Real Talk, Virtual Faces: A Formal Concept Analysis of Personality and Sentiment in Influencer Audiences
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Virtual influencers~(VIs) -- digitally synthetic social-media personas -- attract audiences whose discourse appears qualitatively different from discourse around human influencers~(HIs). Existing work characterises this difference through surveys or aggregate engagement statistics, which reveal \emph{what} audiences say but not \emph{how} multiple signals co-occur. We propose a two-layer, structure-first framework grounded in Formal Concept Analysis~(FCA) and association rule mining. The first layer applies FCA with support-based iceberg filtering to weekly-aggregated comment data, extracting discourse profiles -- weekly co-occurrence bundles of sentiment, Big Five personality cues, and topic tags. The second layer mines association rules at the comment level, revealing personality--sentiment--topic dependencies invisible to frequency-table analysis. Applied to YouTube comments from three VI--HI influencer pairs, the two-layer analysis reveals a consistent structural divergence: HI discourse concentrates into a single, emotionally regulated (stability-centred) regime (low neuroticism anchoring positivity), while VI discourse supports three structurally distinct discourse modes, including an appearance-discourse cluster absent from HI despite near-equal marginal prevalence. Topic-specific analyses further show that VI contexts exhibit negative sentiment in psychologically sensitive domains (mental health, body image, artificial identity) relative to HI contexts. Our results position FCA as a principled tool for multi-signal discourse analysis and demonstrate that virtuality reshapes not just what audiences say, but the underlying grammar of how signals co-occur in their reactions.
Results and benchmarks
Virtual influencers~(VIs) -- digitally synthetic social-media personas -- attract audiences whose discourse appears qualitatively different from discourse around human influencers~(HIs).
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
None detected
Methods
None detected
Domains
Computer vision
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.