4.7 Article

Benchmarking seeding strategies for spreading processes in social networks: an interplay between influencers, topologies and sizes

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-60239-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. FAPA grant of Universidad de los Andes
  2. Global Health Equity Scholars Program NIH FIC [D43TW010540]
  3. Research office from the Universidad de Ibague [17-466-INT]
  4. Fondecyt [1190703]
  5. MINECO (MINECO/FEDER,UE) [PGC2018-094754-B-C22]
  6. National Institutes of Health from the U.S. [1P20CA217199-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The explosion of network science has permitted an understanding of how the structure of social networks affects the dynamics of social contagion. In community-based interventions with spill-over effects, identifying influential spreaders may be harnessed to increase the spreading efficiency of social contagion, in terms of time needed to spread all the largest connected component of the network. Several strategies have been proved to be efficient using only data and simulation-based models in specific network topologies without a consensus of an overall result. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to benchmark the spreading efficiency of seeding strategies related to network structural properties and sizes. We simulate spreading processes on empirical and simulated social networks within a wide range of densities, clustering coefficients, and sizes. We also propose three new decentralized seeding strategies that are structurally different from well-known strategies: community hubs, ambassadors, and random hubs. We observe that the efficiency ranking of strategies varies with the network structure. In general, for sparse networks with community structure, decentralized influencers are suitable for increasing the spreading efficiency. By contrast, when the networks are denser, centralized influencers outperform. These results provide a framework for selecting efficient strategies according to different contexts in which social networks emerge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据