Exploring Unknown Social Networks for Discovering Hidden Nodes

Hiroyuki Ohsaki; Sho Tsugawa

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Exploring Unknown Social Networks for Discovering Hidden Nodes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that machine-learning-guided graph exploration finds hidden nodes in unknown social networks nearly as efficiently as when the full topology is known, with query cost at most 1.2x at 10% discovery and 1.4x at 90%.

desk verdict A solid empirical extension with a useful bandit result, but the 1.2x/1.4x claim is overbroad and unsupported by error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12571 v2 pith:MEF5RRR5 submitted 2025-01-22 cs.SI cs.CY

Sho Tsugawa , Hiroyuki Ohsaki This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SIcs.CY

keywords hiddennodediscoverygraphexplorationunknownsocialnetworksembeddingsbanditalgorithmsSybildetectionperipheralnodesinfluencer

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper addresses a practical mismatch: finding hidden populations such as Sybil accounts, socially isolated people, or influencers in a social network whose full structure is not known. It formulates discovery as an iterative query loop in which each queried node reveals its label and its neighbors, and a machine-learning model retrained on the growing observed subgraph chooses which frontier node to query next. On Facebook, Enron, Epinion, and Twitter graphs, the loop finds 10% of the targets with at most 1.2 times the queries needed when the entire topology is given to the model, and 90% of the targets with at most 1.4 times. The paper's second claim is that node embeddings help for influencer discovery but can degrade performance for peripheral and Sybil nodes, and its third is that a bandit selecting between embedding and non-embedding models keeps efficiency uniformly high. If these claims hold, expensive up-front mapping of a social graph is unnecessary for targeted discovery.

What carries the argument

The engine is a repeated train-score-query-retrain loop. At round $k$, the model sees only the partial graph $G_{k-1}$ of queried nodes and border nodes; features describe each border node's local neighborhood (target-neighbor counts, triangle ratios, two-hop target reach), optionally augmented by consistent inductive DeepGL embeddings computed on the evolving graph. LightGBM is retrained on the labels of queried nodes and assigns target probabilities to border nodes, and the highest-probability $m_k$ nodes are queried. A D3TS bandit, dynamic Thompson sampling with Beta-distributed rewards, picks between the base and embedding models so the exploration adapts per task. Efficiency is measured as normalized query cost: queries needed by a strategy, divided by queries needed by the same classifier when the full topology is given.

What would settle it

Re-run the same exploration loop in a field setting with the query response degraded to a realistic level, for example a live social-media API that returns only a few hundred friends per query and a bot detector whose labels are only about 80% accurate, and compare the queries needed to reach 90% of targets with the known-topology baseline; if the multiplier exceeds 1.4, the reported efficiency does not transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Machine-learning-guided exploration of an unknown graph can discover hidden target nodes nearly as efficiently as an oracle that already knows the whole graph. Concretely, the query cost to discover 10% of the target nodes is at most 1.2 times the known-topology cost, and the cost to discover 90% is at most 1.4 times, across the eight task/network settings studied. This holds for three structurally different target definitions: Sybil nodes that cluster, peripheral nodes that sit in the low-coreness fringe, and influencer source spreaders and brokers that occupy the core. The paper also shows that DeepGL node embeddings improve influencer discovery by 20-30% but hurt some peripheral and Sybil settings, and that a dynamic Thompson-sampling bandit that switches between embedding-based and base-feature classifiers matches the better model in almost every setting.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the query model in which asking a node reveals its true label and its complete adjacency list without noise, rate limits, or non-response.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Finding hidden populations becomes feasible without a precomputed map: an organization can query along the graph and still stay within 1.2-1.4x the queries an omniscient strategy would use.
Retraining matters: a model trained once on the initial subgraph performs much worse than per-round retraining, so any deployed system must update as it explores.
The bandit choice removes a design burden: practitioners do not need to know in advance whether embeddings help, since the algorithm learns which model to trust from rewards.
Simple heuristics such as highest degree or most target neighbors are not enough when targets are dispersed, so the ML query selection is the load-bearing component.
The same exploration framework handles clustered, peripheral, and influential targets, so one codebase can serve all three discovery tasks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the query multipliers hold across more networks, local partial structure carries most of the signal needed for global label recovery, which narrows the practical gap between active and passive graph labeling.
A natural next experiment is to inject label noise and neighbor truncation into the current simulator to map where the 1.2/1.4 multipliers start to deteriorate.
The embedding-overfitting story suggests a cheap fix the paper does not test: feature selection or a lower-dimensional embedding model might recover the lost efficiency in peripheral and Sybil settings.
Used on sensitive attributes, the same loop could pinpoint vulnerable or dissident users efficiently, so the technology's privacy risk is proportional to its demonstrated efficiency.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a competent empirical extension of the Murai et al. exploration framework to three hidden-node tasks where the assumption that targets cluster together fails. The bandit ensemble of classifiers is the most useful practical result: it gets near-best performance across settings without knowing which features will work. That is worth publishing.

