arxiv: v1 [cs.si] 4 Jul 2012

Transcription

1 A Estimating Node Influenceability in Social Netwoks Rong-Hua Li, The Chinese Univesity of Hong Kong Jeffey Xu Yu, The Chinese Univesity of Hong Kong Zechao Shang, The Chinese Univesity of Hong Kong axiv: v1 [cs.si] 4 Jul 2012 Influence analysis is a fundamental poblem in social netwok analysis and mining. The impotant applications of the influence analysis in social netwok include influence maximization fo vial maketing, finding the most influential nodes, online advetising, etc. Fo many of these applications, it is cucial to evaluate the influenceability of a node. In this pape, we study the poblem of evaluating influenceability of nodes in social netwok based on the widely used influence spead model, namely, the independent cascade model. Since this poblem is #P-complete, most existing wok is based on Naive Monte-Calo (NMC) sampling. Howeve, the NMC estimato typically esults in a lage vaiance, which significantly educes its effectiveness. To ovecome this poblem, we popose two families of new estimatos based on the idea of statified sampling. We fist pesent two basic statified sampling (BSS) estimatos, namely BSS-I estimato and BSS-II estimato, which patition the entie population into2 and+1 stata by choosing edges espectively. Second, to futhe educe the vaiance, we find that both BSS-I and BSS-II estimatos can be ecusively pefomed on each statum, thus we popose two ecusive statified sampling (RSS) estimatos, namely RSS-I estimato and RSS-II estimato. Theoetically, all of ou estimatos ae shown to be unbiased and thei vaiances ae significantly smalle than the vaiance of the NMC estimato. Finally, ou extensive expeimental esults on both synthetic and eal datasets demonstate the efficiency and accuacy of ou new estimatos. Additional Key Wods and Phases: Influenceability, influence netwoks, independent cascade model, Statified sampling, uncetain gaph ACM Refeence Fomat: R-H. Li, Jeffey. Yu, Z. Shang. Estimating Node Influenceability in Social Netwoks. ACM V, N, Aticle A (Januay 2012), 26 pages. DOI = / INTRODUCTION Lage scale online social netwoks (OSNs) such as Facebook and Twitte have become inceasingly popula in the last yeas. Uses in OSNs ae able to shae thoughts, activities, photos, and othe infomation with thei fiends. As a esult, the OSNs become an impotant medium fo infomation dissemination and influence spead. A fundamental poblem in such OSNs is to analyze and study the social influence among uses [Tang et al. 2009]. Impotant applications of influence analysis in OSNs include influence maximization fo vial making [Kempe et al. 2003; Chen et al. 2010], finding the most influential nodes [Liu et al. 2009; Lappas et al. 2010], online advetising, etc. Especially, the influence maximization poblem has ecently attacted temendous attention in eseach community [Leskovec et al. 2007; Chen et al. 2009; Chen et al. 2010; Goyal et al. 2011]. Fo many of these applications, a vey impotant step is to accuately evaluate the influenceability of a node in OSNs. The influenceability evaluation poblem is based on influence spead in a netwok. Geneally, the influence spead in a netwok can be modeled as a stochastic cascade model. In the liteatue, a widely used cascade mode is the independent cascade (IC) model. In the IC model, each node i has a single chance to influence his/he neighbo j with a pobability p ij, and such influence event is independent of the othe influence events ove othe nodes. Due to the independent popety, the IC model can be The wok was suppoted by gants of the Reseach Gants Council of the Hong Kong SAR, China No and Autho s addesses: Rong-Hua Li, Jeffey Xu Yu, and Zechao Shang, Depatment of System Engineeing and Engineeing Management, The Chinese Univesity of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, N.T., Hong Kong.

2 epesented by the pobabilistic gaph model, whee each edge in the gaph is associated with a pobability and the existence of an edge is independent of any othe edges [Potamias et al. 2010]. In this pape, we focus on the IC model and assume that the influence pobabilities of all the edges in a social netwok ae given in advance 1. In addition, we use the pobabilistic gaph model to epesent the IC model. This poblem is equivalent to calculate the expected numbe of nodes in G that ae eachable fom s, which is known to be #P-complete [Chen et al. 2010]. The existing algoithms fo this poblem ae based on naive Monte-Calo sampling estimato (NMC) [Kempe et al. 2003; Kempe et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2009]. Howeve, NMC may esult in a lage vaiance, which significantly educes its effectiveness. We will discuss this issue in detail in Section 3. Given the IC model and a seed node s, the influenceability evaluation poblem is to compute the expected influence spead by the seed node s. This poblem is equivalent to calculate the expected numbe of nodes in a pobabilistic gaph G that ae eachable fom s, which is known to be #P-complete [Chen et al. 2010]. As a esult, thee is no hope to exactly evaluate the influenceability in polynomial time unless P=#P. The existing algoithm fo this poblem is based on Naive Monte-Calo sampling [Kempe et al. 2003; Kempe et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2009]. As ou analysis given in Section 3, the Naive Monte-Calo (NMC) estimato leads to a lage vaiance, and thus it significantly educes the effectiveness of the estimato. Theoetically, the NMC estimato can achieve abitaily close appoximation to the exact value of the influenceability. Howeve, this equies a lage numbe of samples. Since pefoming a Monte-Calo estimation needs to flip m coins to detemine all the m edges of the netwok, the NMC estimato is extemely expensive to get a meaningful appoximation of the influenceability in lage netwoks. Consequently, the key issue to acceleate the NMC estimato is to educe the numbe of samples that ae needed to achieve a good accuacy. In ode to educe the numbe of samples used in the NMC estimato, one potential solution is to educe its vaiance. In this pape, we popose two types of the Monte- Calo estimato, namely type-i estimato and type-ii estimato, based on the idea of statified sampling. All of ou poposed estimatos ae shown to be unbiased and thei vaiance ae significantly smalle than the vaiance of the NMC estimato. To the best of ou knowledge, this is the fist wok that addesses and studies the vaiance poblem in NMC fo influenceability evaluation poblem. To develop new type-i estimatos, we devise an exact divide-and-conque enumeation algoithm. Ou exact algoithm stats by enumeating edges, thus esulting in 2 cases. Then, fo each case the algoithm ecusively enumeates anothe edges. The ecusion will teminate afte all the m edges ae enumeated. This exact algoithm has exponential time complexity to evaluate node s influenceability. Based on the exact algoithm, we popose a basic statified sampling (BSS) estimato, namely BSS-I estimato, to estimate a node s influenceability. In paticula, we fist select edges and detemine thei statuses (existence o inexistence). Obviously, this pocess geneates 2 cases. Then, we let each case be a statum, and daw samples sepaately fom each statum. By caefully allocating the sample size fo each statum, we pove that the vaiance of the BSS-I estimato is smalle than the vaiance of the NMC estimato. Inteestingly, we find that ou BSS-I estimato can be ecusively pefomed in each statum, and theeby we popose a ecusive statified sampling estimato, namely RSS-I estimato. Since the RSS-I estimato ecusively educes the vaiance in each statum, its vaiance is significantly smalle than the vaiance of the BSS-I 1 Leaning the influence pobabilities is out of scope of this pape. In the liteatue, thee ae some studies, such as [Goyal et al. 2010], on leaning the influence pobabilities in social netwok. 2

