Papers › Towards Effective Planning Strategies for Dynamic Opinion Networks

Towards Effective Planning Strategies for Dynamic Opinion Networks

18 Oct 2024arXiv:2410.14091archive 2025-07-28

Bharath Muppasani, Protik Nag, Vignesh Narayanan, Biplav Srivastava, Michael N. Huhns

In this study, we investigate the under-explored intervention planning aimed at disseminating accurate information within dynamic opinion networks by leveraging learning strategies. Intervention planning involves identifying key nodes (search) and exerting control (e.g., disseminating accurate or official information through the nodes) to mitigate the influence of misinformation. However, as the network size increases, the problem becomes computationally intractable. To address this, we first introduce a ranking algorithm to identify key nodes for disseminating accurate information, which facilitates the training of neural network classifiers that provide generalized solutions for the search and planning problems. Second, we mitigate the complexity of label generation, which becomes challenging as the network grows, by developing a reinforcement learning-based centralized dynamic planning framework. We analyze these NN-based planners for opinion networks governed by two dynamic propagation models. Each model incorporates both binary and continuous opinion and trust representations. Our experimental results demonstrate that the ranking algorithm-based classifiers provide plans that enhance infection rate control, especially with increased action budgets for small networks. Further, we observe that the reward strategies focusing on key metrics, such as the number of susceptible nodes and infection rates, outperform those prioritizing faster blocking strategies. Additionally, our findings reveal that graph convolutional network-based planners facilitate scalable centralized plans that achieve lower infection rates (higher control) across various network configurations, including Watts-Strogatz topology, varying action budgets, varying initial infected nodes, and varying degrees of infected nodes.

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2410.14091")

Code

Syntology Ran 3 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 3 ran with no contract checked.

By repository: official repository: 3 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

ai4society/infospread-neurips-24 officialmentioned in paperpytorchMIT report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

3 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

3ran

Licence: 0 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from BharathMuppasani/NeurIPS-Submission-2024. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

find_node_to_block BharathMuppasani/NeurIPS-Submission-2024/code/SL-GNN/models_utils.py official repository ran MIT (permissive) · e3a8852448516f52 · report
find_nodes_to_block BharathMuppasani/NeurIPS-Submission-2024/code/SL-GNN/comparison_general.py official repository ran MIT (permissive) · 250d9687d0766762 · report
get_graph_features BharathMuppasani/NeurIPS-Submission-2024/code/SL-GNN/graph_utils.py official repository ran MIT (permissive) · 63ed27d6db231f9f · report

Tasks

BlockingMisinformationReinforcement Learning (RL)

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections