Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Influence- and Interest-based Worker Recruitment in Crowdsourcing using Online Social Networks

T0 review · 4 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 Group-based social influencer selection plus dynamic substitution can improve crowdsourcing recruitment dramatically.

desk verdict A coherent integration of group-based influence maximization and dynamic recruitment, but the headline numbers are largely self-confirming until tested against an external task-quality outcome. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10940 v1 pith:MJIAXJMT submitted 2025-01-19 cs.SI

Ahmed Alagha , Shakti Singh , Hadi Otrok , Rabeb Mizouni This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SI
keywords CrowdsourcingWorkerrecruitmentInfluencemaximizationOnlinesocialnetworksGeneticalgorithmGroup-basedselectionDynamicQualityofService
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 tries to establish that mobile crowdsourcing can recruit better workers by using online social networks to find influencers who advertise tasks, rather than assuming a ready-made pool of workers exists. It claims that selecting influencers as a group, with attention to their interests and geographic spread, works better than picking them one by one. It also claims that a dynamic recruitment process, which substitutes workers who refuse tasks, keeps expected quality of service high even when acceptance rates are very low. If true, this would address the cold-start problem in crowdsourcing and the practical reality that most invited workers decline to participate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ranking metric R(g), the geometric mean of three group attributes: group distribution (how well influencers cover weighted subareas), group interests (how many influencers match each required task interest), and group unique followers (combined follower counts without duplicates). The geometric mean normalizes attributes with different ranges so no single one dominates. This metric is maximized by a Genetic Algorithm that searches over influencer sets, since enumerating all combinations is computationally infeasible on large networks. The recruitment stage relies on a worker-level QoS score that combines residual energy, interest level, a decreasing function of travel time, and reputation, plus a substitution loop that replaces workers who refuse the task.

What would settle it

Run IIWRS and the benchmarks on a live or logged platform where recruited workers actually perform tasks, and compare the quality of completed tasks for groups with high versus low R(g); if higher R(g) does not track better outcomes, the proxy assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proposes IIWRS, an Influence- and Interest-based Worker Recruitment System with two linked components. First, a group-based influence maximization approach uses a Genetic Algorithm to choose a set of influencers that maximizes a ranking metric R(g), defined as the geometric mean of group geographic distribution, group interest match, and unique follower count. Second, a dynamic recruitment process considers each candidate worker's interest level, reputation, residual energy, and travel time, and substitutes workers who decline the task. The paper reports that this combined system achieves up to 88 times better expected QoS than existing recruitment benchmarks, that the group-based influencer selection improves ranking scores by up to 15% over individual-based greedy methods, and that interest-aware selection yields up to 20% higher interested influence among reached users.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking score used to pick influencers is assumed to predict the quality of the workers those influencers eventually bring in, but the paper never shows that a higher ranking score leads to better real task outcomes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If IIWRS is correct, cold-start crowdsourcing can work without a pre-existing worker pool by drawing candidates through social network influencers.
  • Group-based influencer selection should beat individual-based greedy selection for any proxy metric where group members overlap in followers or interests.
  • Interest-aware influencer selection should yield a candidate pool more aligned with task domains, improving the expected quality of task completion.
  • Dynamic substitution of workers who decline tasks should keep expected QoS stable even when acceptance rates are as low as a few percent.
  • The integrated system should outperform both purely social-network-based recruitment and traditional group recruitment with a fixed pool.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper evaluates R(g) against other proxy metrics, but never validates that a higher R(g) corresponds to better real-world task outcomes; an external test comparing final report quality against proxy rankings would settle this.
  • The interest level of a worker is computed from posts and followed users, which may not reflect actual willingness or ability to complete a location-based task; this is an assumption that could be tested against behavioral data.
  • The system could plausibly extend to scenarios where multiple task publishers compete for the same influencers, a situation not modeled here, where group-based selection would interact with incentive costs.
  • A live deployment on a real crowdsourcing platform with actual task acceptance and report quality data would determine whether the simulated 88x improvement survives real-world noise.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes IIWRS, a three-stage system for mobile crowdsourcing worker recruitment that uses online social networks. In Stage 1, a genetic algorithm selects a group of influencers by maximizing a ranking proxy R(g), the geometric mean of group distribution, group interest coverage, and unique followers. In Stage 2, an Independent Cascade model simulates information diffusion, and influenced users are treated as newly registered candidate workers. In Stage 3, workers are recruited for location-based tasks based on traveling time, interest level, residual energy, and reputation, with substitution of workers who decline the task. Simulation experiments on Twitter data with mobility and reputation datasets are used to compare IIWRS to GRS and SWRS, reporting up to 88x expected QoS improvement and 15-20% gains in influence metrics.