The genuinely new content is the task formulations. Peripheral-node discovery and influencer discovery are not trivial extensions; they break the homophily assumption that made earlier target discovery work. The finding that ML-based exploration still nearly matches known-topology efficiency for these harder cases is real and non-obvious. The observation that DeepGL embeddings help for influencers but hurt for peripheral nodes is also honest and interesting.

The soft spots are in the presentation of the main quantitative claim. The abstract and conclusion say query cost is at most 1.2x (10%) and 1.4x (90%) when using ML-based strategies. That is not tied to a single strategy. Their own Figure 5 shows DeepGL in Enron-Periphery is 'very poor' and the panel's y-axis goes to 2.0, so that strategy's normalized cost at the 90% target fraction can exceed 1.4. The bound must be for the bandit or the best model, and the paper never states that restriction. Also, the checklist says error bars are reported, but the figures show point averages. That internal inconsistency matters because 'at most' is a worst-case claim that needs variance to be credible.

The query model is optimistic: it assumes querying a node reveals the true label and the full adjacency list. Real RDS and social media APIs have noisy labels, rate limits, and partial or sampled neighbor lists. The authors acknowledge pseudo-labels and the need for field experiments, but they do not discuss how the clean query model might weaken the transfer.

That said, the experiments are clearly specified, span four networks and three target types, and the disclosure that only the better known-topology model is shown is a conservative choice. No circularity or hidden fitting in the bandit; it learns from realized rewards, which is the stated objective.

This paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it out, but with a strong request to restate the bound, add error bars, and address robustness under partial neighbor revelation. The core empirical result is likely real; the headline overclaims it.

