’ denotes “don’t care”) as a transaction of items where items correspond to candidate influenced users. More precisely, for a given user u, we have a transaction corresponding to every action. Then we can see a tribe as an itemset, and finding tribe leaders as finding frequent itemsets larger than a given threshold ψ on the minimum acceptable tribe size, where we ensure the itemset does not include u when we are trying to determine if u is a tribe leader. Lemma 6. A user u is a tribe leader iff there is at least one itemset of size ψ (not containing u) that has a frequency of σ or more in the transaction database ICpi(u, ∗, ∗). In our implementation, we do not explicitly compute the influence cube. The reason is that real data sets tend to be quite sparse w.r.t. users performing actions. This is a common phenomenon found in del.icio.us (for tagging actions) and Yahoo! Movies (w.r.t. rating movies) and similar social collaborative sites. Thus, a direct implementation of the cube will be inefficient w.r.t. space. We make the observation that when Algorithm 17 computes the influence matrix, it does so using influence vectors. Recall that for each user and each action we have an influence vector, for every position of the time window. Also, for every position, we have a lock map which “decodes” the bit positions in the influence vectors into corresponding node id’s. Consider a user u and action a. Let t be the time u performed a. Consider the position of the time window when its beginning corresponds to time t (and end to t+ pi). The influence vector of u w.r.t. a for this position tells us exactly which are the various bit positions corresponding to users influenced by user u on action a. Thus, the combination of influence vector of u for a for window position t and the lock map provides a compact representation of the transaction, i.e., row ICpi(u, a, ∗) in the influence cube. 119 7.4. Algorithms We then compute frequent itemsets using a special algorithm optimized for our needs. Notice that we are not interested in all frequent itemsets, but only in those ones whose size is ψ or more. This problem has been deeply studied in the literature [21, 25] and a large variety of optimizations have been developed in this context. Here we adopt the ExAMiner implementation [21]. The idea is that a transaction whose size is < ψ can be discarded since none of its subsets will have size ≥ ψ either, and therefore the transaction cannot support any valid itemsets. This data reduction, in turn reduces the support of other frequent and invalid itemsets thus reducing the search space and creating new room for removal of other transactions. This has a recursive rippling effect that reduces the computation considerably. The overall approach for computing tribe leaders is summarized in Algorithm 20. Algorithm 20 Tribe Leaders Input: Graph G; Action log Actions; Thresholds pi, ψ, σ. 1: Position a time window of size pi at the end of table Actions and move it backward in time just as in Algorithm 17. 2: Compute the influence vector for every node and every action as before. 3: When the IV of user u w.r.t. action a for window position t is available, where u performed a at t, update the influence cube row ICpi(u, a, ∗) using the IV and the current lock map. 4: When the influence cube is computed, compute σ-frequent itemsets of size ≥ ψ (not containing u) by means of ExAMiner [21]. 5: Determine the tribe leaders and tribe led by them using the frequent itemsets computed above, using Lemma 6. 7.4.4 Complexity Analysis Suppose the maximum number of nodes visible in any position of the time window is n. We expect n to be a small fraction of the total number of nodes in the graph G. At any stage, we need n bits to be used for both the Lock Bit Vector and for each of the influence vectors. The key atomic operations in our algorithm are bit operations (AND and OR) and entering or removing a lock map entry into the queue. Each update operation might involve the deletion of O(n) nodes from the queue. Updating the Lock Bit Vector as nodes get deleted costs at most O(n2) bit level operations.45 Similarly, when a node gets deleted, updating the influence vector of other nodes can cost O(n) bit AND operations, which corresponds to O(n2) bit level operations. Suppose on an average when the window moves k nodes drop off the window and k nodes enter the window, where k < n and k is O(n). Then the worst case cost for updating all existing nodes in the window when k nodes drop off is O(kn2). Let T be the number of tuples in the Actions table. Then the number of distinct positions of the window is O(T/k). Let A be maximum number of actions performed by a user. Since we need to maintain influence vectors separately for each action, the total number of bit level operations for update is O(TAn2). By a similar analysis, we can show that propagate, which involves the atomic steps of finding a “free” bit in the Lock Bit Vector, entering a node in the queue, finding children of a 45As opposed to word level. 120 7.5. Experimental Evaluation node among nodes in the window, and modifying the influence vector of a node by bit OR’ing with influence vectors of its children cost O(TAn2) bit level operations. A node is inserted into the queue or deleted from the queue at most once per tuple in the action log table. We thus have: Lemma 7. The influence matrix can be computed using O(TAn2) bit level operations, and using O(T ) insert and delete operations on the queue. Here, T,A, n are parameters as explained above. The complexity of computing tribe leaders is determined by: (a) computing the influence cube and (b) finding the existence of frequent itemsets. Influence cube can be computed with the same number of bit operations as influence matrix (Lemma 7). Finding frequent itemsets is well-known to be of exponential complexity. But it’s a thoroughly studied problem and the use of several algorithmic tricks makes it quite efficient in practice. 7.5 Experimental Evaluation In this section, we describe the comprehensive empirical evaluation we conducted in order to assess both the efficiency of our algorithms and the relevance and usefulness of the overall proposal. All the experiments are performed on a 3 GHz Intel Pentium 4 CPU with 2 Gb main memory, running Suse Linux 10.1 with kernel 2.6.16.54. The algorithms were implemented in C++ with STL and compiled with gnu g++ compiler version 4.1.0. We also exploited the bitstring handling library proposed in [5]. 7.5.1 Dataset Used In our problem setting, we need both the social network and the actions database. Using the Yahoo! Movies data we have the actions (ratings of movies) but we do not have any social network information. Thus for producing the social network we “crossed-over” the Yahoo! Movies ratings with a subgraph of the Yahoo! Instant Messenger graph, as described in the following. For the sake of privacy, all the user data in this chapter were provided to us after anonymiza- tion. We started from a subgraph of the Yahoo! Instant Messenger friends-relationship graph, containing the most active users (approx. 110 M nodes), and through common user identi- fiers, we projected this graph on the subset of users that have also rated a movie in Yahoo! Movies (or more precisely, that have a rating in the set of 21 million ratings provided to us). We then removed isolated nodes, i.e., nodes that were not connected to other nodes, after this projection. Accordingly, we then selected only the ratings belonging to the users present in the resulting subgraph. This data preparation made the graph shrink to a smaller graph containing approximately 217,494 nodes, and 212,373 edges. Accordingly the Yahoo! Movies data reduced from more than 21 millions ratings, to 1.8 millions ratings. In Figure 7.4 we report some statistics about the dataset we generated. The social graph is quite disconnected: it contains 46,650 connected components, one of which has 94,032 nodes (see the bottom-right corner of Figure 7.4(b)), while all the others have less than 50 nodes. 