3 estimato. It is impotant to note that both BSS-I and RSS-I estimatos have the same time complexity as the NMC estimato. In addition to the type-i estimatos (BSS-I and RSS-I), we futhe develop two type- II estimatos based on a new statification method. The new statification method patitions the population into+1 stata by picking edges. In the fist statum which is denoted by statum 0, we set the statuses of all the edges to 0, which denotes the edge inexistence. In the i-th (1 i ) statum, we set the statuses of all the fist i 1 edges to 0, the i-th edge to 1, which signifies the edge existence, and the est i edges to, which denotes the status of the edge to be detemined. Based on such statification appoach, we popose a basic statified sampling estimato, namely BSS-II estimato. Simila to the idea of the RSS-I estimato, we develop a ecusive statified sampling estimato based on BSS-II estimato, namely RSS-II estimato. We conduct extensive expeimental studies on both synthetic and eal datasets, and we show that both RSS-I and RSS-II estimatos educe the vaiance of the NMC estimato significantly. Note that the statification appoach in both type-i and type-ii estimatos ae based on the selected edges. Thus, an edge-selection stategy may significantly affect the pefomance of the estimatos. In this pape, we pesent two edge-selection stategies fo the poposed estimatos: andom edge-selection and Beadth-Fist-Seach (BFS) edge-selection. The andom edge-selection is to pick unsampled edges andomly fo statification, while the BFS edge-selection picks unsampled edges accoding to thei BFS visiting ode (the BFS stats fom the seed node s). In ou expeiments, we show that an estimato with the BFS edge-selection stategy significantly outpefoms the same estimato with the andom edge-selection stategy. Besides the influenceability estimation poblem in social netwoks, ou poposed estimation methods can be applied in many othe application domains. Fo example, conside an application in a communication netwok with link failue. Given a oute s, it needs to count the expected numbe of hosts in the netwok that ae eachable fom s. Such count assists netwok esouce planing, and is also useful fo netwok esouce estimation, fo example in P2P netwoks. Ou poposed algoithms can povide accuate estimatos fo such application domains. In addition, ou influenceability estimation methods can be diectly used to the so-called influence function evaluation poblem [Kempe et al. 2003], in which the seed is not only one node but a set of nodes. We can solve this poblem by adding a vitual node s and link it to the set of seed nodes. Finally, ou poposed statified sampling estimatos ae vey geneal, and can be easily used to handle uncetain gaph mining poblems, such as netwok eliability estimation [Rubino 1999], shotest path [Potamias et al. 2010], and eachability computation poblem [Jin et al. 2011b]. The est of this pape is oganized as follows. We give the poblem statement in Section 2, and intoduce the Naive Monte-Calo estimato in Section 3. We popose the type-i and type-ii estimatos in Section 4 and Section 5, espectively. Extensive expeimental studies ae epoted in Section 6. Section 7 discusses the elated wok and Section 8 concludes this wok. 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT We conside a social netwokg = (V,E), wheev denotes a set of nodes ande denotes a set of diected edges between the nodes. Let n = V and m = E be the numbe of nodes and edges in G, espectively. In a social netwok, uses (nodes) can pefom actions, and the actions can popagate ove the netwok. Fo example, in Twitte, an action denotes a use posts a tweet, and the action popagation denotes the event that the same tweet is e-posted (etweeted) by his/he followes. In this pape, we adopt the independent cascade (IC) model [Kempe et al. 2003; Kempe et al. 2005] to model 3

4 such action popagation pocess. In the IC model, evey edge (u, v) is associated with an influence pobability p uv (Fig. 1(a)), which epesents the pobability that a node v pefoms an action followed by the same action taken by its adjacent node u. We efe to a social netwok G with influence pobabilities as an influence netwok denoted by G = (V,E,P), whee the set P epesents the set of influence pobabilities. We call a node an active node if it pefoms an action. The popagation pocess of the IC model unfolds in discete steps. Moe pecisely, we assume that a node v follows a node u, and at step t node u pefoms an action α and node v does not. Then, node u is given a single chance to influence node v, and it succeeds with pobability p uv. This pobability is independent of othe nodes that attempt to influence node v. If node u succeeds, then node v will pefom action α at step t+1. In othe wods, nodev is influenced by nodeuat step t+1. It is impotant to note that whetheusucceeds o not, it cannot make any attempts to influencev again. The pocess teminates when thee is no new node can be influenced. The IC model can be initiated by a single node s such that the node pefoms an action befoe any othe nodes inv\{s}. The seed nodesmodels the souce of influence, and it can spead acoss the netwok following the IC model. The popagation pocess is a stochastic pocess, afte the pocess teminates, the numbe of active nodes is a andom vaiable. Theefoe, we take the expectation of this andom vaiable to measue the influence spead of s, and it is denoted as F s (G). We efe to the expected influence spead of s (i.e. F s (G)) as the influenceability of node s. In this pape, we aim to evaluate the influenceabilityf s (G) given a seed nodes. In the following subsection, we will give a fomal definition of F s (G) based on the pobabilistic gaph model [Potamias et al. 2010] Influenceability Evaluation Based on the IC model, an influence netwokg = (V,E,P) is epesented by the pobabilistic gaph model [Potamias et al. 2010], whee the existence of an edge is independent of any othe edges. Given an influence netwokg = (V,E,P), we denote a possible gaphg P = (V P,E P ) which can obtained by sampling each edge e in G accoding to the influence pobability p e associated with the edgee(p e P ). Hee, we havev = V P, E P E, and the possible gaph G P has the pobability P[G P ], which is given by P[G P ] = p e (1 p e ). (1) e E P e E\E P The total numbe of such possible gaphs is 2 m, whee m is the numbe of edges in G. Fo example, in Fig. 1(a), the influence netwok G has 2 10 possible gaphs and the possible gaph G 1 (Fig. 1(c)) and G 2 (Fig. 1(d)) have pobability P[G 1 ] = and P[G 2 ] = , espectively. Accoding to the IC model, given a seed node s, the influenceability of s, denoted by F s (G), is the expected influence spead ove all the possible gaphs of G. Theefoe, based on the pobabilistic gaph model, the influenceability F s (G) can be given by F s (G) = P[G P ]f s (G P ), (2) G P Ω whee Ω denotes the set of all possible gaphs of G, and f s (G P ) is the numbe of nodes that ae eachable fom the seed node s in the possible gaph G P. Note that f s (G P ) is a andom vaiable and its expectation is F s (G), i.e. F s (G) = E[f s (G P )]. As an example, conside the souce node s = v 5 in the influence netwok G in Fig. 1(a). F s (G) can be computed by enumeating all 2 10 possible gaphs, G P, and com- 4

