Skip to main content

Strategyproof mechanisms for competitive influence in networks

Author(s): Borodin, Allan; Braverman, Mark; Lucier, Brendan; Oren, Joel

Download
To refer to this page use: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/pr1f236
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBorodin, Allan-
dc.contributor.authorBraverman, Mark-
dc.contributor.authorLucier, Brendan-
dc.contributor.authorOren, Joel-
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-08T19:44:49Z-
dc.date.available2021-10-08T19:44:49Z-
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.identifier.citationBorodin, Allan, Mark Braverman, Brendan Lucier, and Joel Oren. "Strategyproof mechanisms for competitive influence in networks." In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web (2013): pp. 141-150. doi: 10.1145/2488388.2488402en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~oren/Joel_Oren/About_Me_files/adinfluence-www-full.pdf-
dc.identifier.urihttp://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/pr1f236-
dc.description.abstractMotivated by applications to word-of-mouth advertising, we consider a game-theoretic scenario in which competing advertisers want to target initial adopters in a social network. Each advertiser wishes to maximize the resulting cascade of influence, modeled by a general network diffusion process. However, competition between products may adversely impact the rate of adoption for any given firm. The resulting framework gives rise to complex preferences that depend on the specifics of the stochastic diffusion model and the network topology. We study this model from the perspective of a central mechanism, such as a social networking platform, that can optimize seed placement as a service for the advertisers. We ask: given the reported demands of the competing firms, how should a mechanism choose seeds to maximize overall efficiency? Beyond the algorithmic problem, competition raises issues of strategic behaviour: rational agents should not be incentivized to underreport their budget demands. We show that when there are two players, the social welfare can be 2-approximated by a polynomial-time strategyproof mechanism. Our mechanism is defined recursively, randomizing the order in which advertisers are allocated seeds according to a particular greedy method. For three or more players, we demonstrate that under additional assumptions (satisfied by many existing models of influence spread) there exists a simpler strategyproof (e/e-1)-approximation mechanism; notably, this second mechanism is not necessarily strategyproof when there are only two players.en_US
dc.format.extent141 - 150en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relation.ispartofProceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Weben_US
dc.rightsAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.titleStrategyproof mechanisms for competitive influence in networksen_US
dc.typeConference Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1145/2488388.2488402-
pu.type.symplectichttp://www.symplectic.co.uk/publications/atom-terms/1.0/conference-proceedingen_US

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
StrategyproofMechanismsCompetitiveInfluenceNetworks.pdf472.96 kBAdobe PDFView/Download


Items in OAR@Princeton are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.