movie recommendation system research paper 2020

A comprehensive analysis on movie recommendation system employing collaborative filtering

• Published: 08 June 2021
• Volume 80 , pages 28647–28672, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Urvish Thakker 1 ,
• Ruhi Patel 1 &
• Manan Shah 2  

2250 Accesses

20 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Collaborative Filtering (CF) is one of the most extensively used technologies for Recommender Systems (RS), it shows an improved intelligent searching mechanism for recommending personalized items. It effectively makes use of the information retained by the application to find similarities between the sections of the application. Apart from RS, other applications of CF making use of the sensing and monitoring of data are environmental sensing, mineral study, financial services, marketing, and many more. Different industries like Tourism, Television, E-Learning, etc. make use of this technology, software such as Customer Relationship Management also make use of this technology. This paper discusses the prowess CF algorithm and its applications for Movie Recommendation System (MRS). It gives a brief overview of collaborative filtering consisting of two major approaches: user-based approach and Item-based approaches. Further, in model-based filtering methodology, it is discussed how machine learning algorithms can be implemented for movie recommendation purposes and also to predict the ratings of the unrated movies and bifurcate or sort movies as per the user preference. Followed by, it throws some light on the methodologies used in the late past and some of the basic approaches that are taken into consideration to incorporate it into MSR. Additionally, this paper anatomized many of the recent past studies in depth to draw out the essence of the researches and studies, its crucial steps, results, future scope and methodologies, followed and suggested by multiple researchers. Finally, we have discussed various challenges in MRS and probable future developments in this field. It is to be noted that various challenges in the field of CF recommendation systems like cold start, data sparsity, scalability issues, etc. were raised and many approaches tried to tackle these challenges in innovative and novel ways. Conclusively CF algorithm is a highly efficacious technique for the application of MRS and its integration with other techniques will lead students, researchers and enthusiasts to more cogent approaches for MRS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Movie Recommendation System

Movie Recommendation Using Content-Based and Collaborative Filtering

Optimization of Collaborative Filtering Algorithm in Movie Recommendation System

Data availability.

All relevant data and material are presented in the main paper.

Abbreviations

Explanation

Collaborative Filtering.

Recommender Systems.

Movie Recommendation System.

Markovian Factorization of Matrix Process.

Singular Value decomposition.

Root Mean Squared Error.

Mean Absolute Error.

Particle Swarm Optimization.

Fuzzy c-means.

Alternating Least Squares.

Genetic Algorithm.

Application Programming Interfaces.

Effective Missing Data Prediction.

Pearson Correlation Coefficient.

Mean Squared Error.

Pure Content Based.

Hellinger Coefficient Based Collaborative Filtering.

Standard Deviation.

Mean Average Precision.

Aesthetic Visual Features.

Audio Information.

Visual Information.

Editorial Metadata.

Combination of correlation-based item similarity approach and Similarity calculation based on the genre and director movies.

Modified Collaborative Filtering Algorithm.

User-Item Interaction Records.

Number of neighbours.

K-Nearest Neighbour.

Singular Value Decomposition.

True Positive Ratio.

False Positive Ratio.

Aggarwal CC, Aggarwal CC (2016) Content-based recommender systems. Recomm Syst 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29659-3_4

Ahn HJ A new similarity measure for collaborative filtering to alleviate the new user cold-starting problem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.07.024

Al-Bashiri H, Abdulgabber MA, Romli A, Kahtan H (2018) An improved memory-based collaborative filtering method based on the TOPSIS technique PLoS One 13:. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204434

Alhijawi B (2019) Improving collaborative filtering recommender system results using optimization technique. ACM Int Conf proceeding Ser 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1145/3369114.3369126

Aljunid MF, Manjaiah DH (2019) Data management, analytics and innovation, advances in intelligent systems and Computing. Springer, Singapore

Google Scholar  

Aljunid MF, Manjaiah DH (2019) Movie recommender system based on collaborative filtering using apache spark. Springer, Singapore

Book   Google Scholar  

Avery C (1997) Recom System 40:88–89

Aygün S, Okyay S (2015) Improving the Pearson similarity equation for recommender systems by age parameter. 2015 IEEE 3rd Workshop on Advances in Information. Electronic and Electrical Engineering (AIEEE) 2015:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIEEE.2015.7367282

Banweer K, Graham A, Ripberger J, Cesare N, Nsoesie E, Grant C (2018) Multi-stage collaborative filtering for tweet geolocation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSPATIAL Workshop on Recommendations for Location-based Services and Social Networks (LocalRec'18), vol 4. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282825.3282831

Barla M (2011) Towards social-based user modeling and personalization. Inf Sci Technol Bull ACM Slovakia 3:52–60

Beel J, Gipp B, Langer S, Breitinger C (2016) Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey. Int J Digit Libr 17:305–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-015-0156-0

Article   Google Scholar  

Bellogín A, Parapar J Using Graph Partitioning Techniques for Neighbour Selection in User-Based Collaborative Filtering