5 v2 v2 v v v6 v v v6 v3 v5 (a) Influence netwok G v3 v5 (b) The souce node s = v 5 v2 v2 v1 v4 v6 v1 v4 v6 v3 v5 (c) Possible gaph G 1 with pobability , and f s(g 1 ) = 3 v3 v5 (d) Possible gaph G 2 with pobability , and f s(g 2 ) = 5 Fig. 1. A Simple Influence Netwok puting the coespondingp[g P ] and f s (G P ). Fo instance, fom Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 1(d), we have f s (G 1 ) = 3 and f s (G 2 ) = 5. In this example, the exact F s (G) is Equipped with the definition of F s (G), we descibe the influenceability evaluation poblem as follows. Poblem Statement: Given an influence netwok G and a seed node s, the influenceability evaluation poblem is to compute the influenceability F s (G) (Eq. (2)). It is impotant to note that the influenceability evaluation poblem is known to be #P-complete [Chen et al. 2010], even fo the vey special influence netwok whee the influence pobabilities of all edges ae equivalent. Thee is no hope to exactly evaluate the influenceability in polynomial time unless P = #P. Given the hadness of this poblem, in this pape, ou goal is to develop an efficient and accuate appoximate algoithm to evaluate F s (G) given a seed node s. An impotant metic fo evaluating the accuacy of an appoximate algoithm is the mean squaed eo (MSE), which is denoted by E[(ˆF s (G) F s (G)) 2 ], whee ˆF s (G) denotes an estimato off s (G) by the appoximate algoithm. By the so-called vaiancebias decomposition [Jin et al. 2011b], this metic can be decomposed into two pats. E[(ˆF s (G) F s (G)) 2 ] = Va(ˆF s (G))+[E(ˆF s (G) F s (G))] 2, (3) whee E(ˆF s (G)) and Va(ˆF s (G)) denote the expectation and vaiance of the estimato ˆF s (G), espectively. If an estimato is unbiased, then the second tem in Eq. (3) will be canceled out. Theefoe, the vaiance of the unbiased estimato becomes the only indicato fo evaluating the accuacy of the estimato. 5

6 3. NAIVE MONTE-CARLO In this section, we intoduce the Naive Monte-Calo (NMC) sampling fo estimating the influenceabilityf s (G) given a seed nodes, which is the only existing algoithm used in the influence maximization liteatue [Kempe et al. 2003; Leskovec et al. 2007; Chen et al. 2009; Chen et al. 2010]. This method fist samples N possible gaphs G 1,G 2,,G N of G accoding to the influence pobabilities P, and then calculates the numbe of eachable nodes fom the seed node s in each possible gaph G i, i = 1,2,,N, i.e., f s (G i ). Finally, the NMC estimato ˆF NMC is given below. ˆF NMC = N f s (G i ) N. (4) i=1 The NMC estimato is an unbiased estimato of F s (G), such that E(ˆF NMC ) = F s (G). The vaiance of the NMC estimato is given as follows. Va(ˆF NMC ) = E[fs(G)2 ] (E[f s(g)]) 2 = N P[G P]f s(g) 2 F s(g P) 2 G P Ω N. (5) Notice that exactly computing the vaiance Va(ˆF NMC ) is extemely expensive, because we have to enumeate all the possible gaphs to detemine it, whose time complexity is exponential. In pactice, we esot to an unbiased estimato of Va(ˆF NMC ) to evaluate the accuacy of the estimato ˆF NMC [Jin et al. 2011b]. In this case, an unbiased estimato of Va(ˆF NMC ) is given by the following equation. Ṽa(ˆF NMC ) = N (f s (G i ) ˆF NMC ) 2 i=1 N 1 = N f s (G i ) 2 N ˆF NMC 2 N 1. (6) Accoding to Eq. (6), Ṽa(ˆF NMC ) may be vey lage, because the value of f s (G i ) falls into the inteval [0,n 1], which may esult in Ṽa(ˆF NMC ) as lage as O(n 2 ). Hee, n is the numbe of nodes in G. Fo example, assume f s (G i ) = 0 fo i = 1,,N/2 and f s (G i ) = n 1 fo i = N/2+1,,N, then Ṽa(ˆF NMC ) equals to N(n 1) 2 /4(N 1) = O(n 2 ). Theefoe, the key issue that we addess in this pape is to design moe accuate estimatos than the NMC estimato fo estimating the influenceability F s (G). The NMC algoithm is descibed in Algoithm 1. The algoithm woks in N iteations (line 2-5). In each iteation, the NMC algoithm needs to geneate a possible gaph by tossing m biased coins fo m edges in G, which takes O(m) time complexity (line 3). Then, the algoithm invokes a BFS algoithm to calculate the numbe of eachable nodes fom s, which again causes O(m) time complexity (line 4). As a esult, the time complexity of the NMC algoithm is O(Nm). 4. NEW TYPE-I ESTIMATORS In this section, we fist intoduce an exact algoithm fo computing the influenceability F s (G), which will guide us to design the new estimatos. We will popose two new estimatos based on the idea of statified sampling [Thompson 2002]. Both estimatos ae shown to be unbiased, and thei vaiance is significantly smalle than the vaiance of the NMC estimato. We efe to the two estimatos as the type-i estimatos. i=1 6

