BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Balázs R. Sziklai

Balázs R. Sziklai contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Applicationsmath.STMethodologySocial and Information NetworksStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Location and audience selection for maximizing social influence

Viral marketing campaigns target primarily those individuals who are central in social networks and hence have social influence. Marketing events, however, may attract diverse audience. Despite the importance of event marketing, the influence of heterogeneous target groups is not well understood yet. In this paper, we define the Spreading Potential (SP) problem in which different sets of agents need to evaluated and compared based on their social influence. A typical application of SP is choosing locations for a series of marketing events. The SP problem is different from the well-known Influence Maximization (IM) problem in two aspects. Firstly, it deals with sets rather than nodes. Secondly, the sets are diverse, composed by a mixture of influential and ordinary agents. Thus, SP needs to assess the contribution of ordinary agents too, while IM only aims to find top spreaders. We provide a systemic test for ranking influence measures in the SP problem based on node sampling and on a novel statistical method, the Sum of Ranking Differences. Using a Linear Threshold diffusion model on an online social network, we evaluate seven network measures of social influence. We demonstrate that the statistical assessment of these influence measures is remarkably different in the SP problem, when low-ranked individuals are present, from the IM problem, when we focus on the algorithm's top choices exclusively.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Testing Rankings with Cross-Validation

This research investigates how to determine whether two rankings come from the same distribution. We evaluate three hybrid tests: Wilcoxon's, Dietterich's, and Alpaydin's statistical tests combined with cross-validation (CV), each operating with folds ranging from 5 to 10, thus altogether 18 variants. We have applied these tests in the framework of a popular comparative statistical test, the Sum of Ranking Differences that builds upon the Manhattan distance between the rankings. The introduced methodology is widely applicable from machine learning through social sciences. To compare these methods, we have followed an innovative approach borrowed from Economics. We designed nine scenarios for testing type I and II errors. These represent typical situations (that is, different data structures) that CV tests face routinely. The optimal CV method depends on the preferences regarding the minimization of type I/II errors, size of the input, and expected patterns in the data. The Wilcoxon method with eight folds proved to be the best for all three investigated input sizes. Although the Dietterich and Alpaydin methods are the best in type I situations, they fail badly in type II cases. We demonstrate our results on real-world data, borrowed from chess and chemistry. Overall we cannot recommend either Alpaydin or Dietterich as an alternative to Wilcoxon cross-validation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The efficacy of tournament designs

Tournaments are a widely used mechanism to rank alternatives in a noisy environment. This paper investigates a fundamental issue of economics in tournament design: what is the best usage of limited resources, that is, how should the alternatives be compared pairwise to best approximate their true but latent ranking. We consider various formats including knockout tournaments, multi-stage championships consisting of round-robin groups followed by single elimination, and the Swiss-system. They are evaluated via Monte-Carlo simulations under six different assumptions on winning probabilities. Comparing the same pair of alternatives multiple times turns out to be an inefficacious policy. While seeding can increase the efficacy of the knockout and group-based designs, its influence remains marginal unless one has an unrealistically good estimation on the true ranking of the players. The Swiss-system is found to be the most accurate among all these tournament formats, especially in its ability to rank all participants. A possible explanation is that it does not eliminate a player after a single loss, while it takes the history of the comparisons into account. The results can be especially interesting for emerging esports, where the tournament designs are not yet solidified.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access