121 7.5. Experimental Evaluation (a) nodes degree (b) connected components size (c) ratings per movie (d) ratings per user Figure 7.4: The dataset used in the experimentation: (a) nodes degree distribution, (b) dis- tribution of the size of the connected components, (c) distribution of ratings per movie, and (d) distribution of ratings per user. In Figure 7.4(a) the distribution of nodes degree is reported. It should be noted that our graph exhibits a quite low density w.r.t. what is expected from a social network graph: this is natural as our graph is not a social network in its whole, but it is just a projection of a social network on a subset of its nodes, i.e., the set of users which performed actions. Moreover, due to the sparsity of the Yahoo! graph that we constructed, in the following, we report experiments conducted not at the granularity of the movie, but going a step up in the hierarchy, namely at the granularity of genres. When we roll up to the level of genre, we have an average of 7.62 actions per user, and an average of 46093 ratings per genre. Note that when we go up in the granularity we have to face the following situation: the same user may execute the same actions more than once at different timestamps (e.g., rating different movies corresponding to the same genre). This situation is not only practically relevant but it also theoretically interesting as also discussed later in Section 7.6. When a user performs an action multiple times, in principle we may use any occurrence of action as a basis for defining propagation of influence. In the experiments we used the first occurrence of a given action, 122 7.5. Experimental Evaluation (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 7.5: (a) Number of leaders found on Yahoo! Movies dataset, with pi = 9 weeks, for σ ∈ [1, 10] and ψ ∈ [5, 50]; (b) number of confidence leaders with ψ = 5 and varying confidence threshold; (c) number of genuine leaders with ψ = 5 and varying genuineness threshold; (d) number of leaders with varying σ and pi. as we believe it is a more reliable indicator of influence propagation. At any rate, measuring influence based on first occurrence is certainly representative of the options available. 7.5.2 Mining Leaders In Figure 7.5 we report the number of leaders found in the Yahoo! Movies dataset for various combinations of the input parameters. All these graphs correspond to a time window of pi = 123 7.5. Experimental Evaluation 9 weeks. Figure 7.5(a) measures the number of leaders as a function of σ and ψ. Recall σ controls the minimum number of actions where leadership is required in order for a user to be declared a leader, while ψ controls the minimum number of influenced users. As expected, as these thresholds go up, the number of leaders drops. E.g., when σ = 5 and ψ = 5, the number of leaders is 323 and it drops to 59 when σ becomes 10 and ψ becomes 10. Figure 7.5(b)-(c) depict the variation in confidence leaders and genuine leaders as a function of the various parameters. They can all be seen to exhibit similar behavior. In Figure 7.5(d), we see how the number of leaders varies as a function of pi and σ. When pi is increased from 3 to 6 weeks at any given σ, the number of leaders nearly doubles. This happens again when pi is raised from 6 to 9 weeks. In Figure 7.6(a) the histogram of genuineness is reported: it shows that the concept of genuineness is almost binary, clearly cutting between leaders that are dominated by other leaders and truly genuine leaders. 7.5.3 Mining Tribe Leaders In Figure 7.6(b) a comparison between number of leaders and number of tribe leaders with varying ψ is reported, while comparison of number of tribe leaders for three different pi is reported in Figure 7.6(c). Obviously for larger ψ and smaller pi we extract a lower number of leaders. In Figure 7.6(d), we report the run time for extracting the influence vectors needed to mine tribe leaders. Recall that extracting the influence vector only depends on the time threshold pi and not on the other two thresholds σ and ψ. The plot only reports the run time needed for the construction of the influence vectors: after this step, one frequent itemsets extraction is needed for each leader to see if it is also a tribe leader. The run time for this second phase is not reported for two reason: firstly this is based on pre-existing results and it is not contribution of this chapter; secondly, we found this execution time was always very small and negligible w.r.t. the time needed to construct the influence vectors. Note that as expected run time is larger for larger time threshold pi, and it is linear or sublinear w.r.t. the size of the actions log (reported on the x axis). 7.5.4 Qualitative Evaluation Table 7.1 reports the top 10 tribe leaders w.r.t. size of their largest tribe. Note that this is not by any means an indicator that these are the best tribe leaders. We could have shown the top 10 by genuineness, or by confidence times genuineness, but this way we would have missed the possibility of discussing leaders with very low genuineness or confidence. Thus we choose to inspect those ones with the largest tribes and to see their level of confidence and genuineness. We use two very distant values of ψ, and for σ = 5, i.e., they have to influence the same tribe for at least 5 different actions. The table reports the leader user_id, the size of its largest tribe, the number of actions in which it was a leader (a standard one not a tribe leader), the confidence value, and the genuineness value. There are many interesting things worth noting in these two tables. The first thing is that large tribe leaders usually exhibit high confidence. Consider that for pi = 3weeks and σ = 5 the average confidence recorded among the leaders is approximately 0.5. For genuineness the results are different. Among the top 10 tribe leaders w.r.t. size of their largest tribe, we 124 7.5. Experimental Evaluation (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 7.6: (a) Histogram of genuineness of leaders for pi = 9 weeks, (b) comparison between number of leaders and number of tribe leaders with varying ψ, (c) comparison of number of tribe leaders for three different pi, (d) and the corresponding run time. find approximately half showing very high genuineness and half showing very low genuineness indicating that they are dominated by other leaders. In particular users 170467 and 20045 which are present in both tables, user 68241 in Table 7.1(a), and user 144314 in Table 7.1(b). We checked the reason for these low values of genuineness and we found out that these tribe leaders were dominated by other tribe leaders still belonging to the top-10. In particular we found that 206280, 75923 and 198671 dominate 68241, 170467 is dominated by 130514, and 20045 is dominated by 130514 and 22830. Another positive fact worth noting, is that there are three tribe leaders in the intersection of the two top-10 lists. Finally, let us highlight that being a tribe leader is not simply being a strong leader, but it is an orthogonal concept. We have found many leaders which were acting as leader in many actions and with a large group of followers, but that in the end resulted not to be tribe 125 7.5. Experimental Evaluation pi = 3weeks, σ = 5 rank user_id tribesize #actions conf. genu. 1 198671 15 15 0.58 0.4 2 199726 13 8 1 1 3 130514 12 17 0.89 0.94 4 206280 12 11 0.92 1 5 68241 11 12 0.92 0 6 22830 11 19 0.86 1 7 20045 11 9 0.5 0.22 8 170467 10 7 1 0.29 9 75923 10 9 0.75 1 10 81903 10 11 0.65 0.64 (a) pi = 9weeks, σ = 5 rank user_id tribesize #actions conf. genu. 1 98711 25 11 0.85 0.73 2 31018 25 9 1 1 3 170467 23 8 1 0 4 20045 22 11 0.61 0.55 5 66331 21 13 0.81 0.92 6 27381 21 16 0.57 0.63 7 85363 20 5 0.63 0.8 8 144314 20 19 0.86 0.1 9 153181 19 22 0.76 0.82 10 206280 19 12 1 0.67 (b) Table 7.1: Top 10 tribe leaders (those with the largest tribe) for two different values of pi. leaders. On the other hand, we found leaders acting as leaders in a few actions, but that were always followed by the same tribe. Consider for instance user 31018 in Table7.1(b): it acts as a leader in only 9 actions, but in all these 9 actions it is always followed by a tribe of the same 25 users, and it is a very genuine leader (genuineness score = 1). The discussion above confirms the relevance and usefulness of the proposed framework. All the concepts of leaders, confidence, genuineness and tribe leaders make sense per se, and they seems to converge on “strong” leaders. Conjoining these various concepts, we can identify a small set of strong tribe leaders that may be targeted by a viral marketing campaign, in an attempt of maximizing the word-of-mouth effect. 