Significance. The system addresses a real problem: cold-start recruitment and low acceptance rates in mobile crowdsourcing. The group-based influencer selection via GA and the dynamic substitution mechanism are sensible contributions, and the paper provides a detailed system architecture. The use of a large real Twitter dataset is a strength. However, the empirical evaluation is largely self-referential: the headline QoS and interested-influence metrics are constructed from the same social interest signals that the system optimizes, and the comparison baselines are missing multiple features by design. No external task-quality outcome is used. Consequently, the claimed improvements are plausible but not yet demonstrated against an independent ground truth; with additional validation the system could be a useful contribution, but in its current state the central empirical claim is not fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B2 and IV-B3, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The 'interested influence' metric in Section IV-B2 and the expected QoS in Section IV-B3 are computed from the same user interest signals (posts and followings) that are used to build the R(g) proxy in Eq. (4) and the IL_W^j component in Eq. (5). Because IIWRS explicitly selects influencers and workers to maximize these signals, the reported 20% higher interested influence and 88x higher QoS partly reflect optimizing the evaluation metric itself. The paper does not relate either R(g) or QoSW to any external task-quality outcome such as correct reports, completion times, or requester satisfaction. Please add a validation against an independent outcome, or clearly restrict the claims to proxy performance.
  2. [Section IV-B3, Fig. 9] The baseline systems GRS and SWRS are missing several components that IIWRS adds at once: dynamic substitution, registration-based MCS attributes, group-based IM, and interest levels. At acceptance probabilities around 3-4%, SWRS, which takes all influenced users as workers without substitution, will produce mostly QoSW=0, so the 88x improvement is a large factor by construction. The DGRS and DSWRS variants add only substitution and still lack the other features. Please provide a staged ablation that adds one feature at a time, and report absolute QoS values (not only relative improvements) so the marginal contribution of each design choice can be assessed.
  3. [Section III-A2, III-A5, and IV-B] The ranking metric R(g) and the group attributes in Eqs. (1)-(2) depend on free weights w^D_z and w^I_x, and the experiments depend on the MinDegree threshold and a fixed influence probability p_ab=0.02. The paper does not report the values of these weights or any sensitivity analysis, and the genetic algorithm parameters (population size, crossover and mutation rates, convergence window) are not specified. Without this information the experimental results cannot be reproduced or their robustness assessed. Please add a parameter table and sensitivity experiments over these values.
  4. [Section III-B and IV-A] In the simulation, the social network data from Twitter UK is fused with unrelated data sources: the Cologne vehicular mobility traces for traveling times and Stack Exchange for reputations, with exact GPS coordinates generated randomly within general locations. No attempt is made to align these datasets or check their representativeness, so the resulting pool of 'influenced users' has characteristics that may not correspond to any real population. This weakens the external validity of the QoS simulations. Please either justify the fusion with a rationale or re-run the evaluation using a single consistent dataset.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A3 and IV-B2] The notation for unique followers is inconsistent: the paper uses U V (g) in Section III-A3 but U(g) in Section IV-B2 ('i.e. U (g)'). Please standardize.
  2. [Eq. (7)] In Equation (7), the base of the logarithm is a time constraint T CT_i, which has units of time, making the expression mathematically ill-defined; the ratio T r^W_j / T CT_i should be used as the argument of a natural or base-10 logarithm.
  3. [Section IV-B] The averaged results over 100 simulations are reported without error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical tests, so the reader cannot assess whether the observed differences are significant. Please include variance or significance estimates.
  4. [Section IV-B3] The acceptance rate is described as 'as low as 3−4%' but the earlier statistic in the introduction is 3.83% with citation [18]; the numbers and citations should be aligned.
  5. [Section III-A5] The termination condition 'R(g) converges' is not defined precisely; please specify the number of iterations without improvement used as the convergence criterion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 88x QoS advantage is measured on the same QoSW function (Eq. 6) that IIWRS optimizes in Stage 3, so the central performance claim is self-confirming; the IM-stage comparisons retain independent algorithmic content.