Billsus D, Billsus D, Pazzani MJ, Pazzani MJ (1998) Learning collaborative information filters. Proc Fifteenth Int Conf Mach Learn 54:47

MATH   Google Scholar  

Bobadilla J, Ortega F, Hernando A (2012) A collaborative filtering similarity measure based on singularities. Inf Process Manag 48:204–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2011.03.007

Breese JS, Heckerman D, Kadie C (2013) Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. 43–52

Cami BR, Hassanpour H, Mashayekhi H (2018) A content-based movie recommender system based on temporal user preferences. Proc - 3rd Iran Conf Signal Process Intell Syst ICSPIS 2017 2017-Decem:121–125. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSPIS.2017.8311601

Campos PG, Díez F, Cantador I (2014) Time-aware recommender systems: a comprehensive survey and analysis of existing evaluation protocols. User Model User-adapt Interact 24:67–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-012-9136-x

Chen YC, Hui L, Thaipisutikul T (2020) A collaborative filtering recommendation system with dynamic time decay. J Supercomput 77:244–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03266-2

Chen VX, Tang TY (2019) Incorporating singular value decomposition in user-based collaborative filtering technique for a movie recommendation system: a comparative study. In: ACM international conference proceeding series. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 12–15

Chen MH, Teng CH, Chang PC (2015) Applying artificial immune systems to collaborative filtering for movie recommendation. Adv Eng Inform 29:830–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.04.005

Chen HW, Wu YL, Hor MK, Tang CY (2017) Fully content-based movie recommender system with feature extraction using neural network. Proc 2017 Int Conf Mach learn Cybern ICMLC 2017 2:504–509. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLC.2017.8108968

Cho J, Roy S (2004) Impact of search engines on page popularity. Thirteen Int world wide web Conf proceedings, WWW2004 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/988672.988676

Christakou C, Stafylopatis A (2007) A hybrid movie recommender system based on neural networks 16:771–792

Claypool M, Gokhale A, Miranda T, et al (1999) Combing content-based and collaborative filters in an online newspaper

Cui G, Luo J, Wang X (2018) Personalized travel route recommendation using collaborative filtering based on GPS trajectories. Int J Digit Earth 11:284–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2017.1326535

Das D, Chidananda HT, Sahoo L (2018) Personalized movie recommendation system using twitter data. Springer, Singapore, pp 339–347

Deldjoo Y, Dacrema MF, Constantin MG, Eghbal-zadeh H, Cereda S, Schedl M, Ionescu B, Cremonesi P (2019) Movie genome: alleviating new item cold start in movie recommendation. User Model User-adapt Interact 29:291–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-019-09221-y

Devooght R, Bersini H (2016) Collaborative filtering with recurrent neural networks

Do MPT, Nguyen DV, Nguyen L (2010) Model-based approach for collaborative filtering. In: 6 th International Conference on Information Technology for Education, pp 217–228

Dou Y, Yang H, Deng X (2017) A Survey of Collaborative Filtering Algorithms for Social Recommender Systems. Proc - 2016 12th Int Conf Semant Knowl grids, SKG 2016 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/SKG.2016.014

Dwicahya I, Rosa PH, Nugroho R (2019) Movie recommender system comparison of user-based and item-based collaborative filtering systems. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.19-10-2018.2282541

Fernández-Tobías I, Braunhofer M, Elahi M, Ricci F, Cantador I (2016) Alleviating the new user problem in collaborative filtering by exploiting personality information. User Model User-adapt Interact 26:221–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-016-9172-z

Ferwerda B, Schedl M (2016) Personality-based user modeling for music recommender systems. In: Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (pp. 254–257). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46131-1_29

Gandhi S, Gandhi M (2018) Hybrid recommendation system with collaborative filtering and association rule mining using big data. 2018 3rd Int Conf Converg Technol I2CT 2018 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/I2CT.2018.8529683

Gao F, Xing C, Du X, Wang S (2007) Personalized service system based on hybrid filtering for digital library. Tsinghua Sci Technol 12:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1007-0214(07)70001-9

Geetha G, Safa M, Fancy C, Saranya D (2018, April) A hybrid approach using collaborative filtering and content based filtering for recommender system. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1000, No. 1, p. 012101). IOP Publishing. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1000/1/012101/meta

Ghazi MR, Gangodkar D (2015) Hadoop, mapreduce and HDFS: a developers perspective. Procedia Comput Sci 48:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.04.108

Gomez-Uribe CA, Hunt N (2016) The Netflix recommender system: algorithms, business value, and innovation. ACM Trans Manage Inf Syst 6(4):Article 13 (January 2016), 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2843948

Gong S (2010) A collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm based on user clustering and item clustering. J Softw 5:745–752. https://doi.org/10.4304/jsw.5.7.745-752

Gorbunov RD, Rauterberg M, Barakova EI (2019) A cognitive model of social preferences in group interactions. Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering 26(2):185–196. https://doi.org/10.3233/ICA-180590

Grčar M, Fortuna B, Mladenič D, Grobelnik M (2006) kNN versus SVM in the collaborative filtering framework. Data Sci Classif:251–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-34416-0_27