126 7.6. Conclusions and Discussion 7.6 Conclusions and Discussion We introduced a novel data mining approach to social networks analysis, based on frequent pattern discovery. While frequent pattern mining has been studied a lot in the last decade and it has found many real-world application scenarios, to the best of our knowledge this is the first proposal of a framework based on frequent pattern mining for discovering leaders in social networks. In particular, we considered social networks where users perform actions such as tagging, buying or rating an item. Given a database consisting of a social graph together with a chronologically ordered log of user actions, we motivated the problem of extracting leaders of various flavors from this database. To that end, we proposed notions of leaders and tribe leaders together with possible additional properties such as confidence and genuineness. We developed efficient algorithms for extracting all types of leaders proposed by us. A notable feature of our algorithms is that all of them make one scan of the action log table. This is accomplished by performing two key operations – update and propagate – on the fly while sliding a window through the action log table backward in time. Various optimizations were incorporated in the implementation of our algorithms. A key summary data structure employed in our algorithms is called an influence matrix. In the case of tribe leaders, we use an influence cube instead of the matrix. We conducted extensive experiments on a combination of Yahoo! Instant Messenger dataset forming the social graph with user ids correlated to user ids in Yahoo! Movies dataset. In our experiments, we demonstrated the scalability of our algorithms, and we showed many real interesting patterns of leadership, establishing that the notions of leaders proposed in this chapter are useful and interesting. This work complements work in the area of viral marketing [79, 109]. One potential issue with using pattern discovery for mining leaders is the effect of popular actions. Actions that are very popular may be performed by many users without there really being any influence. This is similar to the famous beer-diaper problem in association rule mining. One way to combat this problem is to discard the most popular actions from the action log and use the rest of the log for mining leaders. Another approach is to associate a “credit” with each action, which is inversely proportional to its popularity and use the credit to determine leadership. We are currently collecting other data sets where the social network graph comes together with an action log: we plan to test our algorithms on larger and denser data, both for quanti- tative and qualitative evaluation. In future, it’d be interesting to investigate whether patterns extracted from this approach could be used to determine the parameters required for the viral marketing problem. Furthermore, as discussed in the experiments section, in order to deter- mine interesting patterns, we needed to roll up from the level of individual movies to a more general level of genre, director, or actor. This is a feature that depends on the dataset. Given classification hierarchies on users, actions, and time, it is interesting to ask whether leadership cube corresponding to multi-level generalizations over different dimensions can be computed efficiently. Finally, it is worth noting that by mining tribe leaders as a side effect we also mine tribes, that can be considered as small communities. We plan to investigate the relationships between our tribes and the communities structures studied in the literature [45, 69, 87, 130]. Acknowledgments: We acknowledge Aris Anagnostopoulos and Ravi Kumar for the Yahoo! 127 7.6. Conclusions and Discussion Instant Messenger graph, Seung-Taek Park and David M. Pennock for the Yahoo! Movie dataset. 128 Chapter 8 Maximizing Product Adoption in Social Networks One of the key objectives of viral marketing is to identify a small set of users in a social network, who when convinced to adopt a product will influence others in the network leading to a large number of adoptions in an expected sense. The seminal work of Kempe et al. [78] approaches this as the problem of Influence Maximization. This and other previous papers tacitly assume that a user who is influenced (or, informed) about a product necessarily adopts the product and encourages her friends to adopt it. However, an influenced user may not adopt the product herself, and yet form an opinion based on the experiences of her friends, and share this opinion with others. Furthermore, a user who adopts the product may not like it and hence not encourage her friends to adopt it to the same extent as another user who adopted and liked the product. This is independent of the extent to which those friends are influenced by her. Previous works do not account for these phenomena. We argue that it is important to distinguish product adoption from influence. We propose a model that factors in a user’s experience (or projected experience) with a product. We adapt the classical Linear Threshold (LT) propagation model by defining an objective function that explicitly captures product adoption, as opposed to influence. We show that under our model, adoption maximization is NP-hard and the objective function is monotone and submodular, thus admitting an approximation algorithm. We perform experiments on three real popular social networks and show that our model is able to distinguish between influence and adoption, and predict product adoption much more accurately than the classical LT model. This chapter is based on our WSDM 2012 paper [17]. This study was performed in collab- oration with Smriti Bhagat and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. 8.1 Introduction One of the fundamental problems in viral marketing is to identify a small set of individuals in a social network, who when convinced to adopt a product will influence others in the network through a word-of-mouth effect, leading to a large number of adoptions in an expected sense. Previous works such as [78] approached this as the problem of Influence Maximization where, given a social network represented by a directed graph with users as nodes, edges corresponding to social ties, and edge weights capturing influence probabilities, the goal is to find a seed set of k users such that by targeting these, the expected influence spread (defined as the expected number of influenced users) is maximized. Here, the expected influence spread of a seed set depends on the influence diffusion process which is captured by a model for influence 129 8.1. Introduction propagation. While several propagation models exist, two classical models, namely Linear Threshold (LT) and Independent Cascade (IC), have been widely studied in the literature. In this work, we focus on the LT model. In the LT model, a user is either in an inactive or an active state. An active user influences each of its inactive neighbors. The activation of an inactive user depends on the influence probabilities associated with its active neighbors. Each user v picks an activation threshold θv uniformly at random from [0, 1]. At any time step, if the sum of incoming weights from its active neighbors exceeds the threshold, v becomes active. The process continues until no more activations are possible. In the bulk of the Influence Maximization literature in data mining, it is assumed that once a user is active (i.e., is influenced), she will automatically and unconditionally adopt the product. In this sense, influence spread is viewed as equivalent to adoption spread (expected number of users who adopt the product). Clearly, product (or technology/innovation) adoption is the main goal in viral marketing, and influence spread is essentially used as a “proxy” for adoption. We argue that it is important to distinguish between influence and adoption, an idea well established in other domains like Sociology and Marketing. Bohlen et al. [19] in 1957 proposed five stages of product adoption in which the adoption stage is considered different than the awareness stage. Kalish [76] characterized the adoption of a new product as consisting of two steps – awareness and adoption – and argued that the awareness information spreads in an epidemic-like manner while the actual adoption depends on other factors such as price and individual’s valuation of the product. Given these studies in other traditional domains, the current Influence Maximization work in the data mining community lags behind in modeling such phenomena. Our work is a step towards building a more realistic model of product adoption. More concretely, previous literature (in data mining) on Influence Maximizationmakes three assumptions. First, once a user is influenced, she will immediately adopt the product. Second, it is assumed that once a user adopts a product, she encourages her friends to adopt it as well, irrespective of whether or how much she likes the product. In other words, adoption of a product implies that the user likes it regardless of her experience with it. Third, only after a user adopts a product, she shares her opinion on the product and attempts to influence her neighbors. That is, non-adopters either don’t have any opinions on the product or such opinions are not visible to others. These assumptions may not hold in general as illustrated by the following examples. Example 1. Bob buys an Amazon Kindle and dislikes the product. He posts his experience on his blog and describes the missing features. Kali, a friend of Bob, takes Bob’s opinions on technology products seriously. She learns about the Kindle from the post and decides not to buy it. Furthermore, she blogs about the product not meeting her expectations and in turn influences the decisions of her friends. Example 2. Bob watches the movie “The Ring” and likes it. He tells his friend Kali that the movie is great. Kali doesn’t get a chance to watch the movie, but tells her friend Charles about the movie. Charles gets influenced and watches it. In Example 1, Bob doesn’t like the product and shares his opinion with his friends. Thus, opinions can emerge from a user experience with a product and can propagate from an adopter. 