Yes, bring it to the reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the problem of discovering hidden nodes (Sybil nodes, peripheral nodes, and influencers) in unknown social networks. The authors formulate three target-node discovery tasks, propose an ML-guided graph exploration framework in which querying a node reveals its label and its neighbors, and evaluate several strategies: LightGBM classifiers with basic features, with additional DeepGL node embeddings, simple heuristics (MOD, TN), a known-topology ML baseline, and a D3TS bandit that combines classifiers. Experiments on Facebook, Enron, Epinion, and Twitter Japan datasets compare the fraction of discovered targets against the fraction of queried nodes and report normalized query costs relative to the known-topology baseline. The abstract and conclusion claim that ML-based strategies discover 10% of hidden nodes at a query cost at most 1.2 times the known-topology cost, and 90% at most 1.4 times, and that a bandit-based combination achieves efficient discovery across settings.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the paper provides a useful demonstration that ML-based graph exploration can discover hidden nodes nearly as efficiently as when the full graph topology is known, across three qualitatively different target definitions (clustered Sybils, sparse peripheral nodes, and central influencers). The paper also contributes a cautionary finding that node embeddings are helpful in some settings but harmful in others, and that a simple bandit ensemble of two classifiers is a robust unified strategy. Strengths include the use of multiple real social graphs, release of source code on GitHub, explicit documentation of the query model, and a candid limitations section. The main reservations concern the precision and statistical support for the headline 1.2x/1.4x claim, which is a central contribution of the paper.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Conclusion] The claim that 'the query cost of discovering 10% of the hidden nodes is at most only 1.2 times that when the topology is known, and the query-cost multiplier for discovering 90% of the hidden nodes is at most only 1.4' is not tied to a specific strategy and is not supported by the reported results as stated. In the Results section, the DeepGL strategy in the Enron-Periphery setting is described as 'very poor' (subsection 'Ensemble of Multiple Classifiers is a Robust Strategy'), and Figure 5 shows that this strategy's normalized query cost at the 0.9 discovery fraction can be well above 1.4. If the claim refers to the best-performing ML strategy per setting (often the bandit), that restriction must be stated explicitly and the multiplier should be derived from the plotted data with error bars; if it refers to all ML-based strategies, it is contradicted by the paper's own evidence. The current wording in the abstract and conclusion is therefore ambiguous and overbroad.
[Paper Checklist, item 4(c) and Parameter Settings] The checklist states 'Yes' for 'Did you report error bars (e.g., with respect to the random seed after running experiments multiple times)?' but none of the figures (Figures 3, 5, 6, 7, or 8) include error bars, confidence intervals, or standard deviations. The Parameter Settings section explains that results are averages over 10 trials (3 for Twitter), but no measure of variance is provided. This is an internal inconsistency in the manuscript and it materially affects the 'at most' phrasing of the central numerical claim: without variance estimates, a worst-case bound of 1.2/1.4 cannot be justified.
[Methodology, 'Strategies for Discovering Hidden Target Nodes'] The known-topology baseline used to normalize query costs is itself a LightGBM model trained on the queried labels, not an omniscient oracle or the true optimal discovery process. The paper does state that this baseline is considered 'the upper bound of practical efficiency,' which is reasonable, but the abstract and conclusion phrase the result as 'comparable to that when the graph structure is known,' which may be misread as comparing to full knowledge of labels and structure. The authors should clarify in the abstract and conclusion that the comparison is against an ML model with access to the full topology, and that the multipliers are relative to that model.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] There is a missing space in 'adouble-edged sword'; the intended phrase is 'a double-edged sword.'
[Parameter Settings] The D3TS bandit parameters are said to be 'identical to those in the literature' (Murai et al. 2018), but the actual values of alpha, beta, and C are not specified in the manuscript. Please provide these values in the text or a table for reproducibility.
[Results, Figure 3 caption] The selection of which known-topology result (DeepGL or base) to plot is described only in the text ('only the results from the more efficient one are presented'), but not in the figure caption itself. This post-hoc selection should be flagged prominently in the caption, as it affects the interpretation of the comparison.
[Results, Figures 5 and 6] The textual axis descriptions in the figures are ambiguous: some panels show '0 1' and others '0.0 0.5 1.0', and it is unclear whether the y-axis maximum differs across panels. Please redraw the figures with consistent, clearly labeled scales and include error bars or at least state the variance in the caption.
[Introduction and Limitations] The query model assumes that querying a node returns its true label and its complete adjacency list. This is an idealization of real social-media APIs and respondent-driven sampling, where labels may be noisy and neighbor lists incomplete. The Limitations section acknowledges the need for field experiments, but the abstract's practical wording ('discover hidden nodes with an efficiency comparable to that when the graph structure is known') would benefit from a caveat reflecting this assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical comparison whose main claims are observed query-cost ratios, not quantities fitted to the reported outcomes.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain that reduces a predicted quantity to an input. The three hidden-node labels are defined externally: Sybil labels come from a duplicated-graph construction, peripheral labels from k-core ranking, and influencer labels from spreader/broker scores computed on an external Twitter dataset. Prediction models are trained only on labels of nodes already queried during exploration, and the reported fractions of discovered targets are realized outcomes of querying, not fitted parameters. The normalized query cost is defined as a ratio to the queries needed by the paper's own known-topology LightGBM baseline; this is an explicit comparison baseline, not an oracle, and the 1.2/1.4 statement is an empirical summary of that ratio, not a mathematical consequence of the definition. The bandit (D3TS) selects between base and DeepGL models using realized rewards during exploration, which is exactly the optimization objective; its success is evaluated on held-out graph settings, so the conclusion is not forced by construction. Self-citations to Murai et al. (2018) and Tsugawa and Watabe (2023) supply the prior exploration framework and the Twitter influencer dataset and definitions; these are external inputs re-implemented and evaluated here, and no load-bearing argument in the paper reduces to those citations. The stated limitations (pseudo-labels, need for field experiments, greedy-strategy caveats) further support that the claims are empirical rather than definitional. Concerns about missing error bars and the exact scope of the 'at most' phrasing are statistical-reporting issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new mathematical entities. Its contributions are empirical, and the results rest on the query-access abstraction, the pseudo-label constructions, and hyperparameters inherited from prior work or chosen by the authors.