7 ALGORITHM 1: NMC (G, N, s) Input: Influence netwok G, sample size N, and the seed node s. Output: The NMC estimato ˆF NMC. 1: ˆFNMC 0; 2: fo i = 1 to N do 3: Flip m biased coins to geneate a possible gaph G i; 4: Compute f s(g i) by the BFS algoithm; 5: ˆF NMC ˆF NMC +f s(g i); 6: ˆFNMC ˆF NMC/N; 7: etun ˆF NMC; Table I. Pobability space patition in the exact algoithm Edges e 1 e 2 e 3 e e +1 e m Pob. Space Case Ω 1 Case Ω 2 Case Ω 3 Case Ω An exact algoithm We intoduce an exact divide-and-conque enumeation algoithm to evaluate the influenceability fo a given influence netwok G = (V,E,P) with n nodes and m edges. The main idea of ou exact algoithm is descibed as follows. Fist, the algoithm divides the entie pobability spaceω(all the possible gaphs) into2 diffeent subspaces by andomly enumeating ( < m) edges that have not been enumeated. Note that is a small numbe (eg. = 5). In each subspace, the exact algoithm ecusively enumeates anothe edges, and this pocess will teminate until all the edges ae enumeated. The patition method of the exact algoithm is descibed in Table I. In Table I, 0, 1, and denote the statuses of inexistence, existence, and not-yetenumeated, fo the edges, espectively. Each case fom 1, 2,, to coesponds to a subspace. And Ω i, fo i = 1,2, 2, denotes the pobability space of the case i, which epesents the set of all possible gaphs in the case i. To claify ou algoithm, let T = (e 1,e 2,,e ) be the set of selected edges, and X i = (X i,1,x i,2,,x i, ) be the status vecto coesponding to the selected edges unde the case i, whee X i,j = 0 signifies that the edge e j does no exist, and X i,j = 1 othewise. Fo example, fo case 1 in Table I, the status vecto is X 1 = (0,0,,0), which means that all the selected edges do not exist. In othe wods, all the possible gaphs in Ω 1 do not include the edges in T. The pobability of a possible gaph in case i is given by π i = P[G P Ω i ] = (1 p j ). (7) e j T X i,j=1 p j e j T X i,j=0 In addition, let A 1 be the set of edges that have been enumeated, and A 2 be the set of edges that have not been enumeated, such that A 1 A 2 = E, and A 1 A 2 =. Then, the influenceability of the node s unde the case i is defined as F s (G(A 1,A 2,X i )) = f s (G P ) P[G P], (8) π i G P Ω i whee G(A 1,A 2,X i ) denotes the set of possible gaphs in the case i, i.e. Ω i. Accoding to Eq. (8), F s (G(A 1,A 2,X i )) denotes the expected spead ove all the possible gaphs 7

8 ALGORITHM 2: EXACT (G, A 1, A 2, X, s) Input: Influence netwok G, the set of edges that have been enumeated A 1, the Set of edges that have not been enumeated A 2, sample size N, and the seed node s. Output: The exact value of F s(g) 1: if A 2 = then 2: Compute f s(g(v,a 1,A 2,X)) by the BFS algoithm; 3: etun f s(g(v,a 1,A 2,X)); 4: else 5: if A 2 < then 6: l A 2 ; 7: else 8: l ; 9: Select l edges fom A 2 andomly; 10: Let T be the set of selected edges; 11: F 0; 12: fo i = 1 to 2 l do 13: Let X i be the status vecto of set T unde the case i; 14: Compute π i by Eq. (7); 15: Append X i to X; 16: u i EXACT (G, A 1 T, A 2\T, X, s); 17: F F +π iu i; 18: etun F ; in Ω i, and P[G P ]/π i is the pobability of a possible gaph G P conditioning on it exists in Ω i. It is woth of noting that F s (G) = F s (G(,E, )). Based on Eq. (8), we have the following theoem. THEOREM 4.1. Let F s (G(A 1,A 2,X i )) be the influenceability of the node s unde the caseias defined in Eq. (8), andt be a set of edges andomly selected foma 2. Fo any T, we have 2 cases, and let Y j (j = 1,,2 ) be the coesponding status vecto. Then, we have F s (G(A 1,A 2,X i )) = 2 j=1 π jf s (G(A 1 T,A 2 \T,[X i,y j ])), (9) whee [X i,y j ] is a new status vecto geneated by appending Y j to X i. Based on Theoem 4.1, we develop a ecusive enumeation algoithm descibed in Algoithm 2. Algoithm 2 fist patitions the entie pobability space Ω into 2 subspaces, and then the same pocedue will be ecusively pefomed on each subspace based on Theoem 4.1 (line 9-17 in Algoithm 2. The algoithm teminates until all the edges ae enumeated. The influenceability F s (G) can be computed by invoking EXACT (G,,E,,s). The enumeation pocedue given in Algoithm 2 can be chaacteized by a full 2 - ay tee which is depicted in Fig. 2. Note that, to simplify ou analysis, hee we assume that is divisible by m. In the tee, each node epesents a pobability space that consists of a set of possible gaphs. Fo example, the oot node denotes the pobability space that includes the set of all possible gaphs, and each leaf node denotes the pobability space that includes only one possible gaph. Each intenal node has2 childen, and each child coesponds to a case descibed in Table I. To compute F s (G), we need to tavese all the nodes in the tee. Because the numbe of nodes in the tee is O(2 m ), the time complexity of Algoithm 2 iso(2 m ). Theefoe, the exact algoithm only woks on small netwoks due to the natue of #P-complete of the influenceability evaluation 8

9 F S(G({ },E,{ })) F S(G(T,E\T,X 1)) F S(G(T,E\T,X 2^)) Fig. 2. The Enumeation Tee of the Exact Algoithm. poblem. In the following, we will develop two types of efficient appoximation algoithms fo evaluating the influenceability Basic statified sampling estimato (I) As discussed in Section 3, the NMC estimato leads to a lage vaiance. To educe the vaiance, we popose a new statified sampling estimato fo influenceability evaluation. We call this new estimato the basic statified sampling (BSS) estimato, because it seves as the basis fo designing ecusive statified sampling (RSS) estimato which will be descibed in Section 4.3. To distinguish the type-ii estimatos which will be intoduced in Section 5, we efe to the new estimatos pesented in this section as the type-i estimatos. Specifically, we efe to the type-i BSS and RSS estimato as the BSS-I and RSS-I estimato, espectively. Unlike the NMC sample which daws a sample (a possible gaph) fom the entie population (all the possible gaphs), the statified sampling [Thompson 2002] fist divides the population into M disjoint goups, which ae called stata, and then independently picks sepaate samples fom these goups. Statified sampling is a commonly used technique fo educing vaiance [Thompson 2002] in sampling design. Thee ae two key techniques in statified sampling: statification, which is a pocess fo patitioning the entie population into disjoint stata, and sample allocation, which is a pocedue to detemine the sample size that needs to be dawn fom each statum. Below, we will intoduce ou statification and sample allocation method. Statification: Ou idea of statification is based on the exact algoithm descibed in the pevious subsection. Fist, we choose edges and detemine thei statuses (0/1), whee is a small numbe. Recall that this pocess geneates 2 vaious cases as shown in Table I, and theeby it patitions the set of possible gaphs Ω into 2 subsets Ω 1,,Ω 2. Second, we let each subset be a statum. This is because Ω 1,,Ω 2 ae disjoint sets and Ω = 2 i=1 Ω i, thus each case is indeed a valid statum. It is woth of mentioning that ou statification pocess coesponds to the top two layes in the enumeation tee (Fig. 2), the oot node denotes the entie population, and each child epesents a statum. The statification pocess is depicted in Table II. 9