130 8.1. Introduction Specifically, if a user does not like the product, their endorsement of the product is unlikely to be strong, a fact that may be noticed by their neighbors. Even when a user is strongly influenced by her neighbor, if the endorsement is weak, the user is less likely to adopt the product. The propagation of information to a user does not always lead to product adoption. There may be many factors that affect a user’s adoption decision, including the user’s interests, budget and time. Indeed, opinions can propagate from a non-adopter who is active (e.g., Kali in Example 2) and can promote adoption by others. In this example Kali acts as an “information bridge” or a tattler, who talks about the product without actually adopting it. How does the presence of such non-adopters who act as information bridges affect the overall adoption? Does the product adoption depend on the opinions, in addition to social influence? These are some of the questions this chapter addresses. In particular, we argue that the classical propagation models that make the three as- sumptions above may predict a product adoption quite different from reality, a point we will establish empirically using three real data sets. This motivates re-examining these assumptions and allowing for the following facts: (i) adopters’ opinions may strongly affect the degree to which they influence their neighbors’ adoption and (ii) non-adopters acting as an information bridge can contribute their own opinions, which too can affect influence propagation as well as adoption. We use user ratings of products as an abstraction of their opinions. Ratings are either provided by the user or can be predicted using collaborative filtering [84]. Therefore, the extent to which a user is influenced by her neighbors (to become active) is a function, not only of the influence probabilities but of the ratings of the neighbors as well. In this chapter, we study an interesting variation of the classical Influence Maximization problem with an aim to maximize the number of product adoptions and make the following contributions. • We study the novel problem of maximizing product adoption, a more natural goal of applications like viral marketing. We present an intuitive model called LT-C, for LT with Colors, that captures these intuitions. We show that the problem of product adoption maximization is NP-hard but the objective function, i.e., the expected number of product adoptions, is monotone and submodular; thus the greedy algorithm provides a (1−1/e− )-approximation to the optimal solution. We also propose methods to learn parameters of our model (Section 8.3). • We study two types of networks – movies networks (Section 8.4.1) and music networks (Section 8.4.2) using three real world datasets. We found that in almost all instances, the classical LT model significantly over-predicts the spread. Moreover, it predicts the same spread for all the products. We demonstrate that our LT-C model, by incorporating ratings, significantly improves the accuracy of these predictions. • In all the three datasets, we found that there is a positive correlation between the number of initiators (users who first express opinions among their friend circles) and the final spread, suggesting that the network structure plays a significant role in the spread. We demonstrate that the choice of seed nodes is critical and can make a significant difference to the spread achieved. We also found that largely, the seed sets are different for different products, though some influential users are picked up consistently as seeds irrespective of the product being marketed (Section 8.4). 131 8.2. Related Work We review related work in §8.2 and present conclusions in §8.5. 8.2 Related Work One related problem is that of revenue maximization, studied by Hartline et al. [65]. They offer a family of strategies based on an influence and exploit paradigm that work as follows. In the first step, called the influence step, the seller gives the item to a chosen set of customers for free. Then in the exploit step, the seller visits the remaining buyers in a random sequence and offers each buyer a price that is expected to maximize her revenue. Their model allows the seller to bypass the network structure and visit arbitrary buyers at any time. While revenue maximization, in principle, is closely related to adoption maximization, and arguably should subsume the latter, there are the following key differences with our work. We explicitly model the following phenomena observed in real data sets: first, users may be activated but not necessarily adopt/buy a product and instead may tattle about it; second, opinions shared by tattlers may promote adoption by other users; third, sometimes, tattlers may choose to inhibit adoption by other users by sharing the poor ratings they gave for the product. Another closely related problem is that Influence Maximization in the presence of negative opinions (see Chen et al. [34]). Their model, called IC-N, builds on the classical IC model by subdividing the active state into two sub-states, positive and negative, while preserving the properties of monotonicity and submodularity. They incorporate the spread of negative opinions with a parameter q that models the quality of the product. The model assumes that the parameter q is the same across all users, an assumption that is not always realistic. Unfortunately, this assumption is essential to their framework, since if the parameter q is allowed to be different for different users (indicating users like the product to differing degrees), their objective function is no longer monotone and submodular, thus, the greedy algorithm fails to provide any approximation guarantee. In our work, we argue that influence propagation depends on the extent to which a user likes the product, in addition to the influence weights among users. Furthermore, we claim that in a network, there exist information bridges, or tattlers who propagate the influence without adopting the product themselves. We show that these tattlers are indeed present in real data sets and their presence makes a significant difference to product adoption. A key feature of our model is that not only do we allow the probability of liking a product to be different for different users, we do so while retaining the monotonicity and submodularity of the objective function. Tang et al. [129] recognize that influence varies with the domain/topic of an item. They present a scalable approach based on MapReduce for learning topic-specific social influence weights from a given social graph and topic distribution. By contrast, in our work, we recognize the reality that user tastes and opinions can be not just topic specific but even item specific and take that into account in our model. In addition to social influence, homophily (or selection) has been shown to be a possible cause of users’ actions. While some (e.g., [8]) focus on distinguishing the effects of influence and homophily, others (e.g., [39], [88]) showed the feedback effects that both factors have on each other. In particular, Crandall et al. [39] argued that both influence and homophily can be useful in predicting users’ future behavior. In our work, we are interested in building 132 8.3. Proposed Framework Inactive Tattle Adopt Active Inhibit Promote fv(A) 1 fv(A) v 1-v 1-µv µv Figure 8.1: LT-C model with colored end states: adopt–green, promote–blue, inhibit–red a model that predicts the users’ actions, in particular, users’ adoption of products, without necessarily distinguishing the causes, and use it to develop algorithms that maximize the number of adoptions. Following [76], we argue that while information (or influence) spreads in an epidemic-like manner, actual adoption depends on various other factors. We separate the state of adoption from the state of being influenced (or active) in the LT model. Clearly, for the model to work, it is important that the underlying network structure represent the flow of information, irrespective of whether it corresponds to an explicit social graph (where the links are formed explicitly by users, e.g., friendship links in Facebook), an implicit social graph (where the information flows among users indirectly, e.g., as in recommendation engines like Movielens, Amazon etc.), or a combination of the two. A recent work by Goyal et al. [57] also focuses on predicting the users’ actions, while offering an alternative “data-based” approach that bypasses the propagation models to estimate the spread. The same authors [56] study the problem of learning influence probabilities based on the past propagation traces, paying special attention to the temporal nature of influence probabilities. In other work, Chen et al. [37] have proposed an efficient heuristic for Influence Maximization under the LT model, which is recently improved by [61]. 