Gurcan F, Birturk AA (2015) A hybrid movie recommender using dynamic fuzzy clustering. Lect Notes Electr Eng 363:159–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22635-4_14

Hasan M, Tasdikul Hasan M, Selim Reza M, et al (2019) A comprehensive collaborative filtering approach using autoencoder in recommender system. ACM Int Conf proceeding Ser 185–189. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330482.3330518

He X, Liao L, Zhang H, et al (2017) Neural collaborative filtering. 26th Int world wide web Conf WWW 2017 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1145/3038912.3052569

Herlocker JL, Konstan JA, Riedl J (2000) Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. Proc ACM Conf Comput Support Coop Work:241–250. https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.358995

Hill W, Stead L, Rosenstein M, Furnas G (1995) Recommending and evaluating choices in a virtual community of use. Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst - Proc 1:194–201. https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223929

Himel MT, Uddin MN, Hossain MA, Jang YM (2017) Weight based movie recommendation system using K-means algorithm. In: 2017 international conference on information and communication technology convergence (ICTC). IEEE, pp 1302–1306

Hu B, Li Z, Chao W (2012) Data sparsity: A key disadvantage of user-based collaborative filtering? Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics) 7235 LNCS:602–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29253-8_55

Hu Y, Xiong F, Lu D, Wang X, Xiong X, Chen H (2020a) Movie collaborative filtering with multiplex implicit feedbacks. Neurocomputing 398:485–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.03.098

Lim KH, Chan J, Leckie C, Karunasekera S (2015a) Personalized tour recommendation based on user interests and points of interest visit durations. In: Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 1–7

Jafar O (n.d.) Emerging RS-P of IC on, 2013 undefined A comparative study of hard and fuzzy data clustering algorithms with cluster validity indices

Jain KN, Kumar V, Kumar P, Choudhury T (2018) Movie recommendation system: hybrid information filtering system. Adv Intell Syst Comput 673:677–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7245-1_66

Jiang J, Lu J, Zhang G, Long G (2011) Scaling-up item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm based on Hadoop. Proc - 2011 IEEE world Congr Serv Serv 2011 490–497. https://doi.org/10.1109/SERVICES.2011.66

Jones MT (2013) Recommender systems , Part 1 : Introduction to approaches and algorithms Learn about the concepts that underlie web recommendation engines. 1–8

Kannan R, Ghinea G, Swaminathan S (2015) What do you wish to see? A summarization system for movies based on user preferences. Inf Process Manag 51:286–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2014.12.001

Katarya R, Verma OP (2016) A collaborative recommender system enhanced with particle swarm optimization technique. Multimed Tools Appl 75:9225–9239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3481-4

Katarya R, Verma OP (2017) An effective collaborative movie recommender system with cuckoo search. Egypt Inform J 18:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eij.2016.10.002

Kermarrec AM, Leroy V, Moin A, Thraves C (2010a) Application of random walks to decentralized recommender systems. In: Lu C, Masuzawa T, Mosbah M (eds) Principles of distributed systems. OPODIS 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6490. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17653-1_4

Kharita MK, Kumar A, Singh P (2018a) Item-based collaborative filtering in movie recommendation in real time. In: 2018 First International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC), pp 340–342. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSCCC.2018.8703362

Konstan JA, Miller BN, Maltz D, Herlocker JL, Gordon LR, Riedl J (1997a) Grouplens: Applying collaborative filtering to usenet news. Communications of the ACM 40(3):77–87. https://doi.org/10.1145/245108.245126

Koohi H, Kiani K (2016) User based collaborative filtering using fuzzy C-means. Meas J Int Meas Confed 91:134–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.05.058

Koren Y, Bell R, Volinsky C (2009) COVER feature matrix techniques for. 30–37

Kunaver M, Tasic J, Kosir A, et al (2009) Personality based user similarity measure for a collaborative recommender system

Lee D, Hosanagar K (2014a) Impact of recommender systems on sales volume and diversity. In: Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, pp 1–15

Lekakos G, Caravelas P (2008a) A hybrid approach for movie recommendation. Multimed Tools Appl 36:55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-006-0082-7

Leng Y, Liang C, Ding Y, et al Method of neighborhood formation in collaborative filtering

Li J, Xu W, Wan W, Sun J (2018) Movie recommendation based on bridging movie feature and user interest. J Comput Sci 26:128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2018.03.009

Liang T, Wu S, Cao D Applied in Movie Recommender System. 427–432

Lin C-H, Chi H (2020) A novel movie recommendation system based on collaborative filtering and neural networks. In: International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications. Springer International Publishing, pp. 895–903

Linden G, Smith B, York J (2003) Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Comput 7:76–80. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2003.1167344

Liu H, Kong X, Bai X, Wang W, Bekele TM, Xia F (2015) Context-based collaborative filtering for citation recommendation. IEEE Access 3:1695–1703. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2481320

Liu G, Wu X (2019) Using collaborative filtering algorithms combined with Doc2Vec for movie recommendation. Proc 2019 IEEE 3rd Inf Technol networking. Electron Autom Control Conf ITNEC 2019:1461–1464. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITNEC.2019.8729076