10 Table II. Statum design of the BSS-I/RSS-I estimato Edges e 1 e 2 e 3 e e +1 e m Pob. space Statum Ω 1 Statum Ω 2 Statum Ω 3 Statum Ω 2 In ou statification appoach, a question that aises is how to select the edges fo statification. As shown in ou expeiments, the edge-selection stategy fo choosing edges significantly affects the pefomance of the estimato. One staightfowad stategy is to andomly pick edges fom the edge set E. We efe to this edge selection stategy as the andom edge-selection stategy. With this stategy, the selected edges may not have diect contibutions fo computing the influenceability. Fo example, in Fig. 1(b), fo the souce node s = v 5, assume = 2 and the selected edges ae {v 1 v 2,v 6 v 2 }. The edges {v 1 v 2,v 6 v 2 } have no diect contibutions fo calculating the influenceability F s (G). This may educe the pefomance of the BSS-I estimato. Fo avoiding such a poblem, we intoduce anothe heuistic edge-selection stategy based on the BFS visiting ode of the edges. To estimate F s (G), we fist pefom a BFS algoithm stating fom the node s to obtain the fist edges accoding to the BFS visiting ode of the edges. Then, we use these edges fo statification. We efe to such edge-selection stategy as the BFS edge-selection stategy. Conside the same example in Fig. 1(b), assume = 2, the fist edges ae {v 5 v 3,v 5 v 6 }. Then, we patition the population into 4 stata accoding to the statuses of these two edges. Obviously, accoding to the BFS edge-selection stategy, the selected edges have diect contibution to calculate the influenceability. In ou expeiments, we find that the pefomance of the BSS-I estimato with BFS edge-selection stategy is significantly bette than the pefomance of the BSS-I estimato with andom edge-selection stategy. The BSS-I estimato: Let N be the total numbe of samples, N i be the numbe of samples dawn fom the statum i (i = 1,2,,2 ), and G i,j (j = 1,2,,N i ) be a possible gaph sampled fom the statum i. Then, the BSS-I estimato is given as follows. ˆF BSSI = 2 π 1 Ni i i=1 N f s(g i,j ), (10) i j=1 whee π i is defined in Eq. (7). The following theoem shows that ˆF BSSI is an unbiased estimato of the influenceability F s (G). THEOREM 4.2. F s (G) = E(ˆF BSSI ). PROOF. We pove it by the following equalities. E(ˆF BSSI ) = E( 2 i=1 π i 1 Ni N i j=1 f s(g i,j )) = 2 i=1 π ie(f s (G i,j )) = 2 i=1 π i G P Ω i f s (G P ) P[GP] π i = G P[G P Ω P]f s (G P ) = F s (G) Let σ i be the vaiance of the sample in the statum i. Since the samples ae independently dawn by the basic statified sampling algoithm, thus the vaiance of the 10

11 BSS-I estimato is given by whee π i is given in Eq. (7). Va(ˆF BSSI ) = 2 i=1 π2 i σ i N i, (11) Sample allocation: As discussed above, the BSS-I estimato is unbiased and the vaiance of the BSS-I estimato depends on the sample size of all the stata, i.e., N i, fo i = 1,2, 2. Thus, a question that aises is how to allocate the sample size fo each statum i (i = 1,2,,2 ) to minimize the vaiance of the BSS-I estimato, i.e. Va(ˆF BSSI ). Fomally, the sample allocation poblem is fomulated as follows. min Va(ˆF BSSI ) = 2 s.t. 2 i=1 N i = N. i=1 π2 i σi N i By applying the Lagangian method, we can deive the optimal sample allocation as given by N i = Nπ i σi / 2 i=1 π i (12) σi, (13) fo i = 1,,2. Fom Eq. (13), the optimal allocation needs to know the vaiance of the sample in each statum, i.e. σ i, fo i = 1,,2. Howeve, such vaiances ae unavailable in ou poblem. Inteestingly, we find that, if the sample size of the statum i is allocated to π i N, then the vaiance of the BSS-I estimato will be smalle than the vaiance of the NMC estimato. We have the following theoem. THEOREM 4.3. If N i = π i N, then Va(ˆF BSSI ) Va(ˆF NMC ). PROOF. If N i = π i N, then we have Va(ˆF BSSI ) = 2 i=1 π i σi N. Let µ i = E(f s (G i,j )) be the expectation of the sample in the statum i. By definition, we have σ i = E(f s (G i,j ) 2 ) µ 2 i = G P Ω i f s (G P ) 2 P[G P] π i µ 2 i. Then, we have Va(ˆF BSSI ) = 1 N 2 = 1 2 N = 1 N i=1 π i( G P Ω i f s (G P ) 2 P[G P] π i µ 2 i ) i=1 ( G P Ω i f s (G P ) 2 P[G P ] π i µ 2 i ) G P[G P Ω P]f s (G P ) N i=1 π iµ 2 i. Given this, we can deive the diffeence betweenva(ˆf BSSI ) and Va(ˆF NMC ) (Eq. (5)) as follows: Va(ˆF NMC ) Va(ˆF BSSI ) = 1 N ( 2 i=1 π iµ 2 i (E[f s(g P )]) 2 ) = 1 N ( 2 i=1 π iµ 2 i ( G P[G P Ω P]f s (G P )) 2 ) = 1 N ( 2 i=1 π iµ 2 i ( 2 i=1 π i π i f s (G P )) 2 ) = 1 N ( 2 i=1 π iµ 2 i ( 2 i=1 π iµ i ) 2 ) = Va(µi) N 0. G P Ω i P[G P] Note that in the last equality µ i can be teated as a andom vaiable. Then, we have 2 i=1 π iµ 2 i = E(µ2 i ) and (E(µ i)) 2 = ( 2 i=1 π iµ i ) 2, thus the last equality holds. This completes the poof. 11