8.3 Proposed Framework Let G = (V,E,W ) be a weighted, directed graph with nodes (users) V and edges (social ties) E, where the influence weights are captured by the function W : E → [0, 1]. The weight wu,v associated with an edge (u, v) ∈ E represents the probability of user u influencing user v, such that the sum of incoming edge weights at any node is no greater than 1. That is,∑ u∈N in(v)wu,v ≤ 1, where N in(v) is the set of in-neighbors of user v. In addition, we assume that a matrix R of Users× Products is given where each entry ru,i denotes the rating given by user u to the product i. We assume whenever ratings are missing, they are predicted using collaborative filtering. The higher the rating, the more positive the opinion. Intuitively, a user’s decision to adopt a product should not only depend on the influence of neighbors, but also on what they think about the product, as captured by the ratings. Next, we describe our model that we call LT-C model, for Linear Threshold with Colors. 133 8.3. Proposed Framework 8.3.1 LT-C Model Figure 8.1 gives an overview of our model in the form of a state diagram. An Inactive node v has not yet formed an opinion of the new product and is open to being influenced by neighbors. A node is Active if it is influenced by its neighbors. Let A be the set of Active in-neighbors of node v and fv(A) denote the activation function of v, that is, the total influence on v from nodes in A s.t. 0 ≤ fv(A) ≤ 1. Values of fv(A) close to 1 can be thought of as a collective “recommendation” of Active neighbors of u strongly favoring the product. On the hand, values of fv(A) that are close to 0 represent that neighbors of u collectively disapprove the product. As with the LT model, an Inactive node v picks an activation threshold θv uniformly at random from [0, 1] and if fv(A) ≥ θv then v becomes Active, else v remains Inactive. We instantiate the activation function as follows, fv(A) = ∑ u∈Awu,v(ru,i − rmin) rmax − rmin (8.1) where rmax and rmin represent the maximum and minimum ratings in the system, respectively. Intuitively, this definition corresponds to treating, for each edge (u, v) in the graph, the effective influence weight of u on v as wu,v(ru,i − rmin)/(rmax − rmin), where i is the product being marketed. Once a node is in the Active state, it has enough information about the product and has formed an opinion. At this stage, the node can choose to adopt the product and rate it, or decide to share its opinion without adopting the product i.e., tattle. With some probability λv, an activated node v enters the Adopt state (or adopts) and is colored green, and with probability 1 − λv, node v enters the Tattle state (or tattles). Intuitively, the parameter λv models the likelihood of a node adopting the product after it has been activated by its neighbors. There are several real world factors that can be modeled into λv, such as a user’s budget, interests and purchase history. Note that the parameter λv is specific to each node v. If the node decides to Adopt, it provides a rating rv,i for the product i being marketed. In §8.3.4, we propose methods to learn these parameters. The Tattle state is an interesting one. It represents a typical gossipmonger who has not experienced the product but is expressing an acquired opinion. Such a node is likely to be biased one way or the other. We say a tattler (node in the Tattle state) can either enter the Promote state (color blue) or the Inhibit state (color red) depending on its disposition pa- rameterized by µv, specific to v. In other words, v enters the Promote state with probability µv and Inhibit stat with probability 1−µv. For instance, consider a user who loves (or hates) the iPhone and owns one already. When the latest model is launched, even though the user is not ready to buy it, the user has some strongly biased opinion of the product which the user shares with his friends. We model this bias in opinion by representing it with a constant rating of rmax for a user in the Promote state and rmin for a user in the Inhibit state. A node in the Promote or Inhibit state propagates information but does not directly contribute to the revenue. The node’s actions however may stimulate or inhibit adoption by its neighbors, thus proving to be an important information bridge in the network. Finally, we should mention that of the states in Figure 8.1, only the Inactive, Adopt, Promote and Inhibit states may be observable in a real data set. The intermediate states are used for modeling purposes only. 134 8.3. Proposed Framework The dynamics followed by the process of opinion propagation at discrete time steps are as follows. At time t = 0, a set S of k nodes is chosen as the seed set and are said to be active, and each seed node can choose any of the three states Adopt, Promote or Inhibit. At t > 0, each node u that activated (Adopt, Promote or Inhibit state) at time t, contributes to the activation of its neighbors v where (u, v) ∈ E. Let At denote the neighbors of v that are Active at time t, then the total influence on node v at time t is fv(At). If the Active neighbors push fv(At) over the threshold θv, then v becomes Active, else it remains Inactive. Once in Active state, the node follows the path to enter one of Adopt, Promote or Inhibit states and stays in that state with corresponding probabilities. Also, each Active node provides a rating of the product that is factored into the activation function. Thus, once a node becomes active, it enters one of these states. At+1 is the set of all nodes that become active as a result of the influence from their neighbors in At. The process of node activation stops if at some time step no new nodes can be activated. 8.3.2 Maximizing Product Adoption We define the expected spread (or spread for short) of the seed set S as the expected number of Adopt nodes in the network at the end of the propagation and denote it σ(S). We sometimes refer to σ(S) as the coverage of set S. Problem 9 (Maximizing Product Adoption). Given a social graph G = (V,E,B), a parameter k, and a ratings matrix R and parameters λv, µv,∀v ∈ V , the problem of maximizing product adoption is to find a seed set S of k nodes such that by activating these nodes, the expected spread under LT-C model is maximized. Not surprisingly, the problem is NP-hard. However, as we will show, the spread function is monotone and submodular, so a simple greedy algorithm leads to a (1−1/e−)-approximation to the optimum, for any > 0. Theorem 13. Problem 9 is NP-hard. Proof. Consider the restricted class of instances of the problem where ∀v ∈ V, λv = 1 and rv,i = rmax. The problem of maximizing product adoption over this class of instances is equivalent to the classical problem of Influence Maximization under the LT model, which is known to be NP-hard [78]. The theorem follows. Theorem 14. The spread function σ(·) under LT-C model is monotone and submodular. Proof. It is straightforward to show that σ(·) is monotone. To establish submodularity, our proof outline follows that in [78]. The challenge in our case is two-fold: (1) There are four possible observable states of nodes – Inactive (gray), Adopt (green), Promote (blue), and Inhibit (red) in place of just two; (2) The activation of a node depends on the state of its in-neighbors. The reason is that the influence of a node u on its neighbor v is a combination of the weight wu,v and the rating of u. This rating depends on u’s state: it’s rmin in the red state, rmax in the blue state, and a value ru,i obtained from R in the green state. Thus, u’s state affects the extent of u’s influence on its neighbors. 