  1. other [Section III-C3 (recruitment objective) and Section IV-B3/Fig. 9 (evaluation); Eq. (6)]
    "Given a task Ti and the pool of candidate workers, the recruitment process aims to recruit a group of size gs that maximizes the expected QoS... The average QoS is taken over the set QoSW which contains the individual QoSWj values for each group member, as computed in Equation 6. It is worth noting that a worker Wj who does not accept the task, and is not substituted, results in QoSWj = 0."

    Stage 3's greedy recruitment selects workers by maximizing QoSW_j (Eq. 6), and the reported 'expected QoS' is just the average of those same QoSW_j values. The reported gains over GRS/SWRS therefore do not test an independent outcome: any benchmark that omits the interest-level term IL_W or that does not substitute refusals is scored with a metric containing those terms, with unsubstituted refusals set to zero. The 88x/8.5x figures are built into the evaluation design rather than established against report correctness, task quality, or employer satisfaction.

full rationale

The paper's IM experiments (Section IV-B1) compare algorithms on the ranking metrics they are designed to optimize, which is an optimizer-performance check rather than a derivation; the 'interested influence' experiment (Section IV-B2) does run an IC diffusion simulation between influencer selection and the measured outcome, so it is not definitionally forced even though it is aligned with the objective. The load-bearing circularity is in Section IV-B3: the QoS used as the headline success metric is exactly the objective function used by the proposed recruitment stage (Eq. 6 vs. Section III-C3). Because the evaluation never measures an external task-quality outcome, the central 'up to 88 times better QoS' claim reduces to the fact that IIWRS optimizes the metric on which it is graded. I found no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness argument; citations to the authors' prior group-recruitment works are used as standard technique references, not to justify the central claim. Score 6 reflects a partially circular central evaluation while acknowledging the independent algorithmic comparisons in the IM stage.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen weights and thresholds, plus assumptions about the availability and transferability of user attributes across datasets. The most consequential are the weights in the ranking metric and the fixed influence probability p=0.02, both of which directly shape the reported performance.

free parameters (6)
  • Subarea weights w^D_z = not specified
    Hand-chosen weights in Equation 1 that determine the group distribution score; no values or selection method are reported.
  • Interest weights w^I_x = not specified
    Hand-chosen weights in Equation 2 that determine the group interest score; no values or selection method are reported.
  • MinDegree threshold = not specified
    Minimum in-degree required for an influencer candidate; the paper says it depends on network size but gives no value.
  • Influence probability p_ab = 0.02
    Assumed constant for all edges in the IC model, taken from Instagram engagement statistics but applied to a Twitter network.
  • GA hyperparameters = not specified
    Population size, crossover rate, mutation rate, and convergence criteria are not reported; these affect the quality of the influencer group.
  • QoS_min threshold = not specified
    Minimum QoS required for a worker to be recruited; set by the task publisher but never defined in the experiments.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Geometric mean correctly normalizes attributes of different ranges.
    Used in Equations 4 and 6; the paper cites standard practice but provides no formal justification.
  • domain assumption Users' general locations are available and accurate enough for coverage scoring.
    Section III-A2 states that general location is mined from profile or posts; the paper assumes this input is available for all nodes.
  • domain assumption Users' interests are pre-mined and available.
    Section III-A2 says 'each user's interest is assumed to be pre-mined and available as an input to the IM stage'.
  • domain assumption Independent Cascade model with p=0.02 approximates real influence diffusion.
    Section III-B sets p based on Instagram engagement rates, then applies it to a Twitter network without validation.
  • ad hoc to paper Influenced users register as MCS workers and can be assigned MCS attributes from unrelated datasets.
    Section IV-A assigns GPS coordinates randomly within a city, speeds from Cologne mobility traces, reputations from Stack Exchange, and residual energy from a uniform distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper Interest level IL_W^j can be computed as the average of normalized post frequency and followed interest users.
    Equation 5 defines this operationalization without evidence that it correlates with worker performance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence- and Interest-based Worker Recruitment in Crowdsourcing using Online Social Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MJIAXJMT