12 ALGORITHM 3: BSS-I (G, N, s) Input: Influence netwok G, sample size N, and the seed node s. Output: The BSS-I estimato ˆF. 1: ˆF 0; 2: Choose edges accoding to an edge-selection stategy; 3: fo i = 1 to 2 do 4: Let X i be the status vecto of statum i; 5: Compute π i by Eq. (7); 6: N i [π in]; 7: t 0; 8: fo j = 1 to N i do 9: Flip m coins to detemine the est m edges; 10: Let Y j be the status vecto of the est m edges; 11: Append X i to Y j to geneate a possible gaph G j; 12: Compute f s(g j) by the BFS algoithm; 13: t t+f s(g j); 14: t t/n i; 15: ˆF ˆF +πit; 16: etun ˆF ; The BSS-I algoithm: Given the statification and sample allocation methods, we pesent ou basic statified sampling algoithm in Algoithm 3. Fist, Algoithm 3 selects edges to patition the population into 2 stata accoding to an edge-selection stategy (line 2), eithe andom o BFS edge-selection. Fo convenience, we efe to the BSS-I estimato with andom edge-selection and the BSS-I estimato with BFS edge-selection as BSS-I-RM and BSS-I-BFS estimato, espectively. Second, accoding to ou sample allocation method, the algoithm daws π i N samples fom the statum i (line 8-13). Finally, the algoithm outputs the BSS-I estimato ˆF BSSI. Notice that it takes O(m) time fo both geneating a possible gaph G and pefoming BFS on G. Besides, the algoithm needs to daw N possible gaphs. Hence, the time complexity of Algoithm 3 is O(mN), which has the same complexity as the NMC estimato. Howeve, ou BSS-I estimato significantly educes the vaiance of the NMC estimato. The advantages of the BSS-I estimato ae twofold. On one hand, given the sample size, the BSS-I estimato is moe accuate than the NMC estimato as it has a smalle vaiance. On the othe hand, to achieve the same vaiance, the BSS-I estimato needs a smalle sample size than that of the NMC estimato, thus it educes the time complexity of the sampling pocess Recusive statified sampling estimato (I) Recall that the BSS-I estimato splits the entie set of possible gaphs into 2 subsets, which coesponds to the top two layes in the enumeation tee (Fig. 2). Inteestingly, we obseve that the basic statified sampling (BSS-I) can be applied into any intenal nodes of the enumeation tee. Based on this obsevation, we develop a ecusive statified sampling estimato, namely RSS-I estimato, which is descibed in Algoithm 4. The RSS-I estimato ecusively patitions the sample sizen ton i = π i N (i = 1,2,,2 ) fo estimating the influenceability at the statum i (line 9-19). Note that since the BSS-I estimato is unbiased, the RSS-I estimato is also unbiased. Moeove, RSS-I educes the vaiance at each patition, thus the vaiance of RSS-I is significantly smalle than the vaiance of BSS-I as stated by the following theoem. 12

13 THEOREM 4.4. Va(ˆF BSSI ). Let Va(ˆF RSSI ) be the vaiance of RSS-I, then Va(ˆF RSSI ) PROOF. We focus on the case that RSS-I only patitions the population2 +1 times. Simila aguments can be used to pove the case of moe patitions. At the fist patition, RSS-I splits the population into 2 stata, which is equivalent to BSS-I. In each statum i (i = 1,,2 ), RSS-I ecusively patitions it into 2 sub-stata. Let Ω i, µ i, σ i and N i be the pobability space, the expectation, the vaiance, and the sample size of the statum i at the fist patition, espectively. Let π i = P[G P Ω i ] be the pobability of a sample in statum i as defined in Eq. (7). Similaly, fo each statum i, we denote the pobability space, the expectation, the vaiance, and the sample size of the sub-statum k (k = 1,,2 ), as Ω i,k, µ i,k, σ i,k, and N i,k, espectively. Futhe, we denote the pobability of a sample in a sub-statum k as π i,k, i.e., π i,k = P[G P Ω i,k ]. Then, we have π i,k = π i ω k, whee ω k denotes the pobability of a sample in substatum k conditioning on it is in statum i, i.e., ω k = P[G P Ω i,k G P Ω i ]. The RSS-I estimato is given by ˆF RSSI = 2 2 i=1 k=1 π i,k 1 Ni,k N i,k j=1 f s(g i,k,j ), whee G i,k,j (j = 1,,N i,k ) denotes a possible gaph sampled fom the sub-statum k of the statum i. Then, the vaiance of RSS-I is Va(ˆF RSSI ) = 2 2 π 2 i,k σ i,k i=1 k=1 N i,k. By ou sample allocation stategy, we have N i,k = Nπ i,k, theeby the vaiance can be simplified to Va(ˆF RSSI ) = 2 i=1 1 2 N k=1 π i,kσ i,k Futhe, by π i,k = π i ω k, we have Va(ˆF RSSI ) = 2 π i 2 i=1 k=1 ω kσ i,k. By the popotional sample allocation, we have N π i i=1 Va(ˆF BSSI ) = 2 σ i. By definition, we have 2 k=1 ω kσ i,k = 2 Then, we have σ i 2 ω kσ i,k = 2 k=1 This completes the poof. N σ i. Theefoe, the poof is completed followed by 2 k=1 ω kσ i,k k=1 ω k(e(f s (G i,k,j ) 2 ) µ 2 i,k ) = 2 k=1 ω k( P[G P] G P Ω i,k π i,k f s (G P ) 2 µ 2 i,k ) = 2 k=1 f s (G P ) 2 2 k=1 ω kµ 2 i,k G P Ω i,k P[G P] π i = G P Ω i P[G P] π i k=1 ω kµ 2 i,k µ2 i = 2 f s (G P ) 2 2 k=1 ω kµ 2 i,k. k=1 ω kµ 2 i,k ( 2 k=1 ω kµ i,k ) 2 0. The RSS-I algoithm teminates until the sample size becomes smalle than a given theshold (τ) o the numbe of unsampled edges smalle than (line 2). When the teminative conditions of the RSS-I algoithm satisfy, we pefom a naive Monte-Calo sampling fo estimating the influenceability (line 3-7). Simila to the BSS-I estimato, the patition appoach in RSS-I estimato also depends on the edge-selection stategy (line 9). Likewise, we have two edge-selection stategies fo the RSS-I estimato, eithe andom edge-selection o BFS edge-selection. Fo convenience, we efe to the RSS-I estimato with andom edge-selection and with BFS edge-selection as the RSS-I-RM and RSS-I-BFS estimato, espectively. Reconside the example in Fig. 1(b), the BFS visiting ode of the edges is {v 5 v 3,v 5 v 6,v 3 v 1,v 3 v 4,v 6 v 2,v 1 v 2,v 1 v 3,v 1 v 4,v 4 v 6,v 2 v 6 }. Assume = 2, accoding to the BFS visiting ode, then the RSS-I-BFS fist picks edge v 5 v 3 and v 5 v 6 fo statification, and then selects the edges v 3 v 1 and v 3 v 4, and so on. It woth of mentioning that we can invoke the pocedue RSS-I (G,, E,, N, s), whee s is the seed node, to calculate the RSS-I estimato. 13