135 8.3. Proposed Framework Borrowing the idea of a live edge model from [78], we define a timed version of the live edge selection process for the purpose of this proof. Start by activating the seed nodes S in G and color them as follows: for any u ∈ S, color u green w.p. λu, blue w.p. (1−λu)µu, and red w.p. (1− λu)(1−µu). At any time t > 0, allow each uncolored out-neighbor v of a colored node to choose at most one of its in-neighbors z w.p. pz,v and no in-neighbor w.p. ∑ y∈N in(v)wy,v = 1. If the chosen in-neighbor is colored, then color v green w.p. λv, blue w.p. (1− λv)µv, and red w.p. (1− λv)(1− µv). Otherwise, don’t record the choice. That is, if the chosen in-neighbor is not colored, we don’t record the choice of the in-neighbor, but constrain future choices of in-neighbors by v, if any, to be outside the set of nodes colored by time t−1. Term each chosen edge i.e., edge to the chosen colored neighbor as a live edge. Other edges are blocked/dead. A live path is a path made of only live edges. Stop the process when there is no change. This process produces a distribution over possible worlds. Let X be one such possible world. We will show that σ(S) = ∑ X Pr[X]σX(S), where σX(S) is the number of green nodes reachable from the seed nodes S via live paths in the possible world X. It is easy to see that σX(.) is monotone and submodular, from which the theorem follows, since a non-negative linear combination of submodular functions is submodular. To show that σ(S) = ∑ X Pr[X]σX(S), we will show that the probability distributions of sets of green/blue/red nodes obtained by running the LT-C model are identical to those obtained from the above process. We step through the diffusion process according to the LT-C model and determine the probability with which any node v turns green, blue or red. Let each node v pick its threshold θv uniformly at random from [0, 1]. Let St be the set of Active (colored) nodes at time t = 0, 1, 2, . . ., with S0 = S. The probability with which an uncolored node v will be colored at time t + 1 is the likelihood that a neighbor u that got colored at time t pushes the total influence on v over the threshold θv. We denote this probability of v getting colored at time t+ 1 as ψt+1v . Therefore, Pr[v got colored at time t+ 1] = ψt+1v = ∑ u∈St\St−1 pu,v 1−∑u∈St−1 pu,v Once a node v is Active, its color depends solely on the parameters λv and µv and so we have: Pr[v turns green at t+ 1] = λv · ψt+1v Pr[v turns blue at t+ 1] = (1− λv) · µv · ψt+1v Pr[v turns red at t+ 1] = (1− λv) · (1− µv) · ψt+1v Next, we consider the timed version of the live edge selection process defined above and iterate through the corresponding process. Let S′0 = S be the seed set. Let S′t, t ≥ 0, denote the set of nodes that is colored at time t according to this process. Let v 6∈ S be any node. The probability that it got colored at time t + 1, denoted by φt+1v , is the probability with which its chosen in-neighbor u got colored at time t, given that v was not colored before time t+ 1. More precisely, Pr[v got colored at time t+ 1] = φt+1v = ∑ u∈S′t\S′t−1 pu,v 1−∑u∈S′t−1 pu,v 136 8.3. Proposed Framework Applying induction on time, it is easy to see that the distributions of Active (i.e., colored) sets of nodes obtained from running the LT-C model, St, t ≥ 0, and the sets of nodes reachable from the seed nodes S by live paths, S′t, t ≥ 0, are identical. Given the equivalence between the distributions over St and S′t, it follows that φt+1v = ψt+1v . Since the color acquired by an Active node solely depends on the parameters λv, µv, the distributions of nodes colored green, blue, and red under the LT-C model and under the timed live edge selection process are identical. This was to be shown. 8.3.3 Choosing Optimal Seed Set While product adption maximization is NP-hard, as shown by Theorem 14, the spread function σ(S) under the LT-C model is monotone and submodular. Thus, we can employ a simple greedy algorithm which repeatedly picks a node with the maximum marginal gain and adds it to the seed set, until the budget k is reached. Furthermore, since the LT model is a special case of the LT-C model (corresponding to λv = 1, ∀v and rv,i = rmax,∀v), the #P-hardness [37] of computing the spread of a given seed set carries over to our setting. To mitigate this, we employ Monte Carlo simulation for estimating the spread. Finally, we adapt the CELF algorithm of Leskovec et al. [91]. The idea behind CELF is that the marginal gain of a node cannot increase in subsequent iterations (due to submodularity) and thus the spread of seed sets is computed in a lazy forward manner, speeding up the greedy algorithm considerably. Our implementation is based on these ideas. The adaptation of CELF to LT-C model is trivial and we omit the details. It is well known that this approach yields a (1−1/e−)-approximation to the optimum, for any > 0. 8.3.4 Learning Model Parameters Edge Weights. As in [56], we learn influence weights from the past behavior of users. For example, consider a log of ratings in which each tuple is of the form 〈u, i, t, r〉, saying user u rated an item i at time t with rating r. There are several cases where such information is readily available in the real world. For example, consider a movie recommender system (see §8.4 for the complete case study), then an action can be considered as “user rating a movie”. Seeing friends’ ratings, one may be influenced to watch the movie and in turn, rate the movie at a later timestamp. Hence, the influence weight on an edge (u, v) is learnt as the fraction of times user v rated an item after u had done so, and normalized over all neighbors x of v such that ∑ x∈N in(v)wx,v = 1. Ratings Matrix. We compute the ratings matrix R using collaborative filtering. Several sophisticated collaborative filtering methods have been proposed by the recommender systems community for predicting the rating of a user for a given item or product. Matrix factoriza- tion [84] is one such popular method. The input to matrix factorization is a very large sparse matrix of user ratings with a large number of missing values corresponding to users who have not rated a product. The main task is to predict these missing ratings. An assumption made is that some small number of ratings are available for each product. In the context of our problem, we maintain the assumption that the new product which we want to push in the market has been adopted by some small number of early adopters, who have assigned ratings 137 8.4. Model Evaluation to the product. This is commonly seen when new products are launched, for instance, tech- nology bloggers get a sneak-peak of new products at tech-media events and they blog about those products. Often, linux operating system and even Google services are first released as beta versions to selected users for product analysis and to get initial feedback before launching to the public. In this chapter, we make use of product ratings by users (either provided by users or predicted by recommender algorithms) as a way of modeling the user opinion of a product. Node Parameters λ and µ. Recall that an active user v enters the Adopt state with probability λv and it enters the Tattle state with probability 1 − λv. Typically, companies such as Netflix and Amazon have user logs which can be used to determine if a user reviewed the product without adopting it. Next to each review on Amazon, where the user bought the product being reviewed, there is a label that states “Amazon Verified Purchase” representing an adoption. The reviews without this label can be attributed to tattle nodes (states promote or inhibit). Given the user rating log, we learn λv as maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) which is the fraction of times a user provided an explicit rating for a product over the times the user provided any opinion including a comment, review and numeric rating. The parameter µv models the inherent bias of user v. As with λv, we can rely on the rating log to compute this parameter. As an example, in the movie rating social network Flixster, there are special non-numeric ratings “want to see it” and “not interested” that map closely to the Promote and Inhibit states in our model respectively. Again, we use maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) to compute µv, that is, the fraction of times a user gave the rating “want to see it” over the number of times any such special rating was given by that user. We show the effectiveness of this choice by the means of extensive experiments in §8.4. 