Exact Greedy Influence Maximization in Linear Time
on Bounded-Treewidth Graphs

Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple directed graph with $n=|V|$. Each edge $e=(u,v)\in E$ is associated with an independent propagation probability $p_{e}\in[0,1],$ which represents the probability with which newly active nodes activate their inactive neighbors.

Given a seed set $S\subseteq V$, the Independent Cascade process starts with all vertices of $S$ active. Then the diffusion proceeds in discrete steps. Whenever $u$ becomes active at time $t$, it gets one independent opportunity to activate each currently inactive out-neighbor $v$ with probability $p_{uv}$. Successfully activated neighbors then attempt to activate their own inactive out-neighbors at time $t+1$. The process terminates when no new activations occur.

What is of interest is not any particular unfolding of the IC, but rather the probability with which each node is activated. Let $\sigma(S)$ denote the expected number of activated vertices, which equals the sum of activation probabilities of all the nodes.

The IC model, and more generally triggering models [9, 14], admits an equivalent live-edge formulation. Since all the influence attempts are independent, each edge $e$ can be regarded as live with probability $p_{e}$ and dead with probability $1-p_{e}$. A vertex $v$ is activated by seed set $S$ iff it is reachable from $S$ in the resulting live-edge graph.

Thus

This equivalence turns IC inference into probabilistic reachability.

The influence maximization problem asks for

For IC, $\sigma$ is monotone and submodular. Therefore the classical greedy algorithm, which repeatedly selects the node with maximum marginal gain, $\Delta(v\mid S)=\sigma(S\cup\{v\})-\sigma(S),$ achieves the approximation guarantee

The difficulty is that exact marginal evaluation is itself computationally expensive in general graphs.

The width of a decomposition is

and the treewidth $\operatorname{tw}(G)$ is the minimum width over all tree decompositions.

For directed graphs we use the treewidth of the underlying undirected graph.

The live-edge interpretation of the Independent Cascade model is closely related to tuple-independent probabilistic databases. In a tuple-independent database, every input fact is present independently with an associated probability. Hence, representing every directed edge $(u,v)$ as an uncertain tuple whose presence probability is $p_{uv}$ produces exactly the same distribution over possible graphs as the live-edge formulation of the Independent Cascade model. Under this correspondence, the activation probability of a vertex $v$ from a seed set $S$ is the probability of the recursive reachability query $S\rightsquigarrow v$.

Probabilistic query evaluation is generally #P-hard, but structural restrictions on the underlying data can make it tractable. Amarilli, Bourhis, and Senellart [1] showed that, for fixed logical queries on instances of bounded treewidth, provenance circuits can be constructed in time linear in the size of the instance, yielding tractable exact probabilistic query evaluation on treelike instances. In particular, directed probabilistic reachability can therefore be computed exactly in linear time for fixed treewidth.

This connection is implemented explicitly in the recent ProvSQL [15] system, whose bounded-treewidth reachability compiler constructs reachability provenance along a tree decomposition of the probabilistic graph ¹¹ 1 provSQL Probabilities documentation page.. The current implementation additionally supports an all-target compilation in which the reachability events of all vertices share a single linear-size circuit for fixed treewidth.

In the influence-maximization literature, Nakamura and Nishino [12] independently considered the more restrictive bounded-pathwidth setting and showed that all activation probabilities, and hence the complete IC influence spread, can be computed exactly in $O\!\left((m+n)\omega_{p}^{2}2^{\omega_{p}^{2}}\right)$ time. Our construction can be viewed as a tree-decomposition formulation of the same underlying structural principle: a subgraph can be summarized, with respect to the rest of the graph, by its reachability behavior on a bounded-size separator. Our subsequent contribution is not the tractability of bounded-treewidth probabilistic reachability itself, but the use of this exact inference structure to compute all greedy influence-maximization marginal gains simultaneously.

We use this existing structural inference principle as the foundation for the influence-maximization results developed below.

Consider an oriented tree-decomposition edge $x\to y$ with separator $C_{xy}=B_{x}\cap B_{y}.$

For a fixed live-edge realization on the $x$-side of the decomposition edge, define a relation $R_{x\to y}\subseteq C_{xy}\times C_{xy}$ by $(u,v)\in R_{x\to y}\iff u\rightsquigarrow v$ using only vertices and edges on the $x$-side.

Because the IC live edges are random, a directed decomposition message is a probability distribution over separator reachability relations. For a directed decomposition edge $x\to y$, let $C_{xy}=B_{x}\cap B_{y}$ be the corresponding separator. We define

where $R_{x\to y}$ is the reachability relation induced on $C_{xy}$ by the part of the graph represented on the $x$-side of the decomposition edge ${x,y}$.