Lops P, Jannach D, Musto C, Bogers T, Koolen M (2019) Trends in content-based recommendation: preface to the special issue on recommender systems based on rich item descriptions. User Model User-adapt Interact 29:239–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-019-09231-w

Maheswari M, Geetha S, Selva Kumar S (2019) Adaptable and proficient Hellinger coefficient based collaborative filtering for recommendation system. Clust Comput 22:12325–12338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-017-1616-7

Moshfeghi Y, Piwowarski B, Jose JM (2011) Handling data sparsity in collaborative filtering using emotion and semantic based features. In: SIGIR’11 - proceedings of the 34th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in information retrieval. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 625–634

Mu R, Zeng X (2020) Auxiliary stacked denoising autoencoder based collaborative filtering recommendation. KSII Trans Internet Inf Syst 14:2310–2332. https://doi.org/10.3837/tiis.2020.06.001

Nguyen QN, Duong-Trung N, Le Ha DN et al (2020) Movie recommender systems made through tag interpolation. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on machine learning and soft computing. ACM, New York, pp 154–158

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Nilashi M, Bagherifard K, Ibrahim O et al (2013) Collaborative filtering recommender systems. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 5:4168–4182. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.5.4644

Özbal G, Karaman H, Alpaslan FN (2011) A content-boosted collaborative filtering approach for movie recommendation based on local and global similarity and missing data prediction. The Computer Journal 54(9):1535–1546. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxr001

Pan Y, He F, Yu H (2019) A novel enhanced collaborative autoencoder with knowledge distillation for top-N recommender systems. Neurocomputing 332:137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.12.025

Pan Y, He F, Yu H (2020) A correlative denoising autoencoder to model social influence for top-N recommender system. Front Comput Sci 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-019-8123-3

Pan Y, He F, Yu H (2020) Learning social representations with deep autoencoder for recommender system. World Wide Web 23:2259–2279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-020-00793-z

Papadakis H, Michalakis N, Fragopoulou P, et al (2017) Movie SCoRe: Personalized movie recommendation on mobile devices ACM Int Conf Proceeding Ser Part F1325: https://doi.org/10.1145/3139367.3139383

Patra S, Ganguly B (2019) Improvising singular value decomposition by KNN for use in movie recommender systems. J Oper Strateg Plan 2:22–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2516600x19848956

Pirasteh P, Jung JJ, Hwang D (2014) Item-based collaborative filtering with attribute correlation: A case study on movie recommendation. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics) 8398 LNAI:245–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05458-2_26

Ponnam LT, Deepak Punyasamudram S, Nallagulla SN, Yellamati S (2016) Movie recommender system using item based collaborative filtering technique. 1st Int Conf Emerg trends Eng Technol Sci ICETETS 2016 - Proc 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETETS.2016.7602983

Purnomo JE, Endah SN (2019) Rating prediction on movie recommendation system: collaborative filtering algorithm (CFA) vs. Dissymetrical percentage collaborative filtering algorithm (DSPCFA). ICICOS 2019 - 3rd Int Conf informatics Comput Sci Accel informatics Comput res smarter Soc era Ind 40, Proc 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICoS48119.2019.8982385

Ren X, Dai Y, Ning D, Chen Y (2016) Course selection of students based on collaborative filtering. 594–597. https://doi.org/10.2991/emcs-16.2016.144

Resnick P, Iacovou N, Suchak M, et al (1994) GroupLens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. Proc 1994 ACM Conf Comput support coop work CSCW 1994 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1145/192844.192905

Resnick P, Varian HR, Editors G (1997) Recommender Systems mmende tems. Commun ACM 40:56–58

Ricci F, Rokach L, Shapira B (2011) Recommender Systems Handbook

Rich E (1979) User modeling via stereotypes. Cogn Sci 3:329–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(79)80012-9

Ruotsalo T, Haav K, Stoyanov A, Roche S, Fani E, Deliai R, Mäkelä E, Kauppinen T, Hyvönen E (2013) SMARTMUSEUM: a mobile recommender system for the web of data. J Web Semant 20:50–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2013.03.001

Sanchez JL, Ferradilla S, Martinez E, Bobadilla J (2008) Choice of metrics used in collaborative filtering and their impact on recommender systems. In: 2008 2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies, pp 432–436. https://doi.org/10.1109/DEST.2008.4635147

Prateek S, Sadhwani Y, Arora P (2017) Movie recommender system. Search Engine Architecture, Spring 2017:1–5

Sarwar B, Karypis G, Konstan J, Riedl J (2001) Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, pp 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1145/371920.372071

Schafer BJ, Frankowski D, Herlocker J, Sen S (2007) Collaborative filtering recommender systems - CollaborativeFilteringRecommenderSystems.Pdf. Lncs 4321:291–324

Schwartz B (2005) The paradox of choice. Why More is Less American Mania . When More is Not Enough. Finance 265

Shani G, Gunawardana A (2011) Recommender Systems Handbook

Shardanand U, Maes P (1995) Social information filtering: algorithms for automating “word of mouth”. Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst - Proc 1:210–217

Sheugh L, Alizadeh SH (2015) A note on Pearson correlation coefficient as a metric of similarity in recommender system. 2015 AI robot IRANOPEN 2015 - 5th Conf Artif Intell robot. https://doi.org/10.1109/RIOS.2015.7270736

Shi Y, Larson M, Hanjalic A (2014) Collaborative filtering beyond the user-item matrix: a survey of the state of the art and future challenges. ACM Comput Surv 47:1–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556270

Marko B, Shoham Y (1997) Fab: content-based, collaborative recommendation. Communications of the ACM 40(3):66–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/245108.245124

Shristi JAK, Mohanty SN (2018) A collaborative filtering approach for movies recommendation based on user clustering and item clustering. Springer, Singapore

Singh VK, Mukherjee M, Mehta GK (2011) Combining collaborative filtering and sentiment classification for improved movie recommendations. In: Sombattheera C, Agarwal A, Udgata SK, Lavangnananda K (eds) Multi-disciplinary Trends in Artificial Intelligence. MIWAI 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7080. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25725-4_4

Stakhiyevich P, Huang Z (2019) An experimental study of building user profiles for movie recommender 898 system. In: In: Proc - 21st IEEE Int Conf high perform Comput Commun 17th IEEE Int Conf Smart City 5 th 899 IEEE Int Conf data Sci Syst HPCC/SmartCity/DSS, vol 5, pp 2559–2565. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCC/900SmartCity/DSS.2019.00358

Su X, Khoshgoftaar TM (2009) A survey of collaborative filtering techniques. Adv Artif Intell 2009:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/421425

Subramaniyaswamy V, Logesh R, Chandrashekhar M, Challa A, Vijayakumar V (2017) A personalised movie recommendation system based on collaborative filtering. Int J High Perform Comput Netw 10:54–63. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHPCN.2017.083199

Tao L, Jiao M, Dai Y, Gao C (2017) A multilayer collaborative filtering recommendation method in electricity market. Proc - 13th web Inf Syst Appl Conf WISA 2016 - conjunction with 1st Symp big data process anal BDPA 2016 1st work Inf Syst Secur ISS 2016 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1109/WISA.2016.20

Ungar LH, Foster DP (1998) Clustering methods for collaborative filtering. AAAI Workshop on Recommendation Systems 1:114–129

Uyangoda L, Ahangama S, Ranasinghe T (2018) User profile feature-based approach to address the cold start problem in collaborative filtering for personalized movie recommendation. In: 2018 13th Int Conf digit Inf Manag ICDIM, pp 24–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDIM.2018.8847002

Uyangoda L, Ahangama S, Ranasinghe T User Profile Feature-Based Approach to Address the Cold Start Problem in Collaborative Filtering for Personalized Movie Recommendation

Vimala S V, Vivekanandan K (2019) A Kullback–Leibler divergence-based fuzzy C-means clustering for enhancing the potential of an movie recommendation system SN Appl Sci 1:. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0708-9

Vincent P, Larochelle H, Lajoie I, Bengio Y, Manzagol P (2010) Stacked denoising autoencoders: Learning useful representations in a deep network with a local denoising criterion. J Mach Learn Res 11:3371–3408

Wang L, Meng X, Zhang Y (2011) A heuristic approach to social network-based and context-aware mobile services recommendation. J Converg Inf Technol 6:339–346. https://doi.org/10.4156/jcit.vol6.issue10.43

Wang J, Reinders MJT, De Vries AP (2006) Unifying user-based and item-based collaborative filtering approaches by similarity fusion the brain in Duchenne muscular dystrophy view project VITALAS view project unifying user-based and item-based collaborative filtering approaches by similarity fusion. https://doi.org/10.1145/1148170.1148257

Wang H, Wang N, Yeung DY (2015) Collaborative deep learning for recommender systems. Proc ACM SIGKDD Int Conf Knowl Discov Data Min 2015-Augus:1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.1145/2783258.2783273

Wang Z, Yu X, Feng N, Wang Z (2014) An improved collaborative movie recommendation system using computational intelligence. J Vis Lang Comput 25:667–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.09.011

Weber I, Castillo C (2010) The demographics of web search. SIGIR 2010 Proc - 33rd Annu Int ACM SIGIR Conf res Dev Inf Retr 523–530. https://doi.org/10.1145/1835449.1835537

Wei J, He J, Chen K, Zhou Y, Tang Z (2017) Collaborative filtering and deep learning based recommendation system for cold start items. Elsevier. 69:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.09.040,

Weng S-S, Lee C (2013) Integration of content-based approach and hybrid collaborative filtering for movie recommendation. Int Conf Bus Inf

Wu C-SM, Garg D, Bhandary U (2018) Movie recommendation system using collaborative filtering. In: 2018 IEEE 9th international conference on software engineering and service science (ICSESS). IEEE, pp 11–15

