4.8 Article

Influence maximization diffusion models based on engagement and activeness on instagram

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2020.09.012

关键词

Influence maximization; Social media; Diffusion model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes three new and more realistic diffusion models for selecting suitable social media influencers. These models take into account the engagement level and activeness of users, and are validated by comparing activated users against actual influenced users. The experiments demonstrate that the proposed models are more realistic and generate more engaging and active users.
An influencer is an impactful content creator on social media. The emergence of influencers led to increased influencer marketing. The task of picking the right influencers is widely studied through influence maximization (IM). Existing IM studies have matured in terms of theoretical performance, but not very realistic in real-world. First, existing IM diffusion models didn't consider the engagement level and activeness of the users. Secondly, there were no studies that compare activated users against actual influenced users on Instagram. To address both problems, three new realistic diffusion models are proposed, based on the Independent Cascade and Linear Threshold models, namely IC-u, LT-u and UAD models. This study was implemented using Instagram data. Meanwhile, UAD model uses two thresholds, namely user's awareness, and user's tendency. These models incorporate user's activeness and engagement factors that represent the susceptibility to influence and the degree of influence, respectively. The proposed models were proven to be up to 2.72x more realistic and produced more engaging and more active users. The seeds set (influencers) identified by the IM algorithms under the proposed models are expected to have more impact on an actual brand marketing campaign if compared to existing models. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据