2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.08.072
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Virtual user approach for group recommender systems using precedence relations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…13 The second approach constructs a joint user profile for all the group members by merging different individual's profiles or preferences and then generates recommendations for this artificial user standing for the whole group. 3 However, both strategies ignore the social influence between the group members when reaching a consensus. We overcome this limitation in our study by fully considering the role of social influence in 3 group recommender systems.…”
Section: Group Recommendationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…13 The second approach constructs a joint user profile for all the group members by merging different individual's profiles or preferences and then generates recommendations for this artificial user standing for the whole group. 3 However, both strategies ignore the social influence between the group members when reaching a consensus. We overcome this limitation in our study by fully considering the role of social influence in 3 group recommender systems.…”
Section: Group Recommendationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 Kagita and his colleagues proposed a novel virtual user strategy using precedence relations to develop a new scheme for group recommender systems. 3 Compared with recommendations made for individual users, numerous new issues arise with the advent of group recommendations. Among differences between individual and group recommender systems, one of the most significant is social influence, 4-6 a process in which people directly or indirectly influence thoughts, feelings, and actions of others.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the PLSA [31] was introduced, principal component analysis (PCA) [2], VarSelectSVD [3], and LTSMF [6] were proposed on top of the matrix decomposition approach. For group users, Venkateswara et al proposed a novel strategy using precedence relations and they show the performance of their algorithm is better in terms of precision and recall [33]. However, unlike LainRec, none of these methods considers the user/item influence level and influence dissemination.…”
Section: Robust Rssmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recommending to group of people and satisfying them is even more complicated than recommending to individuals. There are several ways of extending personal recommendation to a group recommendation [13], [14], [15] and are categorized into merging profiles, merging recommendation and merging results. Merge profiles approach creates the recommendation list from merging the profiles of each group member which in turn is based on individual ratings for content or genre.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Merge profiles approach creates the recommendation list from merging the profiles of each group member which in turn is based on individual ratings for content or genre. For instance, consider two user group [15], [16], [17]. In the merging recommendation approach, GRS first generates a recommendation for each user individually based on personalized profiles.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%