Xiao P, Shao L, Li X (2013) Improved collaborative filtering algorithm in the research and application of personalized movie recommendations. Proc - 2013 4th Int Conf Intell Syst des Eng Appl ISDEA 2013 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDEA.2013.483

Yang C, Akimoto Y, Kim DW, Udell M (2019) OBoe: collaborative filtering for automl model selection. Proc ACM SIGKDD Int Conf Knowl Discov Data Min:1173–1183. https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330909

Yang Z, Wu B, Zheng K, Wang X, Lei L (2016) A survey of collaborative filtering-based recommender systems for mobile internet applications. IEEE Access 4:3273–3287. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2573314

Yingyuan X, Pengqiang AI, Hsu C, et al (2015) II. RELATED WORK 2.1 content-based recommendation. 53–62

Yu L, Liu L, Li X (2005) A hybrid collaborative filtering method for multiple-interests and multiple-content recommendation in E-commerce. Expert Syst Appl 28:67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2004.08.013

Yu K, Schwaighofer A, Tresp V et al (2004) Probabilistic Memory-Based Collaborative Filtering 16:56–69

Zanitti M, Kosta S, Sørensen J (2018) A user-centric diversity by design recommender system for the movie application domain. Web Conf 2018 - companion world wide web Conf WWW 2018 1381–1389. https://doi.org/10.1145/3184558.3191580

Zargany E, Ahmadi A (2015) A new modular neural network approach for exchange rate prediction. Int J Electron Financ 8:97–123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEF.2015.070515

Zhao D, Xiu J, Zhengqiu Y, Liu C (2017) An improved user-based movie recommendation algorithm. 2016 2nd IEEE Int Conf Comput Commun ICCC 2016 - Proc 874–877. https://doi.org/10.1109/CompComm.2016.7924828

Zhou T, Chen L, Shen J (2017) Movie recommendation system employing the user-based CF in cloud computing. Proc - 2017 IEEE Int Conf Comput Sci Eng IEEE/IFIP Int Conf embed ubiquitous Comput CSE EUC 2017 2:46–50. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSE-EUC.2017.194

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Nirma University, and Department of Chemical Engineering School of Technology, Pandit Deendayal Energy University for the permission to publish this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Information Technolgy, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

Urvish Thakker & Ruhi Patel

Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Technology, Pandit Deendayal Energy University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382426, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors make substantial contribution in this manuscript. UT, RP and MS participated in drafting the manuscript. UT and RP wrote the main manuscript, all the authors discussed the results and implication on the manuscript at all stages.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manan Shah .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Thakker, U., Patel, R. & Shah, M. A comprehensive analysis on movie recommendation system employing collaborative filtering. Multimed Tools Appl 80 , 28647–28672 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-10965-2

Download citation

Received : 26 June 2020

Revised : 30 October 2020

Accepted : 14 April 2021

Published : 08 June 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-10965-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Collaborative filtering
• Recommender systems
• Movie recommendation system
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

A hybrid group-based movie recommendation framework with overlapping memberships

1 Department of Computer Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus, Pakistan

Osman Khalid

Imran ali khan, syed sajid hussain, faisal rehman, sajid siraj.

2 Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

Raheel Nawaz

3 Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and at the following website: https://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens/1m/ .

Recommender Systems (RS) are widely used to help people or group of people in finding their required information amid the issue of ever-growing information overload. The existing group recommender approaches consider users to be part of a single group only, but in real life a user may be associated with multiple groups having conflicting preferences. For instance, a person may have different preferences in watching movies with friends than with family. In this paper, we address this problem by proposing a Hybrid Two-phase Group Recommender Framework (HTGF) that takes into consideration the possibility of users having simultaneous membership of multiple groups. Unlike the existing group recommender systems that use traditional methods like K-Means, Pearson correlation, and cosine similarity to form groups, we use Fuzzy C-means clustering which assigns a degree of membership to each user for each group, and then Pearson similarity is used to form groups. We demonstrate the usefulness of our proposed framework using a movies data set. The experiments were conducted on MovieLens 1M dataset where we used Neural Collaborative Filtering to recommend Top-k movies to each group. The results demonstrate that our proposed framework outperforms the traditional approaches when compared in terms of group satisfaction parameters, as well as the conventional metrics of precision, recall, and F-measure.

Introduction

The last two decades have witnessed a growth in data due to increased use of online applications including e-commerce, online social networks, and multimedia streaming. The information on websites is overwhelming due to which users often find it difficult to access the content of their choice. Information overload is an increasing problem of knowledge engineering that cannot be ignored as users are more interested in finding only relevant information.

Recommender Systems (RS) [ 1 , 2 ] are mathematical models developed in late 90s to compute recommendations for a user that are closely related to the user’s preferences. After the announcement of Netflix Prize, RS have received great attention in industries and academia [ 3 ]. Numerous factors are involved while computing recommendation for a user, such as a user’s interests, mood, tastes, and similarity with other users, to name a few [ 4 ]. The existing literature takes into account the aforementioned factors to improve the recommendation quality. Generally, the existing schemes can be categorized as Collaborative Filtering (CF), Content Based Filtering, and Hybrid Models [ 5 ]. The CF based methods consider like-minded users and then recommend items by aggregating the preferences of similar users, while content-based models perform recommendations based on similarity of items that the user has interacted with in the past [ 6 ]. Hybrid recommender systems combine the recommendations of various approaches, and then recommend Top-k items.