For a bag $x$, let $P_{x}^{\mathrm{loc}}(R)$ denote the probability that the uncertain edges owned locally by $x$ induce the reachability relation $R\subseteq B_{x}\times B_{x}.$

Lemma 3.2 gives the exact recursion for a directed decomposition message $M_{x\to y}$, assuming that all incoming messages

are already available. To recover reachability information from the entire graph at every bag, we therefore compute the message in both directions across every decomposition edge.

Root the decomposition tree $\mathcal{T}$ at an arbitrary bag $r$. The messages are evaluated in two passes.

A bag contains at most $w+1$ graph vertices. Including the artificial source gives $O(w)$ boundary objects (nodes of the original graph). A directed reachability relation can therefore be represented by $O(w^{2})$ Boolean entries. Hence there are at most $2^{O(w^{2})}$ possible relation states. Here we measure complexity as the number of arithmetic operations.

We next show that the quadratic exponent in the separator-relation representation is unavoidable within the class of context-independent compositional summaries.

Let $C$ be a separator of size $\Theta(w)$ and partition it into two sets

We construct a family of deterministic subgraphs whose only interface with the remainder of the graph is the separator $C$. These subgraphs should be thought of as possible components lying on one side of a decomposition edge.

For every subset $X\subseteq L\times R,$ define one such subgraph $H_{X}$ as follows. For every pair $(\ell,r)\in X,$ include the directed edge $\ell\to r$ with activation probability $1$, and include no edge from $\ell$ to $r$ when $(\ell,r)\notin X.$ No other edges are present in $H_{X}$.

Thus $H_{X}$ is deterministic: there is only one live-edge realization. Moreover, because every edge is directed from $L$ to $R$ and there are no edges leaving vertices of $R$, no directed path can use more than one edge. Consequently, the reachability relation induced by $H_{X}$ on the separator is exactly

Hence every subset $X\subseteq L\times R$ corresponds to a distinct possible separator behavior. Since there are $2^{|L||R|}=2^{\Theta(w^{2})}$ such subsets, there are $2^{\Theta(w^{2})}$ distinct reachability behaviors that a separator summary may have to represent.

We now replace the deterministic artificial source edges used in the previous section by probabilistic source edges.

Introduce the artificial source vertex $\rho$ as before. For every original graph vertex $v\in V$, add an artificial directed edge $\rho\to v$ whose live probability is a variable $\theta_{v}\in[0,1].$ Let $\boldsymbol{\theta}=(\theta_{v})_{v\in V}.$

The augmented live-edge model therefore contains two types of independent Bernoulli variables:

• •

  every original graph edge $e\in E$ is live independently with its fixed IC probability $p_{e}$; and

• •

  every artificial source edge $\rho\to v$ is live independently with probability $\theta_{v}$.

For any event $A$ in this augmented random graph, write $\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(A)$ for its probability under these edge probabilities. In particular, $\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\rho\rightsquigarrow u)$ denotes the probability that $u$ is reachable from $\rho$ when the original edges are sampled according to their fixed probabilities ${p_{e}}_{e\in E}$ and the artificial source edges are sampled according to $\boldsymbol{\theta}$.

Define

For a deterministic seed set $S\subseteq V$, let $\boldsymbol{\theta}=\mathbf{1}_{S},$ where

Under this assignment, the artificial edge $\rho\to v$ is deterministically present exactly when $v\in S$ and deterministically absent otherwise. Hence the augmented model reduces exactly to the artificial-source construction for the deterministic seed set $S$. By Lemma 3.4,

and therefore

Consequently, for every $v\notin S$, $\left[\nabla F(\mathbf{1}_{S})\right]_{v}$ is exactly the greedy marginal gain of adding $v$ to $S$. Thus the gradient $\nabla F(\mathbf{1}_{S})$ contains all candidate marginal gains simultaneously.

The bounded-treewidth inference procedure described above can be viewed as an acyclic arithmetic computation whose inputs are the artificial source-edge probabilities $\boldsymbol{\theta}=(\theta_{v})_{v\in V}$ and whose scalar output is $F(\boldsymbol{\theta}).$

Once the graph, tree decomposition, edge ownership, and relation-state transitions have been fixed, all remaining numerical computations consist of additions and multiplications of probability masses. For example, combining two relation states with masses $a$ and $b$ produces a contribution $ab$ to the relation state determined by their union and transitive closure. The transitive-closure computation itself is discrete: it determines which output relation receives the contribution, but introduces no additional dependence on $\boldsymbol{\theta}$.

Consequently, after the relation transitions have been compiled, the entire inference algorithm is an arithmetic directed acyclic graph. Let $L$ denote the number of arithmetic operations in this computation. A forward evaluation computes $F(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ in $O(L)$ time.