14 ALGORITHM 4: RSS-I (G, E 1, E 2, X, N, s) Input: Influence netwok G, the set of sampled edges E 1, the set of unsampled edges E 2, sample size N, and the seed node s. Output: The RSS-I estimato ˆF. 1: ˆF 0; 2: if N < τ o E 2 < then 3: fo j = 1 to N do 4: Flip E 2 coins to geneate a possible gaph G j; 5: Compute f s(g j) by the BFS algoithm; 6: ˆF ˆF +f s(g j); 7: etun ˆF/N; 8: else 9: Select edges fom E 2 accoding to an edge-selection stategy {Random o BFS visiting ode}; 10: Let T be the set of selected edges; 11: fo i = 1 to 2 do 12: Y X {Recoding the cuent status vecto X}; 13: Let X i be the status vecto of set T in statum i; 14: Append X i to Y ; 15: Compute π i by Eq. (7); 16: N i [π in]; 17: µ i RSS-I (G, E 1 T, E 2\T, Y, N i, s); 18: ˆF ˆF +πiµ i; 19: etun ˆF ; We analyze the time complexity of Algoithm 4. Fo sampling a possible gaph, Algoithm 4 needs to tavese the enumeation tee (Fig. 2) fom the oot node to the teminative node. Hee the teminative node is a node in the enumeation tee whee the teminative conditions of the ecusion satisfy at that node, i.e. N < τ o E 2 < holds in Algoithm 4. Let d be the aveage length of the path fom the oot node to the teminative node. Then, by analysis, the time complexity of the algoithm at each intenal node of the path is O(). Suppose that the total numbe of such paths is K. Then, the algoithm takes O(K d) time complexity at the intenal nodes of all the paths. Note that K is bounded by the sample size N, and d is a vey small numbe w..t. N. Moe specifically, we can deive that d = O(log 2 N), which is a vey small numbe. Fo example, assume = 5 and N = 100,000, then we can get d 3.3. Fo all the teminative nodes, the time complexity of the algoithm is O(Nm). This is because the algoithm needs to sample N possible gaphs in total ove all the teminative nodes, and fo each possible gaph the algoithm pefoms a BFS to compute the influenceability which takes O(m) time complexity. Since O(K d) is dominated by O(Nm), the time complexity of Algoithm 4 is O(Nm+K d) = O(Nm). 5. NEW TYPE-II ESTIMATORS In this section, we popose two new statified sampling estimatos, namely type-ii basic statified sampling (BSS-II) estimato and type-ii ecusive statified sampling (RSS-II) estimato. The BSS-II and RSS-II ae shown to be unbiased and thei vaiance ae significantly smalle than the vaiance of the NMC estimato. In the following, we fist intoduce the BSS-II estimato, and then pesent the RSS-II estimato. 14

15 5.1. Basic statified sampling estimato (II) Table III. Statum design of the BSS-II/RSS-II estimato Edges e 1 e 2 e 3 e e +1 e m Pob. space Statum Ω 0 Statum 1 1 Ω 1 Statum Ω 2 Statum Ω 3 Statum Ω Statification: We popose a new statification method fo the BSS-II estimato. This new statification method splits the entie pobability space Ω into + 1 vaious subspaces (Ω 0,,Ω ) by choosing edges. Specifically, fo statum 0, we set the statuses of all the selected edges to 0, and fo the statum i (i 0), we set the status of edgei to 1 and the statuses of all the peviousi 1 edges (i.e.e 1,,e i 1 ) to 0. Unlike the statification method of the BSS-I estimato, this new statification appoach allows us to set to be a big numbe, such as = 50. The statum design method is depicted in Table III. In Table III, each statum (Statum 0, Statum 1,, Statum ) coesponds to a subspace (Ω 0,Ω 1,,Ω ). Fo any i j, we have Ω i Ω j = φ. Below, we show that i=0 Ω i = Ω. Let T = (e 1,e 2,,e ) be the set of selected edges and p i (i = 1) be the coesponding influence pobability, then the pobability of a possible gaph in statum i is given by (1 p j ), if i = 0 π i j=1 = P[G P Ω i ] = i 1 (14) p i (1 p j ), othewise The following theoem implies i=0 Ω i = Ω. j=1 THEOREM 5.1. P[G P Ω] = i=0 P[G P Ω i ] = 1. PROOF. We pove it by the following equalities. i=0p[gp Ωi] = j=1 (1 pj)+p1 +(1 p1)p2 + +p 1 j=1 (1 pj) = 1 j=1 (1 pj)+p1 +(1 p1)p2 + +p 1 2 = 1 p 1 +p 1 = 1 j=1 (1 pj) Amed with Theoem 5.1, we conclude that the statum design appoach descibed in Table III is a valid statification method. The BSS-II estimato: Simila to the BSS-I estimato, we let N be the total sample size, and N i be the sample size of the statum i, and G i,j (j = 1,2,,N i ) be a possible gaph sampled fom the statum i. Then the BSS-II estimato ˆF BSSII is given by ˆF BSSII = 1 Ni i=0 π i N f s(g i,j ), (15) i j=1 wheeπ i is given in Eq. (14). Simila to Theoem 4.2, the following theoem shows that the BSS-II estimato is unbiased. The poof is simila to the poof of Theoem 4.2, thus we omit fo bevity. 15

16 THEOREM 5.2. F s (G) = E(ˆF BSSII ). The vaiance of the BSS-II estimato is given by Va(ˆF BSSII ) = i=0 π i whee σ i denotes the vaiance of the sample in the statum i. 2 σ i N i, (16) Sample allocation: Analogous to the BSS-I estimato, fo the BSS-II estimato, we can deive that the optimal sample allocation is given by N i = Nπ i σi / i=0 i π σi. This optimal allocation stategy needs to know the vaiance of the sample in each statum, which is impossible in ou poblem. Theefoe, simila to the sample allocation appoach used in the BSS-I estimato, fo the BSS-II estimato, we set the sample size of the statum i equals to π i N, i.e. N i = π i N. On the basis of this sample allocation method, we show that the vaiance of the BSS-II estimato is smalle than the vaiance of the NMC estimato as stated by the following theoem. The poof of the theoem is simila to theoem 4.3, thus we omitted fo bevity. THEOREM 5.3. If N i = π i N, Va(ˆF BSSII ) Va(ˆF NMC ). Howeve, it is vey had to compae the vaiance of the BSS-II estimato with the vaiance of the BSS-I estimato. In ou expeiments, we find that these two estimatos achieve compaable vaiance. The BSS-II algoithm: With the statification and sample allocation method, we descibe the BSS-II algoithm in Algoithm 5. Algoithm 5 picks edges to split the entie population into + 1 stata in tems of an edge-selection stategy (line 2). Any of the two edge-selection stategies (andom edge-selection and BFS edge-selection) used in the BSS-I algoithm can also be used in the BSS-II algoithm. We efe to the BSS-II estimato with the andom edge-selection and the BSS-II estimato with BFS edge-selection as BSS-II-RM and BSS-II-BFS estimato, espectively. In tems of the sample allocation method of the BSS-II estimato, Algoithm 5 picks N i = π i N samples fom the statum i, fo i = 0,1,,, and outputs the BSS-II estimato ˆF BSSII. Like the BSS-I estimato, the time complexity of BSS-II estimato is O(Nm). This is because the BSS-II needs to daw N possible gaphs, and both sampling each possible gaph G and computing F s (G) take O(m) time Recusive statified sampling estimato (II) Based on the BSS-II estimato, in this subsection, we develop anothe new ecusive statified sampling estimato, namely RSS-II estimato. Simila to the idea of the RSS- I estimato, the RSS-II estimato makes use of the BSS-II estimato as the basic component and ecusively applies the BSS-II estimato at each statum. Moe specifically, the RSS-II estimato fist patitions the entie pobability space Ω into +1 subspace Ω i (i = 0,1,,) accoding to the statification method of the BSS-II estimato. The same patition pocedue is ecusively pefomed in each subspace Ω i. At each patition, the RSS-II estimato utilizes the same sample allocation method as the BSS-II estimato to allocate the sample size. The ecusion pocess of the RSS-II estimato will teminate until the sample size is smalle than a given theshold (τ) o the numbe of unsampled edges is smalle than. Since the BSS-II estimato is unbiased, the RSS-II estimato is also unbiased. The vaiance of the RSS-II estimato is smalle than the vaiance of the BSS-II estimato, because the RSS-II estimato ecusively educes vaiance at each patition while the BSS-II estimato only educes vaiance at one patition. Simila to Theoem 4.4, we have the following theoem. 16