Research problem

Most RS were designed to provide recommendations for individual users. However, people are more social, and activities in group become an important part of daily life [ 7 ]. For instance, people find it more entertaining to visit restaurants, picnic spots, trip sites, or watch movies in groups [ 8 , 9 ]. As more and more people are getting connected on online social networks, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. new avenues of research are opened in the domain of group recommender systems. In recent years, the availability of numerous movie streaming companies, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, Disney+, and so on, have attracted the interest of research community towards movie recommender systems. Most of the existing recommender systems focus on recommending movie to individual users based on their individualized preferences and past ratings. However, recommending movie to a group is still a challenging problem, as it is constrained by the numerous factors, such as conflicting preferences, timing, and moods of individual members in the group [ 7 ]. Generally, users’ preferences are contextually dynamic in nature. For instance, the point of interest (POI) preferred for friends may be different from the POI preferred for families. Moreover, users may have similar preferences for one locality and diverse preferences for other locality.

Several existing works consider locality information while computing recommendations. For example, Ramesh et al . [ 10 ], proposed a Hierarchical Contextual Location Recommendation System termed as HiRecS. They proposed hierarchical aggregation technique, where the root node represents Top-k recommended locations. The subsequent levels split the preferences based on different localities. The authors applied hierarchical clustering to cover the dynamic preferences of users. However, HiRecs is computationally expensive in terms of processing. In [ 11 ], the authors proposed an influence based group recommender framework. The authors created a trust metric and identified leader in a group to calculate influential ratings of group members on items and applied average aggregation to recommend Top-k items. Moreover, the authors used memory based technique and calculated influential ratings in order to recommend movies. However, the memory based approaches are negatively affected with data sparsity.

In recent years, several deep learning based models are proposed that help in better capturing of hidden features and relationships between user and items [ 12 , 13 ]. The authors in [ 14 ] proposed a deep learning algorithm to recommend movies to a group of users. They considered the user ratings, user consumption ratio, and user preferences while building the system. K-means clustering is applied on users ratings to group users with similar preferences in movies. However, k-means clustering forms spherical clusters and does not deal with arbitrary shaped data. Dutta et al . proposed a model for recommending movies to group of users by extracting the semantic information, such as tags assigned to each movie by users [ 15 ]. The proposed model relied on semantic information, i.e., it did not cope with noisy tags. In [ 16 ], the authors proposed a Top-N-Rec model that uses the content-based and collaborative filtering to generate parallel recommendations, and then recommendation from both approaches are merged to generate the final recommendations. However, the proposed model does not perform well with sparse data. Several works have been proposed in recent years to utilize transformer based methods that perform Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks on users’ feedbacks to compute ratings (e.g., [ 17 – 19 ]). However, the applications of transformer methods on group-based movie recommender systems have not been explored much.

It can be observed from the above discussion that despite significant progress, the traditional group recommender systems suffer from performance issues, such as data sparsity, scalability, and cold-start problem [ 20 ] as they mostly target a single type of relation. For instance, Boltzmann machine considers either user-to-user or user-to-item relation. Alternatively, matrix factorization explicitly captures interactions among user to items [ 21 ]. However, with sparse data this results low quality predictions. A key factor is the selection of similarity metrics to form groups. Most of the existing group recommender systems utilize traditional methods, such as cosine similarity, K-Means, Jaccard similarity, etc. for creating groups (e.g., [ 15 , 22 , 23 ]). Such approaches result in less efficient group formation when the dataset is sparse [ 11 ].

In recent years, there has been a growing inclination towards model-based group recommender systems. Due to the implicit feature learning of neural networks, researchers have applied these models for solving recommendation problems [ 24 ]. Most of the existing model-based schemes utilize matrix-factorization methods whose estimation based mechanisms result in low prediction accuracy in cold start and sparsity scenarios [ 25 – 27 ]. In [ 28 ], the authors captured the fairness among group members by using SVD++ model. However, the model lacked in capturing the implicit hidden features between users that negatively affected the prediction accuracy.

The existing literature contains limited work on group-based movie recommender systems. Moreover, most of the current studies consider a user to be part of a single group only, but in reality, a user may be associated with multiple groups. For instance, a user may have different preferences in watching a movie with friends or family. The existing group recommender system employ various methods, such as k-clique, cosine similarity, Jaccard similarity, etc., to form groups. Such methods allow a user to be part of distinct groups, whereas in real-world scenarios, a user may be part of overlapping groups. These scenarios are handled in our proposed movie-based group recommender system.