@misc{pith2026250110940,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence- and Interest-based Worker Recruitment in Crowdsourcing using Online Social Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MJIAXJMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10940}
}
read the original abstract

Workers recruitment remains a significant issue in Mobile Crowdsourcing (MCS), where the aim is to recruit a group of workers that maximizes the expected Quality of Service (QoS). Current recruitment systems assume that a pre-defined pool of workers is available. However, this assumption is not always true, especially in cold-start situations, where a new MCS task has just been released. Additionally, studies show that up to 96\% of the available candidates are usually not willing to perform the assigned tasks. To tackle these issues, recent works use Online Social Networks (OSNs) and Influence Maximization (IM) to advertise about the desired MCS tasks through influencers, aiming to build larger pools. However, these works suffer from several limitations, such as 1) the lack of group-based selection methods when choosing influencers, 2) the lack of a well-defined worker recruitment process following IM, 3) and the non-dynamicity of the recruitment process, where the workers who refuse to perform the task are not substituted. In this paper, an Influence- and Interest-based Worker Recruitment System (IIWRS), using OSNs, is proposed. The proposed system has two main components: 1) an MCS-, group-, and interest-based IM approach, using a Genetic Algorithm, to select a set of influencers from the network to advertise about the MCS tasks, and 2) a dynamic worker recruitment process which considers the social attributes of workers, and is able to substitute those who do not accept to perform the assigned tasks. Empirical studies are performed using real-life datasets, while comparing IIWRS with existing benchmarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10940 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. General overview of the proposed system ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the architecture of the proposed system. Given a set of tasks, submitted by task publishers, the management platform selects a set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of a simple directed network. For simplicity, the ranking metric used here is the node’s in￾degree, which represents the number of incoming connections (followers). The aim is to find a set S of 2 influencers that together give the highest number of unique followers. A greedy proxy-based IM process is as follows: The process starts with an empty set S0, and at the first iteration, the node with the highest r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flowchart of the MCS-, Group-, and Interest-based IM process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Flowchart of the recruitment approach. IV. SIMULATION AND EVALUATION This section reports and discusses the performance of the proposed system, IIWRS, using real-life datasets, and com￾pared to some existing systems [6], [19], [20], [46] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The structure of the dataset. The first 6 attributes are obtained directly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparing the IM approaches in terms of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparing the two IM approaches in terms of the interested influence. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparing IIWRS with the benchmarks in terms of the expected QoS. V. CONCLUSION In this paper, a comprehensive Influence- and Interest-based Worker Recruitment System (IIWRS) in MCS, using OSNs, is proposed. IIWRS uses a proxy-based influence maximiza￾tion method with …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Conceptual foundations of crowdsourcing: A review of is research,

    J. Pedersen et al., “Conceptual foundations of crowdsourcing: A review of is research,” in 46th Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences . IEEE, 2013, pp. 579–588

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    A misbehaving-proof game theoretical selection approach for mobile crowd sourcing,

    M. Abououf, H. Otrok, S. Singh, R. Mizouni, and A. Ouali, “A misbehaving-proof game theoretical selection approach for mobile crowd sourcing,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 58 730–58 741, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    https://www.waze.com/, accessed: 2020-06-22