free parameters (5)

L (number of Sybil-normal attack edges) = 80,000
Set by the authors to create a challenging Sybil detection scenario, following prior work (Jia et al. 2017).
m0 (initial queries) = 200 (Facebook), 2000 (others)
Experiment design choice for the starting observed subgraph.
mk (queries per round) = 100 (Facebook), 1000 (others)
Experiment design choice controlling exploration granularity.
Target proportion thresholds = top/bottom 10%
Defines which nodes are labeled as peripheral or influencer targets.
D3TS bandit parameters (alpha, beta, bound C) = values from Murai et al. (2018)
Reused from the D3TS literature rather than tuned on these graphs.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Querying a node reveals its true label and complete adjacency list.
Stated in Problem Formulation and used by all strategies; real APIs/RDS often provide partial or noisy information.
domain assumption The Sybil graph model, a duplicated normal graph plus L planted edges, captures relevant Sybil structure.
Adopted from prior Sybil detection work (Jia et al. 2017); realism is not independently verified.
domain assumption The bottom 10% of nodes by k-core coreness are 'peripheral' hidden nodes.
Operationalizes 'hard to reach' through coreness; the mapping to social isolation or poverty is assumed.
domain assumption The top 10% of source-spreader and broker scores identify influencers.
Based on cascade scores from Tsugawa and Watabe (2023); these are proxy labels, not ground truth.
domain assumption DeepGL embeddings are consistent across evolving observed subgraphs.
Relies on the inductive property claimed by Rossi et al. (2018); not re-verified for these partial graphs.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Unknown Social Networks for Discovering Hidden Nodes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MEF5RRR5

@misc{pith2026250112571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Unknown Social Networks for Discovering Hidden Nodes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MEF5RRR5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12571}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we address the challenge of discovering hidden nodes in unknown social networks, formulating three types of hidden-node discovery problems, namely, Sybil-node discovery, peripheral-node discovery, and influencer discovery. We tackle these problems by employing a graph exploration framework grounded in machine learning. Leveraging the structure of the subgraph gradually obtained from graph exploration, we construct prediction models to identify target hidden nodes in unknown social graphs. Through empirical investigations of real social graphs, we investigate the efficiency of graph exploration strategies in uncovering hidden nodes. Our results show that our graph exploration strategies discover hidden nodes with an efficiency comparable to that when the graph structure is known. Specifically, the query cost of discovering 10% of the hidden nodes is at most only 1.2 times that when the topology is known, and the query-cost multiplier for discovering 90% of the hidden nodes is at most only 1.4. Furthermore, our results suggest that using node embeddings, which are low-dimensional vector representations of nodes, for hidden-node discovery is a double-edged sword: it is effective in certain scenarios but sometimes degrades the efficiency of node discovery. Guided by this observation, we examine the effectiveness of using a bandit algorithm to combine the prediction models that use node embeddings with those that do not, and our analysis shows that the bandit-based graph exploration strategy achieves efficient node discovery across a wide array of settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12571 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Graph exploration process. The solid black nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Fraction of discovered targets vs. fraction of queried nodes. The ML-based strategies (DeepGL and base) achieve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Distributions of feature importance methods used in this study are efficient in discovering target nodes across all task settings. To establish a unified strategy for hidden-node discovery irrespective of task settings, we investigate the application of bandit algorith…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of normalized query cost among LR, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Precision vs. fraction of queried nodes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Avrachenkov, K.; Basu, P.; Neglia, G.; Ribeiro, B.; and Towsley, D. 2014. Pay few, influence most: Online myopic network covering. In Proc. INFOCOM WKSHPS, 813--818

work page 2014
[4]

P.; and Everett, M

Borgatti, S. P.; and Everett, M. G. 2000. Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks, 21(4): 375--395

work page 2000
[5]