17 ALGORITHM 5: BSS-II (G, N, s) Input: Influence netwok G, sample size N, and the seed node s. Output: The BSS-II estimato ˆF. 1: ˆF 0; 2: Select edges accoding to an edge-selection stategy; 3: fo i = 0 to do 4: Compute π i by Eq. (14); 5: N i [π in]; 6: t 0; 7: if i = 0 then 8: k ; 9: else 10: k i; 11: Let E i be the set of edges to be detemined unde statum i; 12: fo j = 1 to N i do 13: Flip m k coins to detemine E i, and thus geneate a possible gaph G j; 14: Compute f s(g j) by the BFS algoithm; 15: t t+f s(g j); 16: t t/n i; 17: ˆF ˆF +π i t; 18: etun ˆF ; THEOREM 5.4. Va(ˆF BSSII ). Let Va(ˆF RSSII ) be the vaiance of RSS-I, then Va(ˆF RSSII ) The detail algoithm of the RSS-II estimato is descibed in Algoithm 6. Fis, accoding to an edge-selection stategy, Algoithm 6 selects edges fom the unsampled edge-set, which is denoted by E 2, to patition the population into +1 stata (line 9). Note that the andom edge-selection and BFS edge-selection stategy used in the RSS-I estimato can also be applied in the RSS-II estimato. We efe to the RSS-II estimato with andom edge-selection and BFS edge-selection as the RSS-II-RM and RSS-II- BFS estimato, espectively. Second, accoding to the sample allocation method, the algoithm ecusively invokes the RSS-II algoithm with sample size N i in statum i, fo i = 1,, (line 11-23). In line 15 and line 20, we let X i be the status vecto of the selected edges unde the statum i. Unlike the RSS-I estimato, the status vecto of the RSS-II estimato is detemined by the statification method of the BSS-II estimato (Table III). Fo example, at the fist patition of the RSS-II estimato, assume T = (e 1,e 2,,e ) is the set of edges selected, the status vecto of these selected edges unde the statum 0 is X 0 = (0,0,,0). The status vecto unde the statum i isx i = (0,,0,1,, ), whee the statuses of the fisti 1 edges ae 0, the status of the i-th edge is 1, and the est i edges ae. Finally, the algoithm outputs the RSS-II estimato (line 24). Like the RSS-I estimato, to sample a possible gaph, the RSS-II algoithm needs to tavese the ecusive tee fom the oot node to the teminative node. At all the teminative nodes, the algoithm needs to sample N possible gaphs in total, and fo each possible gaph it needs to pefom a BFS to compute the influenceability, thus the time complexity is O(Nm). At each intenal node in a path fom the oot node to the teminative node, the time complexity is O(). This is because at each intenal node the algoithm only needs to select edges and detemine thei statuses which consume O() time complexity. Let d be the aveage length of such path and K be the total numbe of paths. Then, fo all the intenal nodes, the algoithm takes O(K d) 17

18 ALGORITHM 6: RSS-II (G, E 1, E 2, X, N, s) Input: Influence netwok G, the set of sampled edges E 1, the set of unsampled edges E 2, sample size N, and the seed node s. Output: The RSS-II estimato ˆF. 1: ˆF 0; 2: if N < τ o E 2 < then 3: fo j = 1 to N do 4: Flip E 2 coins to geneate a possible gaph G j; 5: Compute f s(g j) by the BFS algoithm; 6: ˆF ˆF +fs(g j); 7: etun ˆF/N; 8: else 9: Select edges fom E 2 accoding to an edge-selection stategy (andom o BFS visiting ode); 10: Let T = (e 1,e 2,,e ) be the set of selected edges; 11: fo i = 0 to do 12: Compute π i by Eq. (14); 13: N i [π in]; 14: if i = 0 then 15: Let X 0 be the status vecto of set T unde statum 0; 16: Append X 0 to X; 17: µ i RSS-II (G, E 1 T, E 2\T, X, N i, s); 18: else 19: Let T i {e 1,,e i}; 20: Let X i be the status vecto of set T i unde statum i; 21: Append X i to X; 22: µ i RSS-II (G, E 1 T i, E 2\T i, X, N i, s); 23: ˆF ˆF +π i µ i; 24: etun ˆF ; time complexity. Accoding to the teminative condition given in Algoithm 6, we can deive that d = min{log N,log m). Since can be a big numbe (eg. = 50), d is vey small. Thus, the time complexity at the intenal nodes O(K d) can be dominated by O(Nm). We conclude that the aveage time complexity of Algoithm 6 is O(Nm). 6. EXPERIMENTS We conduct expeimental studies fo diffeent estimatos ove fou datasets. We confim the efficiency and accuacy of the poposed estimatos. In the following, we fist descibe the expeimental setup, and then epot ou esults Expeimental setup Datasets: We use one synthetic dataset and thee eal datasets in ou expeiments. We apply the same paametes used in [Jin et al. 2011b] to geneate the synthetic dataset. Fo the gaph topology, we geneate an Edos-Renyi (ER) andom gaph with 5,000 vetices and edge density 10. Fo the influence pobabilities, we geneate a pobability fo each edge accoding to a [0,1] unifom distibution. The thee eal datasets ae given as follows. (1) FacebookLike dataset: this dataset oiginates fom a Facebook social netwok fo students at Univesity of Califonia, Ivine. It contains the uses who sent o eceived at least one message. We collect this dataset fom (toeopsahl.com/datasets). The dataset is a weighted gaph, and 18