8.4 Model Evaluation We perform empirical analysis to study the adoption of two types of “products” – movies and artists. We analyze influence spread and actual adoption (viewing) of movies on two datasets, one from a social network for movies, Flixster46, and the other from a movie recommender sys- tem, Movielens47, presented in §8.4.1. Further, we analyze a music social network, Last.fm48, and study the adoption (listening) of songs and artists, presented in §8.4.2. Table 8.1 presents the basic statistics of all these datasets. We compare the following models in our evaluation. 1. Classical LT. Linear Threshold model proposed in [78]. 2. LT-C. Our proposed model. 3. LT Ratings. Our proposed model without Tattle nodes. That is, all the nodes who are influenced adopt the product, and λv = 1, ∀v ∈ V . This is equivalent to modifying the activation function of the classical LT model to include ratings as defined in Eq. (8.1). 46www.flixster.com 47www.movielens.org 48www.last.fm 138 8.4. Model Evaluation Flixster Movielens Last.fm #Nodes 13K 6040 1892 #Edges 192.4K 209K 25.4K Avg. degree 14.8 34.6 13.4 #Movies or #Artists 25K 3706 17.6K #Ratings 1.84M 1M 259K #Edges with 75.7K 154K 157Knon-zero weight Table 8.1: Dataset statistics 4. LT Tattle. Our proposed model without any ratings. That is, all the nodes in Adopt state are assumed to rate the item as rmax, as do those in Promote state, while users in Inhibit state rate rmin. We tested these variations of LT-C in order to understand the relative contribution of the different components to the overall accuracy of predicting the expected adoption spread. In all the experiments, we run 10K Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the coverage for k = 50 seeds. The data was divided into test and training sets randomly such that all the ratings of a movie fall in exactly one of training or test sets. All validation experiments are run on the test set. 8.4.1 Adoption of Movies Datasets. Flixster is a social network for movies which enables users to share their opinion on movies with friends by rating and reviewing movies. This dataset, collected by Jamali et al. [74], in its raw form has 1M users, 14M (undirected) friendship relations among users, and 8.2M ratings that range from half a star (rating 0.5) to five stars (rating 5). Since running Monte Carlo (MC) simulations is very expensive (may take several hours even for 10K nodes), a graph of that size is difficult to handle, given the extensive set of experiments we perform in our study. We use the Graclus49 software to extract a subgraph which contains 13K users and 192.4K (directed) edges among them. There are 4.14M ratings by these users of which 1.84M are numeric ratings and 2.3M are special ratings. Our second dataset on movies is from the Movielens recommender system released by Grouplens50 research group. The dataset consists of 6K users and 1M ratings (on scale of 1-5) on 3.7K movies. The dataset does not have an explicit social graph, so we construct an implicit one representing the flow of influence. In Movielens, influence flows indirectly via the recommendation engine that is based on collaborative filtering [84]. For instance, if a movie is recommended to Bob, it is likely that the “nearest neighbors” of Bob (as seen by the recommendation engine) must have given high ratings to the movie. We deduce these implicit relationships among users by computing similarity among users. Precisely, an edge is created between users u and v if the Jaccard index51 w.r.t. the movies they rated is greater than a 49www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dml/Software/graclus.html 50www.grouplens.org/node/73 51Jaccard index for sets X,Y is J(X,Y ) = |X ∩ Y |/|X ∪ Y |. 139 8.4. Model Evaluation threshold (0.25 in experiments). The process resulted in a graph with 6K nodes and 209K edges. The size of the training set is 19.9K for Flixster, and 2.9K for Movielens; and test set is 5.1K for Flixster, and 741 for Movielens. Our experiments were run on 650 movies randomly picked from the test set for Flixster, and the entire test set of 741 movies for Movielens. 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1e+06 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Nu m be r o f e dg es Edge Weights Flixster (a) Distribution of edge weights in Flixster 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1e+06 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Nu m be r o f E dg es Edge Weights Movielens (b) Distribution of edge weights in Movielens Figure 8.2: Distribution of edge weights Model Parameters from Data. For both the datasets, edge weights are learned as described in §8.3.4. Figures 8.2(a) and 8.2(b) show the distribution of edge weights for Flixster and Movielens respectively. Flixster allows ratings from 0.5 to 5 in steps of 0.5, while Movielens allows integer ratings from 1 to 5. Figures 8.3(a) and 8.3(b) show the distribution of ratings for Flixster and Movielens respectively. The complete ratings matrix R is computed using the matrix factorization method described in [84] for both the datasets. Flixster allows two types of special ratings – “want to see it” and “not interested” – in addition to the numeric ratings. There are 2.3M special ratings in our dataset, of which 730K ratings are “want to see it” and 1.6M are “not interested”. We map the “want to see it” and “not interested” ratings to the Promote and Inhibit states in our model and fix their numeric values to 0.5 and 5 respectively. For any user v ∈ V , the adoption probability λv is computed as the fraction of times v gave a numeric rating over the number of all (numeric and special) ratings given by v. Similarly, µv is computed as a fraction of times v gives a “want to see it” rating over the number of special ratings given by v. Figures 8.3(c) and 8.3(d) show the distribution of the λ and µ parameters learned using the special ratings. In both the distributions, a large majority of the users have λ and µ values close to the ends of the spectrum i.e., 0 and 1. A value of one (zero) for λ for a user indicates that she adopts (tattles about) each product which she learns about. Similarly, a value of one (zero) for µ indicates if the user decides to tattle, she promotes (inhibits) the product. The distributions in Figures 8.3(c) and 8.3(d) show these strong preferences of users. Over 1200 users gave only numeric ratings and have λ = 1. Considering the special ratings, 1400 users gave “want to watch” ratings only (µ = 1) and 1500 users gave “not interested” ratings only (µ = 0). The fact that over half of all ratings are special and represent opinions shared by users who have not watched the given 140 8.4. Model Evaluation 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rating 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 N um be ro fR at in gs 1e+3 (a) Distribution of ratings in Flixster 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rating 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 N um be ro fR at in gs 1e+3 (b) Distribution of ratings in Movielens 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 λ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 N um be ro fu se rs (c) Distribution of λ in Flixster 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 µ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 N um be ro fu se rs (d) Distribution of µ in Flixster Figure 8.3: Summary of datasets and distributions of model parameters movie emphasizes the need to study the effect of Tattle nodes on adoption. Movielens also features special ratings, such as, “want to see it” that corresponds to movies in a user’s wishlist, and “hide this” that corresponds to “not interested”. However, the actual dataset obtained from the Grouplens website did not include these ratings. In order to miti- gate this, we use the distribution of λ and µ learned from Flixster for computing the values and for users in the Movielens dataset. Though not ideal, we believe this is a reasonable approximation since both data sets represent users’ opinions on movies. The shape of the distributions in Figures 8.3(c) and 8.3(d) suggests a Beta probability distribution as a nat- ural choice for modeling both λ and µ. We learn the parameters for the Beta distribution by fitting a curve to the data from Flixster, and obtain the distributions λu ∼ Beta(0.3, 0.1) µu ∼ Beta(0.001, 0.001), for any user u ∈ V . Coverage with different models. We first analyze the effect of ratings on product