Chiericetti, F.; Dasgupta, A.; Kumar, R.; Lattanzi, S.; and Sarl \'o s, T. 2016. On sampling nodes in a network. In Proc. WWW'16, 471--481

work page 2016
[6]

da Fontoura Costa, L.; and Travieso, G. 2007. Exploring complex networks through random walks. Physical Review E, 75(1): 016102

work page 2007
[7]

Darwish, K.; Stefanov, P.; Aupetit, M.; and Nakov, P. 2020. Unsupervised user stance detection on Twitter . In Proc. ICWSM'20, 141--152

work page 2020
[8]

N.; Goltsev, A

Dorogovtsev, S. N.; Goltsev, A. V.; and Mendes, J. F. F. 2006. K-core organization of complex networks. Physical Review Letters, 96(4): 040601

work page 2006

Show all 54 references

[9]

K.; and Abulaish, M

Fazil, M.; Sah, A. K.; and Abulaish, M. 2021. DeepSBD : a deep neural network model with attention mechanism for socialbot detection. IEEE TIFS, 16: 4211--4223

2021
[10]

Feng, S.; Wan, H.; Wang, N.; and Luo, M. 2021. BotRGCN : Twitter bot detection with relational graph convolutional networks. In Proc. ASONAM'21, 236--239

2021
[11]

Ferrara, E.; Varol, O.; Davis, C.; Menczer, F.; and Flammini, A. 2016. The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7): 96--104

2016
[12]

Fujiwara, T.; Zhao, J.; Chen, F.; Yu, Y.; and Ma, K.-L. 2022. Network comparison with interpretable contrastive network representation learning. JDSSV, 2(5)

2022
[13]

Furutani, S.; Shibahara, T.; Akiyama, M.; and Aida, M. 2023. Interpreting graph-based Sybil detection methods as low-pass filtering. IEEE TIFS, 18: 1225--1236

2023
[14]

Z.; Kulkarni, S

Gao, P.; Wang, B.; Gong, N. Z.; Kulkarni, S. R.; Thomas, K.; and Mittal, P. 2018. SYBILFUSE : Combining local attributes with global structure to perform robust sybil detection. In Proc. CNS'18, 1--9

2018
[15]

Gile, K. J. 2011. Improved inference for respondent-driven sampling data with application to HIV prevalence estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(493): 135--146

2011
[16]

T.; and Markopoulou, A

Gjoka, M.; Kurant, M.; Butts, C. T.; and Markopoulou, A. 2010. Walking in Facebook : A case study of unbiased sampling of OSNs . In Proc. INFOCOM'10, 1--9

2010
[17]

Z.; Frank, M.; and Mittal, P

Gong, N. Z.; Frank, M.; and Mittal, P. 2014. SybilBelief : A semi-supervised learning approach for structure-based sybil detection. IEEE TIFS, 9(6): 976--987

2014
[18]

Hamilton, W.; Ying, Z.; and Leskovec, J. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In Proc. NIPS'17, 1--11

2017
[19]

Heckathorn, D. D. 1997. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 44(2): 174--199

1997
[20]

D.; Semaan, S.; Broadhead, R

Heckathorn, D. D.; Semaan, S.; Broadhead, R. S.; and Hughes, J. J. 2002. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of injection drug users aged 18--25. AIDS and Behavior, 6: 55--67

2002
[21]

Jia, J.; Wang, B.; and Gong, N. Z. 2017. Random walk based fake account detection in online social networks. In Proc. DSN'17, 273--284

2017
[22]

Ke, G.; Meng, Q.; Finley, T.; Wang, T.; Chen, W.; Ma, W.; Ye, Q.; and Liu, T.-Y. 2017. LightGBM : A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In Proc. NIPS'17, 3146--3154

2017
[23]

Kim, S.; Jiang, J.-Y.; Han, J.; and Wang, W. 2023. InfluencerRank : Discovering effective influencers via graph convolutional attentive recurrent neural networks. In Proc. ICWSM'23, 482--493

2023
[24]

N.; and Welling, M

Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2017. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In Proc. ICLR'17, 1--14

2017
[25]