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    www.bemyeyes.com, accessed: 2020-06-22

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    https://www.uber.com, accessed: 2020-06-22

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Grs: A group- based recruitment system for mobile crowd sensing,

    R. Azzam, R. Mizouni, H. Otrok, A. Ouali, and S. Singh, “Grs: A group- based recruitment system for mobile crowd sensing,” JNCA, vol. 72, pp. 38–50, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    A stability- based group recruitment system for continuous mobile crowd sensing,

    R. Azzam, R. Mizouni, H. Otrok, S. Singh, and A. Ouali, “A stability- based group recruitment system for continuous mobile crowd sensing,” Computer Communications, vol. 119, pp. 1–14, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Gale- shapley matching game selection—a framework for user satisfaction,

    M. Abououf, S. Singh, H. Otrok, R. Mizouni, and A. Ouali, “Gale- shapley matching game selection—a framework for user satisfaction,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 3694–3703, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    A greedy- proof incentive-compatible mechanism for group recruitment in mobile crowd sensing,

    A. Suliman, H. Otrok, R. Mizouni, S. Singh, and A. Ouali, “A greedy- proof incentive-compatible mechanism for group recruitment in mobile crowd sensing,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 101, pp. 1158–1167, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Multi- worker multi-task selection framework in mobile crowd sourcing,

    M. Abououf, R. Mizouni, S. Singh, H. Otrok, and A. Ouali, “Multi- worker multi-task selection framework in mobile crowd sourcing,” JNCA, vol. 130, pp. 52–62, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Target lo- calization using multi-agent deep reinforcement learning with proximal policy optimization,

    A. Alagha, S. Singh, R. Mizouni, J. Bentahar, and H. Otrok, “Target lo- calization using multi-agent deep reinforcement learning with proximal policy optimization,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 136, pp. 342–357, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Data-driven dynamic active node selection for event localization in iot applications-a case study of radiation localization,

    A. Alagha, S. Singh, R. Mizouni, A. Ouali, and H. Otrok, “Data-driven dynamic active node selection for event localization in iot applications-a case study of radiation localization,” IEEE Access , vol. 7, pp. 16 168– 16 183, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Rfls-resilient fault- proof localization system in iot and crowd-based sensing applications,

    A. Alagha, S. Singh, H. Otrok, and R. Mizouni, “Rfls-resilient fault- proof localization system in iot and crowd-based sensing applications,” JNCA, vol. 170, p. 102783, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    A crowd- sensing framework for allocation of time-constrained and location-based tasks,

    R. Estrada, R. Mizouni, H. Otrok, A. Ouali, and J. Bentahar, “A crowd- sensing framework for allocation of time-constrained and location-based tasks,” IEEE Tran. on Services Computing , 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    icrowd: Near-optimal task allocation for piggyback crowdsensing,

    H. Xiong, D. Zhang, G. Chen, L. Wang, V . Gauthier, and L. E. Barnes, “icrowd: Near-optimal task allocation for piggyback crowdsensing,” IEEE Tran. on Mobile Computing , vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 2010–2022, 2015

    2010

  8. [16]

    Sdrs: A stable data-based recruitment system in iot crowdsensing for localization tasks,

    A. Alagha, R. Mizouni, S. Singh, H. Otrok, and A. Ouali, “Sdrs: A stable data-based recruitment system in iot crowdsensing for localization tasks,” JNCA, vol. 177, p. 102968, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    4w1h in mobile crowd sensing,

    D. Zhang, L. Wang, H. Xiong, and B. Guo, “4w1h in mobile crowd sensing,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 42–48, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Improving both quan- tity and quality: Incentive mechanism for social mobile crowdsensing architecture,

    J. Xu, W. Bao, H. Gu, L. Xu, and G. Jiang, “Improving both quan- tity and quality: Incentive mechanism for social mobile crowdsensing architecture,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 44 992–45 003, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Social- network-assisted worker recruitment in mobile crowd sensing,

