Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Group recommender system.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Comparisons of state of the art schemes.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

System overview.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Notations and their meanings.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Neural Collaborative Filtering.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 3.

Rating matrix.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Genres.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Pearson similarity.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

FCM.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Similarity cluster 1.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Similarity cluster 2.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Actual group members ratings.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

Predicted group members ratings.

More »

Table 10 Expand

Table 11.

Predicted group ratings.

More »

Table 11 Expand

Table 12.

Values of parameters in the proposed model.

More »

Table 12 Expand

Table 13.

Results.

More »

Table 13 Expand

Table 14.

Cluster 2 results.

More »

Table 14 Expand

Fig 4.

Prediction accuracy.

(a) root mean square error and (b) mean absolute error.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Classification accuracy.

(a) precision and (b) recall.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Group size.

(a) F1-Score and (b) Varying Group Size.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 15.

Performance of HTGF by varying group size.

More »

Table 15 Expand

Table 16.

Performance of ALS by varying group size.

More »

Table 16 Expand

Table 17.

Performance of SVD by varying group size.

More »

Table 17 Expand

Table 18.

Statistical comparison of HTGF with baselines.

More »

Table 18 Expand

Fig 7.

Correct predictions by HTGF.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Wrong predictions by HTGF.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Mixed predictions by HTGF.

More »

Fig 9 Expand