adop- tion. Figures 8.4(a) and 8.4(b) show the coverage obtained for a seed set size k = 50 using 141 8.4. Model Evaluation 0 10 20 30 40 50 Seed set size 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 C ov er ag e Classic LT LT Tattle LT Ratings LT-C (a) Coverage obtained with different models on Flixster 0 10 20 30 40 50 Seed set size 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 C ov er ag e Classic LT LT Tattle LT Ratings LT-C (b) Coverage obtained with different models on Movielens Figure 8.4: Coverage obtained with different models on Flixster and Movielens datasets the classical LT model, LT Ratings, LT Tattle and the LT-C model for maximizing product adoption. The figures show this comparison for a particular movie, and the results were similar for a set of 30 and 20 movies picked randomly from Flixster and Movielens, respectively. As can be seen, there is a huge gap between the prediction of classical LT and of LT-C model. For instance, on Flixster, LT model predicts a coverage of 4200 with a budget of 50, and LT-C predicts a coverage of only 701 for that budget. Which model is correct? Is LT-C too pes- simistic or is the classical LT model too optimistic? Coverage is an important statistic used in estimating the revenue (and thus profit) and hence, it is important to have an accurate estimate of it. As shown next, gauging models based on the absolute coverage they predict can often lead to models that perform poorly. Accuracy of estimated coverage. We evaluate the coverage obtained by different models against the actual adoption of a product. We define the actual adoption coverage (actual coverage, for short) as the number of users who adopted the product, in this case, gave a numeric rating for a given movie. Since the coverage estimated by a model depends on the size of the seed set, we fix the seed set for each movie and compute the coverage by each model given the seed set. The seed set for each movie is the set of initiators which includes all users who watched a given movie before any of their friends did. Figures 8.5(a) and 8.5(c) validate that the LT-C model estimates actual adoption coverage accurately on both datasets. Each point in the figures represents a movie and its coordinates correspond to the actual coverage vs. that estimated by a model, for the set of initiators as the seeds. The set of initiators and hence the size of the seed set may be different for each movie. Figure 8.5(b) shows that the actual coverage is positively correlated with the number of initiators in both the datasets (shown are all movies in the datasets). Moreover, the final coverage is much larger than the number of initiators, suggesting that the network structure plays a significant role in the final spread of adoption. Figure 8.5(a) shows 650 movies and 8.5(c) shows 741 movies of the test set for Flixster and Movielens, respectively. The x = y line is the ideal scenario where the model estimate 142 8.4. Model Evaluation 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Actual coverage 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 M od el co ve ra ge Classical LT LT Tattle LT Ratings LT-C (a) Actual vs predicted coverage on Flixster 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Initiators 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 To ta ln um be ro fa do pt er s Flixster MovieLens (b) Adoption Spread 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Actual coverage 0 500 1000 1500 2000 M od el co ve ra ge Classical LT LT Tattle LT Ratings LT-C (c) Actual vs predicted coverage on Movielens Figure 8.5: Accuracy of estimated coverage. is identical to the actual coverage. As seen from the figures, the classical LT model over- estimates the coverage by large amounts. Both including tattle nodes and including ratings are useful in providing better estimates, while estimates of adoption using LT-C model are closest to reality. To quantify this error in estimating the coverage, we compute the average root mean square value (RMSE52) over the test set, for the coverage predicted by the different models w.r.t. actual coverage. We observe that the RMSE obtained using the classical LT model is over 10 times that by our model (on Flixster), as shown in Table 8.2. On Movielens, the LT-C and LT Ratings models have similar RMSE. This might be because we do not have data to learn values of λ and µ for various users, instead we draw their values from the Beta distribution whose parameters are taken from Flixster dataset (see above). Another interesting trend observed in Figure 8.5(b) is that the choice of seeds
- Library Home /
- Search Collections /
- Open Collections /
- Browse Collections /
- UBC Theses and Dissertations /
- Social influence and its applications : an algorithmic...
Open Collections
UBC Theses and Dissertations
Featured Collection
UBC Theses and Dissertations
Social influence and its applications : an algorithmic and data mining study Goyal, Amit 2013
pdf
Page Metadata
Item Metadata
Title | Social influence and its applications : an algorithmic and data mining study |
Creator |
Goyal, Amit |
Publisher | University of British Columbia |
Date Issued | 2013 |
Description | Social influence occurs when one's actions are affected by others. If leveraged carefully, social influence can be exploited in many applications like viral marketing (or targeted advertising in general), recommender systems, social network analysis, events detection, experts finding, link prediction, ranking of feeds etc. One of the fundamental problems in this fascinating field is the problem of influence maximization, primarily motivated by the application of viral marketing. The objective is to identify a small set of users in a social network, who when convinced to adopt a product will influence others in the network leading to a large number of adoptions. The vision of our work is to take the algorithmic and data mining aspects of viral marketing out of the lab. We organize ours goals and contributions into four categories: (i) With the ever-increasing scale of online social networks, it is extremely important to develop efficient algorithms for influence maximization. We propose two algorithms -- CELF++ and SIMPATH that significantly improve the scalability. (ii) We remark that previous studies often make unrealistic assumptions and rely on simulations, instead of validating models against real world data. For instance, they assume an arbitrary assignment of influence probabilities in their studies, which focused more on algorithms than on validity with respect to real data. We attack the problem of learning influence probabilities. In another work, we propose a novel data driven approach to influence models and show that it predicts influence diffusion with much better accuracy. (iii) Next, we propose alternative problem formulations -- MINTSS and MINTIME and show interesting theoretical results. These problem formulations capture the problem of deploying viral campaigns on budget and time constraints. In an additional work, we take a fresh perspective on identifying community leaders using a pattern mining approach. (iv) Finally, we examine applications of social influence. We begin with the application of viral marketing. We show that product adoption is not exactly influence. Given this, we develop a product adoption model and study the problem of maximizing product adoption. Furthermore, we propose and investigate a novel problem in recommender systems, for targeted advertising -- RECMAX. |
Genre |
Thesis/Dissertation |
Type |
Text |
Language | eng |
Date Available | 2013-02-19 |
Provider | Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library |
Rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International |
DOI | 10.14288/1.0052213 |
URI | http://hdl.handle.net/2429/43935 |
Degree |
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD |
Program |
Computer Science |
Affiliation |
Science, Faculty of Computer Science, Department of |
Degree Grantor | University of British Columbia |
GraduationDate | 2013-05 |
Campus |
UBCV |
Scholarly Level | Graduate |
Rights URI | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
AggregatedSourceRepository | DSpace |
Download
- Media
- 24-ubc_2013_spring_goyal_amit.pdf [ 5.5MB ]
- Metadata
- JSON: 24-1.0052213.json
- JSON-LD: 24-1.0052213-ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0052213-rdf.xml
- RDF/JSON: 24-1.0052213-rdf.json
- Turtle: 24-1.0052213-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: 24-1.0052213-rdf-ntriples.txt
- Original Record: 24-1.0052213-source.json
- Full Text
- 24-1.0052213-fulltext.txt
- Citation
- 24-1.0052213.ris