    J. Wang, F. Wang, Y . Wang, D. Zhang, L. Wang, and Z. Qiu, “Social- network-assisted worker recruitment in mobile crowd sensing,” IEEE Tran. on Mobile Computing , vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 1661–1673, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Task assignment algorithm based on social influence in mobile crowd sensing system,

    A. Lu and J. Zhu, “Task assignment algorithm based on social influence in mobile crowd sensing system,” in China Conference on Wireless Sensor Networks. Springer, 2019, pp. 154–168

    2019

  13. [21]

    Socialre- cruiter: Dynamic incentive mechanism for mobile crowdsourcing worker recruitment with social networks,

    Z. Wang, Y . Huang, X. Wang, J. Ren, Q. Wang, and L. Wu, “Socialre- cruiter: Dynamic incentive mechanism for mobile crowdsourcing worker recruitment with social networks,” IEEE Tran. on Mobile Computing , vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 2055–2066, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Stack exchange data dump,

    “Stack exchange data dump,” https://archive.org/details/stackexchange, accessed: 2017-06-25

    2017

  15. [23]

    Large-scale urban vehicular mobility for networking research,

    S. Uppoor and M. Fiore, “Large-scale urban vehicular mobility for networking research,” in 2011 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC). IEEE, 2011, pp. 62–69

    2011

  16. [24]

    Generation and analysis of a large-scale urban vehicular mobility dataset,

    S. Uppoor, O. Trullols-Cruces, M. Fiore, and J. M. Barcelo-Ordinas, “Generation and analysis of a large-scale urban vehicular mobility dataset,” IEEE Tran. on Mobile Computing , vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1061– 1075, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    A novel many-objective evolutionary algorithm based on transfer matrix with kriging model,

    L. Ma, R. Wang, S. Chen, S. Cheng, X. Wang, Z. Lin, Y . Shi, and M. Huang, “A novel many-objective evolutionary algorithm based on transfer matrix with kriging model,” Information Sciences, vol. 509, pp. 437–456, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Multi-objective task scheduling opti- mization in spatial crowdsourcing,

    A. Alabbadi and M. Abulkhair, “Multi-objective task scheduling opti- mization in spatial crowdsourcing,” Algorithms, vol. 14, p. 77, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Enhancing learning efficiency of brain storm optimization via orthogonal learning design,

    L. Ma, S. Cheng, and Y . Shi, “Enhancing learning efficiency of brain storm optimization via orthogonal learning design,” IEEE Tran. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Crowdlet: Optimal worker recruit- ment for self-organized mobile crowdsourcing,

    L. Pu, X. Chen, J. Xu, and X. Fu, “Crowdlet: Optimal worker recruit- ment for self-organized mobile crowdsourcing,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2016-The 35th Annual IEEE Int. Conf. on Computer Communications . IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–9

    2016

  21. [29]

    A quality as- suring, cost optimal multi-armed bandit mechanism for expertsourcing,

    S. Jain, S. Gujar, S. Bhat, O. Zoeter, and Y . Narahari, “A quality as- suring, cost optimal multi-armed bandit mechanism for expertsourcing,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 254, pp. 44–63, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Privacy-preserving worker recruitment under variety requirement in spatial crowdsourcing,

    Z. Zhang, A. Liu, S. Liu, Z. Li, and L. Zhao, “Privacy-preserving worker recruitment under variety requirement in spatial crowdsourcing,” in Int. Conf. on Service-Oriented Computing . Springer, 2021, pp. 302–316

    2021

  23. [31]

    Data-driven many- objective crowd worker selection for mobile crowdsourcing in industrial iot,

    Z. Lu, Y . Wang, Y . Li, X. Tong, C. Mu, and C. Yu, “Data-driven many- objective crowd worker selection for mobile crowdsourcing in industrial iot,” IEEE Tran. on Industrial Informatics , 2021. 12

    2021

  24. [32]

    Ma- chine learning in mobile crowd sourcing: A behavior-based recruitment model,

    M. Abououf, S. Singh, H. Otrok, R. Mizouni, and E. Damiani, “Ma- chine learning in mobile crowd sourcing: A behavior-based recruitment model,” ACM Tran. on Internet Technology (TOIT) , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Time constrained influence maximization in social networks,

