Adaptive Greedy versus Non-adaptive Greedy for Influence Maximization
Wei Chen, Binghui Peng, Grant Schoenebeck, Biaoshuai Tao

TL;DR
This paper investigates the performance gap between adaptive and non-adaptive greedy algorithms in influence maximization, revealing tight bounds and proposing a risk-free variant to ensure non-worse outcomes.
Contribution
It introduces the concept of greedy adaptivity gap, establishes tight bounds for submodular influence maximization, and proposes a risk-free adaptive greedy algorithm.
Findings
Adaptive greedy can be up to (1-1/e) worse than non-adaptive in some models.
In submodular cascades, adaptive greedy guarantees a (1-1/e) approximation.
A risk-free variant always performs at least as well as non-adaptive greedy.
Abstract
We consider the *adaptive influence maximization problem*: given a network and a budget , iteratively select seeds in the network to maximize the expected number of adopters. In the *full-adoption feedback model*, after selecting each seed, the seed-picker observes all the resulting adoptions. In the *myopic feedback model*, the seed-picker only observes whether each neighbor of the chosen seed adopts. Motivated by the extreme success of greedy-based algorithms/heuristics for influence maximization, we propose the concept of *greedy adaptivity gap*, which compares the performance of the adaptive greedy algorithm to its non-adaptive counterpart. Our first result shows that, for submodular influence maximization, the adaptive greedy algorithm can perform up to a -fraction worse than the non-adaptive greedy algorithm, and that this ratio is tight. More specifically, on one…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