K.; Havlin, S.; Liljeros, F.; Muchnik, L.; Stanley, H

Kitsak, M.; Gallos, L. K.; Havlin, S.; Liljeros, F.; Muchnik, L.; Stanley, H. E.; and Makse, H. A. 2010. Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Nature Physics, 6(11): 888--893

2010
[26]

H.; Malekinejad, M.; Vaudrey, J.; Martinez, A

Kral, A. H.; Malekinejad, M.; Vaudrey, J.; Martinez, A. N.; Lorvick, J.; McFarland, W.; and Raymond, H. F. 2010. Comparing respondent-driven sampling and targeted sampling methods of recruiting injection drug users in San Francisco . Journal of Urban Health, 87: 839--850

2010
[27]

Kurant, M.; Markopoulou, A.; and Thiran, P. 2011. Towards unbiased BFS sampling. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 29(9): 1799--1809

2011
[28]

J.; Dasgupta, A.; and Mahoney, M

Leskovec, J.; Lang, K. J.; Dasgupta, A.; and Mahoney, M. W. 2009. Community structure in large networks: Natural cluster sizes and the absence of large well-defined clusters. Internet Mathematics, 6(1): 29--123

2009
[29]

Leskovec, J.; and Mcauley, J. J. 2012. Learning to discover social circles in ego networks. In Proc. NIPS'12, 539--547

2012
[30]

S.; and Berger-Wolf, T

Maiya, A. S.; and Berger-Wolf, T. Y. 2011. Benefits of bias: Towards better characterization of network sampling. In Proc. KDD'11, 105--113

2011
[31]

D.; Seeley, J.; Katongole, J.; Tarsh, M

McCreesh, N.; Frost, S. D.; Seeley, J.; Katongole, J.; Tarsh, M. N.; Ndunguse, R.; Jichi, F.; Lunel, N. L.; Maher, D.; Johnston, L. G.; et al. 2012. Evaluation of respondent-driven sampling. Epidemiology, 23(1): 138--147

2012
[32]

Mendoza, M.; Tesconi, M.; and Cresci, S. 2020. Bots in social and interaction networks: detection and impact estimation. ACM TOIS, 39(1): 1--32

2020
[33]

Mihara, S.; Tsugawa, S.; and Ohsaki, H. 2015. Influence maximization problem for unknown social networks. In Proc. ASONAM'15, 1539--1546

2015
[34]

S.; and Eliassi-Rad, T

Morales, P.; Caceres, R. S.; and Eliassi-Rad, T. 2021. Selective network discovery via deep reinforcement learning on embedded spaces. Applied Network Science, 6: 1--20

2021
[35]

L.; Towsley, D.; and Gile, K

Murai, F.; Renn \'o , D.; Ribeiro, B.; Pappa, G. L.; Towsley, D.; and Gile, K. 2018. Selective harvesting over networks. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 32: 187--217

2018
[36]

D.; and Vazirgianis, M

Panagopoulos, G.; Malliaros, F. D.; and Vazirgianis, M. 2020. Influence maximization using influence and susceptibility embeddings. In Proc. ICWSM'20, 511--521

2020
[37]

A.; Bal \'a n, I

Pando, M. A.; Bal \'a n, I. C.; Marone, R.; Dolezal, C.; Leu, C.-S.; Squiquera, L.; Barreda, V.; Rodriguez Fermep \' n, M.; Gallo Vaulet, L.; Rey, J.; et al. 2012. HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men recruited by RDS in Buenos Aires , ...

2012
[38]

Qiu, J.; Tang, J.; Ma, H.; Dong, Y.; Wang, K.; and Tang, J. 2018. DeepInf : Social influence prediction with deep learning. In Proc. KDD'18, 2110--2119

2018
[39]

Richardson, M.; Agrawal, R.; and Domingos, P. 2003. Trust management for the semantic web. In Proc. ISWC'03, 351--368

2003
[40]

A.; Zhou, R.; and Ahmed, N

Rossi, R. A.; Zhou, R.; and Ahmed, N. K. 2018. Deep inductive graph representation learning. IEEE TKDE, 32(3): 438--452

2018
[41]