    B. Liu, G. Cong, D. Xu, and Y . Zeng, “Time constrained influence maximization in social networks,” in 2012 IEEE 12th int. conf. on data mining. IEEE, 2012, pp. 439–448

    2012

  26. [34]

    Influence maximization on social graphs: A survey,

    Y . Li, J. Fan, Y . Wang, and K.-L. Tan, “Influence maximization on social graphs: A survey,” IEEE Tran. on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 1852–1872, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Information diffusion in online social networks: A survey,

    A. Guille, H. Hacid, C. Favre, and D. A. Zighed, “Information diffusion in online social networks: A survey,” ACM Sigmod Record , vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 17–28, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network,

    D. Kempe, J. Kleinberg, and ´E. Tardos, “Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network,” in Proc. of the 9th ACM SIGKDD int. conf. on Knowledge discovery and data mining , 2003, pp. 137–146

    2003

  29. [37]

    Information and influence propagation in social networks,

    W. Chen, L. V . Lakshmanan, and C. Castillo, “Information and influence propagation in social networks,” Synthesis Lectures on Data Manage- ment, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1–177, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Celf++ optimizing the greedy algorithm for influence maximization in social networks,

    A. Goyal, W. Lu, and L. V . Lakshmanan, “Celf++ optimizing the greedy algorithm for influence maximization in social networks,” in Proc. of the 20th int. conf. companion on World wide web , 2011, pp. 47–48

    2011

  31. [39]

    On the upper bounds of spread for greedy algorithms in social network influence maximization,

    C. Zhou, P. Zhang, W. Zang, and L. Guo, “On the upper bounds of spread for greedy algorithms in social network influence maximization,” IEEE Tran. on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 2770–2783, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Maximizing social influence in nearly optimal time,

    C. Borgs, M. Brautbar, J. Chayes, and B. Lucier, “Maximizing social influence in nearly optimal time,” in Proc. of the twenty-fifth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms. SIAM, 2014, pp. 946– 957

    2014

  33. [41]

    Influence maximization: Near-optimal time complexity meets practical efficiency,

    Y . Tang, X. Xiao, and Y . Shi, “Influence maximization: Near-optimal time complexity meets practical efficiency,” in Proc. of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD int. conf. on Management of data , 2014, pp. 75–86

    2014

  34. [42]

    Bring order into the samples: A novel scalable method for influence maximization,

    X. Wang, Y . Zhang, W. Zhang, X. Lin, and C. Chen, “Bring order into the samples: A novel scalable method for influence maximization,” IEEE Tran. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 243–256, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Influence maximization in near-linear time: A martingale approach,

    Y . Tang, Y . Shi, and X. Xiao, “Influence maximization in near-linear time: A martingale approach,” in Proc. of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD int. conf. on management of data , 2015, pp. 1539–1554

    2015

  36. [44]

    Influence maximization revis- ited: Efficient reverse reachable set generation with bound tightened,

    Q. Guo, S. Wang, Z. Wei, and M. Chen, “Influence maximization revis- ited: Efficient reverse reachable set generation with bound tightened,” in Proc. of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data , 2020, pp. 2167–2181

    2020

  37. [45]

    Tifim: A two- stage iterative framework for influence maximization in social networks,

    Q. He, X. Wang, Z. Lei, M. Huang, Y . Cai, and L. Ma, “Tifim: A two- stage iterative framework for influence maximization in social networks,” Applied Mathematics and Computation , vol. 354, pp. 338–352, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web

    L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd, “The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web.” Stanford InfoLab, Tech. Rep., 1999

    1999

  39. [47]

    Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification,

    L. C. Freeman, “Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification,” Social networks, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 215–239, 1978

    1978

  40. [48]

    A shapley value-based approach to discover influential nodes in social networks,

    R. Narayanam and Y . Narahari, “A shapley value-based approach to discover influential nodes in social networks,”IEEE Tran. on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 130–147, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    Holistic influence maximization: Combining scalability and efficiency with opinion-aware models,

