The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Limiting the spread of misinformation in social networks
Abstract
In this work, we study the notion of competing campaigns in a social network and address 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 problem can be summarized as identifying a subset of individuals that need to be convinced to adopt the competing (or "good") campaign so as to minimize the number of people that adopt the "bad" campaign at the end of both propagation processes. We show that this optimization problem is NP-hard and provide approximation guarantees for a greedy solution for various definitions of this problem by proving that they are submodular. We experimentally compare the performance of the greedy method to various heuristics. The experiments reveal that in most cases inexpensive heuristics such as degree centrality compare well with the greedy approach. We also study the influence limitation problem in the presence of missing data where the current states of nodes in the network are only known with a certain probability and show that prediction in this setting is a supermodular problem. We propose a prediction algorithm that is based on generating random spanning trees and evaluate the performance of this approach. The experiments reveal that using the prediction algorithm, we are able to tolerate about 90% missing data before the performance of the algorithm starts degrading and even with large amounts of missing data the performance degrades only to 75% of the performance that would be achieved with complete data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557
User interactions in social networks and their implications
Wilson, C., Boe, B., Sala, A., Puttaswamy, K. P. N., & Zhao, B. Y. (2009) · Proceedings of the 4th ACM European conference on Computer systems · doi:10.1145/1519065.1519089 · Cited by 879
Cited by
Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017) · Global Challenges · doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 · Cited by 1,058
Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking
Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983 · Cited by 773
A Stylometric Inquiry into Hyperpartisan and Fake News
Potthast, M., Kiesel, J., Reinartz, K., Bevendorff, J., & Stein, B. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1022 · Cited by 686
Influence Maximization on Social Graphs: A Survey
Li, Y., Fan, J., Wang, Y., & Tan, K.-L. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2018.2807843 · Cited by 659
Combating Fake News: A Survey on Identification and Mitigation Techniques
Sharma, K., Qian, F., Jiang, H., Ruchansky, N., Zhang, M., & Liu, Y. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3305260 · Cited by 514
Metadata
- Authors
- Budak, C., Agrawal, D., & El Abbadi, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-03-28
- Pages
- 665-674
- OpenAlex
- W2139297408
- Cited by
- 807
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 36.43
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Limiting the spread of misinformation in social networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1963405.1963499
- The paper
- Budak, C., Agrawal, D., & El Abbadi, A. (2011). Limiting the spread of misinformation in social networks. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. https://doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963499
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.