Sankar, A.; Zhang, X.; Krishnan, A.; and Han, J. 2020. Inf-VAE : A variational autoencoder framework to integrate homophily and influence in diffusion prediction. In Proc. WSDM'20, 510--518

2020
[42]

Seidman, S. B. 1983. Network structure and minimum degree. Social Networks, 5(3): 269--287

1983
[43]

Soundarajan, S.; Eliassi-Rad, T.; Gallagher, B.; and Pinar, A. 2016. MaxReach: Reducing network incompleteness through node probes. In Proc. ASONAM'16, 152--157

2016
[44]

Sun, Y.; Yang, Z.; and Dai, Y. 2020. TrustGCN : Enabling graph convolutional network for robust Sybil detection in OSNs . In Proc. ASONAM'20, 1--7

2020
[45]

Tran, C.; Shin, W.-Y.; and Spitz, A. 2021. Community detection in partially observable social networks. ACM TKDD, 16(2): 1--24

2021
[46]

Tsugawa, S.; and Watabe, K. 2023. Identifying influential brokers on social media from social network structure. In Proc. ICWSM'23, 842--853

2023
[47]

Wang, B.; Zhang, L.; and Gong, N. Z. 2017. SybilSCAR : Sybil detection in online social networks via local rule based propagation. In Proc. INFOCOM'17, 1--9

2017
[48]

C.-C.; Wang, P.; Qin, T.; and Guan, X

Wang, C.; Chang, K. C.-C.; Wang, P.; Qin, T.; and Guan, X. 2020. Heterogeneous network crawling: Reaching target nodes by motif-guided navigation. IEEE TKDE, 34(9): 4285--4297

2020
[49]

Wang, X.; Garnett, R.; and Schneider, J. 2013. Active search on graphs. In Proc. KDD'13, 731--738

2013
[50]

Wilder, B.; Immorlica, N.; Rice, E.; and Tambe, M. 2018. Maximizing influence in an unknown social network. In Proc. AAAI'18

2018
[51]

Xie, Y.; Chang, S.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, M.; and Yang, L. 2018. Efficient sampling of complex network with modified random walk strategies. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 492: 57--64

2018
[52]

Yadav, A.; Wilder, B.; Rice, E.; Petering, R.; Craddock, J.; Yoshioka-Maxwell, A.; Hemler, M.; Onasch-Vera, L.; Tambe, M.; and Woo, D. 2018. Bridging the gap between theory and practice in influence maximization: raising awareness about HIV among homeless youth. In Proc. IJCAI...

2018
[53]

Zhao, G.; Jia, P.; Huang, C.; Zhou, A.; and Fang, Y. 2020. A machine learning based framework for identifying influential nodes in complex networks. IEEE Access, 8: 65462--65471

2020
[54]

Zhu, X.; Ghahramani, Z.; and Lafferty, J. D. 2003. Semi-supervised learning using gaussian fields and harmonic functions. In Proc. ICML'03, 912--919

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Avrachenkov, K.; Basu, P.; Neglia, G.; Ribeiro, B.; and Towsley, D. 2014. Pay few, influence most: Online myopic network covering. In Proc. INFOCOM WKSHPS, 813--818

work page 2014

[4] [4]

P.; and Everett, M

Borgatti, S. P.; and Everett, M. G. 2000. Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks, 21(4): 375--395

work page 2000

[5] [5]

Chiericetti, F.; Dasgupta, A.; Kumar, R.; Lattanzi, S.; and Sarl \'o s, T. 2016. On sampling nodes in a network. In Proc. WWW'16, 471--481

work page 2016

[6] [6]

da Fontoura Costa, L.; and Travieso, G. 2007. Exploring complex networks through random walks. Physical Review E, 75(1): 016102

work page 2007

[7] [7]

Darwish, K.; Stefanov, P.; Aupetit, M.; and Nakov, P. 2020. Unsupervised user stance detection on Twitter . In Proc. ICWSM'20, 141--152

work page 2020

[8] [8]

N.; Goltsev, A

Dorogovtsev, S. N.; Goltsev, A. V.; and Mendes, J. F. F. 2006. K-core organization of complex networks. Physical Review Letters, 96(4): 040601

work page 2006