    S. Galhotra, A. Arora, and S. Roy, “Holistic influence maximization: Combining scalability and efficiency with opinion-aware models,” in Proc. of the 2016 Int. Conf. on Management of Data , 2016, pp. 743– 758

    2016

  42. [50]

    Irie: Scalable and robust influence maximization in social networks,

    K. Jung, W. Heo, and W. Chen, “Irie: Scalable and robust influence maximization in social networks,” in 2012 IEEE 12th Int. Conf. on Data Mining. IEEE, 2012, pp. 918–923

    2012

  43. [51]

    Influence maximization meets efficiency and effectiveness: A hop-based approach,

    J. Tang, X. Tang, and J. Yuan, “Influence maximization meets efficiency and effectiveness: A hop-based approach,” in 2017 IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 64–71

    2017

  44. [52]

    Community aware random walk for network embedding,

    M. M. Keikha, M. Rahgozar, and M. Asadpour, “Community aware random walk for network embedding,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 148, pp. 47–54, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Influence maximization across heterogeneous interconnected networks based on deep learning,

    M. M. Keikha, M. Rahgozar, M. Asadpour, and M. F. Abdollahi, “Influence maximization across heterogeneous interconnected networks based on deep learning,” Exp. Systems with Apps. , vol. 140, 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    Mining user interests over active topics on social networks,

    F. Zarrinkalam, M. Kahani, and E. Bagheri, “Mining user interests over active topics on social networks,” Information Processing & Manage- ment, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 339–357, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    Mining expertise and interests from social media,

    I. Guy, U. Avraham, D. Carmel, S. Ur, M. Jacovi, and I. Ronen, “Mining expertise and interests from social media,” in Proc. of the 22nd int. conf. on World Wide Web, 2013, pp. 515–526

    2013

  48. [56]

    Analyzing dependent variables with multiple surrogates in financial performance research,

    E. P. Enyi, “Analyzing dependent variables with multiple surrogates in financial performance research,” Enyi, EP (2019). Analysing Dependent Variables with Multiple Surrogates in Financial Performance Research, European Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Financial Research , ...

    2019

  49. [57]

    An appraisal of meta-heuristic resource allocation techniques for iaas cloud,

    S. H. H. Madni, M. Latiff, Y . Coulibaly, and S. M. Abdulhamid, “An appraisal of meta-heuristic resource allocation techniques for iaas cloud,” Indian Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1–14, 2016

    2016

  50. [58]

    Performance comparison of genetic algorithm, differential evolution and particle swarm optimization towards bench- mark functions,

    S. P. Lim and H. Haron, “Performance comparison of genetic algorithm, differential evolution and particle swarm optimization towards bench- mark functions,” in 2013 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS) . IEEE, 2013, pp. 41–46

    2013

  51. [59]

    Talk of the network: A complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth,

    J. Goldenberg, B. Libai, and E. Muller, “Talk of the network: A complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth,” Marketing letters, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 211–223, 2001

    2001

  52. [60]

    Engagement rate among influencers on instagram in the united states in 2018 and 2019, by number of followers,

    “Engagement rate among influencers on instagram in the united states in 2018 and 2019, by number of followers,” https://www.statista.com, accessed: 2020-07-25

    2018

  53. [61]

    Average engagement rate on influencer-generated content on instagram worldwide in 2017, by follower count,

    “Average engagement rate on influencer-generated content on instagram worldwide in 2017, by follower count,” https://www.statista.com, ac- cessed: 2020-07-25

    2017

  54. [62]

    Quality and budget aware task allocation for spatial crowdsourcing,

    H. Yu, C. Miao, Z. Shen, and C. Leung, “Quality and budget aware task allocation for spatial crowdsourcing,” in Proc. of the 2015 Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems , 2015, pp. 1689–1690. Ahmed Alagha received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. de- grees in Electrical and...

    2015

Pith tools

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