The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network
Abstract
Models for the processes by which ideas and influence propagate through a social network have been studied in a number of domains, including the diffusion of medical and technological innovations, the sudden and widespread adoption of various strategies in game-theoretic settings, and the effects of "word of mouth" in the promotion of new products. Recently, motivated by the design of viral marketing strategies, Domingos and Richardson posed a fundamental algorithmic problem for such social network processes: if we can try to convince a subset of individuals to adopt a new product or innovation, and the goal is to trigger a large cascade of further adoptions, which set of individuals should we target?We consider this problem in several of the most widely studied models in social network analysis. The optimization problem of selecting the most influential nodes is NP-hard here, and we provide the first provable approximation guarantees for efficient algorithms. Using an analysis framework based on submodular functions, we show that a natural greedy strategy obtains a solution that is provably within 63% of optimal for several classes of models; our framework suggests a general approach for reasoning about the performance guarantees of algorithms for these types of influence problems in social networks.We also provide computational experiments on large collaboration networks, showing that in addition to their provable guarantees, our approximation algorithms significantly out-perform node-selection heuristics based on the well-studied notions of degree centrality and distance centrality from the field of social networks.
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
Error and attack tolerance of complex networks
Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35019019 · Cited by 7,534
Cited by
What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652
Epidemic processes in complex networks
Pastor-Satorras, R., Castellano, C., Van Mieghem, P., & Vespignani, A. (2015) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.925 · Cited by 3,697
Group formation in large social networks: membership, growth, and evolution
Backstrom, L., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Lan, X. (2006) · Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1150402.1150412 · Cited by 1,805
Self-citationEveryone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter
Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011) · Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining · doi:10.1145/1935826.1935845 · Cited by 1,689
Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks
Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1215842 · Cited by 1,047
Metadata
- Authors
- Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., & Tardos, É.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2003-08-24
- Pages
- 137-146
- OpenAlex
- W2061820396
- Cited by
- 7,326
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 40.61
- 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: Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/956750.956769
- The paper
- Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., & Tardos, É. (2003). Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. https://doi.org/10.1145/956750.956769
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.