This interpretation also gives a direct implementation-level view of the differentiation. Suppose, for example, that the same dynamic program is implemented using an automatic-differentiation framework such as PyTorch [13], with the vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ declared to require gradients. The forward execution constructs the same computation graph used to evaluate the exact influence. Calling the reverse-mode operation on the scalar output, conceptually $F.\mathrm{backward()},$ then propagates derivatives backward through all additions and multiplications and returns

for every vertex $v$ simultaneously.

This is precisely reverse-mode automatic differentiation applied to the arithmetic circuit defined by the tree-decomposition dynamic program. Since the circuit has one scalar output, reverse mode visits each arithmetic operation only a constant number of times. Therefore all $n$ partial derivatives

are obtained in $O(L)$ additional time, rather than requiring $n$ separate evaluations of the inference algorithm.

One implementation detail is important at Boolean seed assignments. For an artificial edge $\rho\to v$, a probability mass $p$ is split into $p(1-\theta_{v})$ and $p\theta_{v}$ for the absent and present cases, respectively. Both arithmetic branches must remain in the computation even when $\theta_{v}\in{0,1}$. Numerically pruning the zero-mass branch would remove the corresponding derivative path and could therefore destroy the marginal-gain information. Retaining both branches preserves the correct derivative at $\boldsymbol{\theta}=\mathbf{1}_{S}.$

Thus computing all $n-|S|$ exact marginal gains has the same asymptotic complexity as one exact influence evaluation, up to the constant-factor overhead of the reverse pass. In particular, the algorithm does not perform a separate influence computation for each candidate vertex.

Algorithm 1 computes the greedy solution exactly. It does not solve globally optimal influence maximization exactly.

This distinction is unavoidable in general even on extremely simple graph topologies.

Existing results show that IC influence maximization is NP-hard on in-arborescences [11]. The underlying undirected graph of every arborescence is a tree, and therefore has treewidth $1$. Furthermore, the graph in the construction of [11] has its pathwidth bounded by $2$.

Thus bounded pathwidth/treewidth makes exact probabilistic inference tractable, but does not eliminate the combinatorial hardness of globally optimal seed selection. This contrast is summarized in Table 1.

Interestingly, the IM problem under the Linear Threshold diffusion model is solvable exactly in polynomial time on in-arborescences [18]. Thus, determining whether exact IM under the LT model is tractable on bounded-pathwidth or bounded-treewidth graphs remains an interesting direction for future research.

All experiments were run on a Dell Precision 7710 workstation with an Intel Core i7-6820HQ processor (8 logical CPUs), 16 GB of RAM, and a 256.1 GB disk, running Ubuntu 24.04.4 LTS.

For the experiments reported below, we considered treewidths $w\in\{1,2\}$ and graph sizes ranging from $n=300$ to $n=100000$, subject to computational feasibility. The reported diffusion and seed-success regimes were

with seed budget $K=10$. Not every combination of treewidth, stochastic regime, and graph size was evaluated up to the same maximum $n$; Table 2 therefore reports the largest completed instance available for each setting. All recorded method runs completed with successful status, and no method-level timeout was observed. We therefore do not attribute the termination of the larger benchmark to any particular method; rather, it appears to have resulted from overall hardware-resource limitations of the experimental machine. The underlying graphs were random $k$-trees of exact treewidth $k=w$, converted to bidirected IC graphs. Each directed edge probability was sampled independently as $p_{e}\sim U(0,a)$.

IMM was run with $\varepsilon=0.1$ and $\ell=1$ and without an explicit cap on the number of RR sets. The directed NewGreedy/Cohen-style baseline used 500 live-edge snapshots per greedy round and five Cohen exponential-min sketch repetitions per snapshot. Thus, a completed $K=10$ NewGreedy run used 5000 live-edge snapshots.

Each method was given an independent wall-clock limit of 3600 seconds. The treewidth circuit compilation had a separate timeout of 1800 seconds. A timeout of one method did not prevent the remaining methods from being evaluated. Each parameter setting was run once.

For every returned seed set, solution quality was evaluated afterwards using the same exact bounded-treewidth influence evaluator. This post-hoc evaluation time was excluded from the reported optimization runtime. For the proposed method, the reported total runtime includes both the one-time treewidth-circuit compilation and exact greedy seed selection, whereas the reported IMM and NewGreedy runtimes contain seed selection only.

For the large-scale benchmark, we attempted graph sizes $n\in\{30000,100000,300000,1000000\}$ for treewidths $w\in\{1,2\}$. Not all requested configurations completed on the available hardware. The missing configurations were not caused by the configured per-method wall-clock timeout: no corresponding method-level timeout was recorded before termination of the benchmark process. We therefore report only configurations for which complete results were successfully produced. The termination appears to have resulted from overall computational-resource limitations of the experimental machine rather than a recorded timeout of any individual method.

Because termination occurred outside the method-level status reporting, we do not attribute the missing configurations to any particular method.