Contributions

To overcome the aforementioned issues, we propose a novel Hybrid Two-phase Group recommender Framework (HTGF) for movie recommendations. The proposed framework makes use of deep neural networks to efficiently perform model learning based on explicit preferences of members as their ratings, movies’ features, and implicit preferences, such as interaction of group members. The intra-group similarity presents a unique challenge in group recommendations as the users’ interest may overlap onto different groups. To improve intra-group similarity in group formation, we apply a combination of Fuzzy c-means clustering (FCM) and Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) [ 11 ], which helps in diverse membership degree of each and every individual, concerned with distinct clusters. The model exhibits some degree of generalization by allowing a user to be part of multiple groups, which has not been the case in the existing movie-based group recommender systems. The data sparseness issue is addressed in the proposed model by utilizing latent factors of users and movies to overcome negative effects of sparsity, thereby improving the prediction accuracy. Fig 1 describes the general overview of group recommendation process consisting of two phases.

The Phase 1 is group formation that uses a combination of PCC and FCM clustering thereby allowing the users to have multiple groups. The Phase 2 is group recommendation in which Neural Collaborative Filtering (NCF)-based approach is used to predict the ratings of unrated items of group [ 29 ], and average aggregation strategy is applied to recommend Top-k items. The main contributions of our work are summarized as follows.

• We utilize deep learning to develop a group-based movie recommender system, HTGF, which efficiently captures the implicit and explicit features of movie and preferences of end users.
• We address the intra-group similarity issue by using a combination of FCM and PCC, and the proposed system allows a user to be part of different groups.
• To efficiently capture the implicit preferences between group members and to improve prediction accuracy, we utilized NCF.
• To address data sparsity, we use the latent vectors of users and movies by converting them into low dimensional vector space, which are input to NCF to improve the prediction accuracy.
• An enhanced average aggregation strategy is presented to generate top-K recommendations.
• We present statistical tests to display the statistical significance of our results.
• We performed comparisons with existing schemes and results indicate that our model outperforms the baseline approaches.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section II presents the related work. Section III presents the overview of HTGF, and Section IV presents the proposed model. In Section V, we present the performance metrics with the experimental results, and Section VI concludes the paper.

Related work

In this section, some the recent works on group recommender systems and their shortcomings are discussed. Initially, we discuss the approaches used for group formation. Then, some of existing proposals for group recommendation are presented, and finally transformer-based approaches using NLP for recommendations are discussed. A comparison table is included at the end of the section presenting a concise summary of state-of-the-art and their limitations.

Group formation

Most of the existing datasets, such as MovieLens [ 30 ], Yelp [ 31 ], Trip Advisor [ 32 ], and CAMRa2011 [ 33 ] do not contain any explicit information about members’ relation with each other. More specifically, there is no predefined or ready-made group membership information available in such datasets. Researchers mostly employed various clustering techniques to form groups. The clustering methods usually applied in group recommender systems consists of partition-based methods [ 34 , 35 ], such as k-mean and C-boost [ 36 , 37 ], hierarchy based methods [ 38 , 39 ], e.g., bottom up clustering [ 40 ], Density based methods like DBSCAN, Grid based [ 41 ], and model based [ 42 ]. Despite having benefits, the aforementioned models have some limitations.

For example, in k-means, advanced selection of cluster centers makes it simple and efficient, but only spherical clusters can be formed. In the bottom-up clustering [ 38 , 39 ], each data point is known as a cluster, then distance between all the data points is measured and combined until all the clusters are merged into one cluster. However, the efficiency of bottom-up clustering is low because the time complexity for clustering is very high. DBSCAN bests suits for arbitrary shaped clustering, but it has high cost of time. Moreover, the aforementioned clustering approaches for group formation associate a user with a single group but in reality a user may have multiple groups. To address these limitations, our proposed model assigns a user to different groups, so that a users’ preferences are properly reflected in a group based on his/her membership score.

Group recommendation

Recommender systems have been widely applied in various domains such as, medical diagnosis, e-tourism, and multimedia streaming applications, etc. In literature, most of the studies were conducted on individual recommendations, but limited research is performed on group recommendation [ 43 ]. At present, group recommendations can be generally classified into Memory-based and Model-based [ 44 , 45 ]. Memory-based methods in group recommendations are further divided into Preference Aggregation (PA) method [ 46 ] and Score-Aggregation (SA) method [ 47 ]. The PA method aggregates the profiles of all group members into a single group profile, and then generate recommendation for the group. The SA method aggregates the scores based on a predefined strategy to predict group preferences. Common aggregation strategies are average (AVG) [ 48 ], most pleasure (MP) [ 49 ], least misery (LM) [ 50 ], etc. However, aggregation methods have some shortcomings: (a) they cannot capture the implicit preferences among group members and (b) it is hard to construct group preference model effectively through aggregation strategies due to sparsity of user explicit feedback.

In past few years, a few model-based methods are proposed to capture the implicit preferences among group members. Minjae et al . [ 23 ] proposed a deep learning algorithm based on Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), which learns the movie consumption patterns of users, and then recommend movies according to extracted features. They created groups by measuring the similarity between group members based on ratings of similar movie preferences [ 23 ]. After performing clustering, the authors applied RNN to learn the movie consumption behavior of each specific group of users. By considering the shift in tastes over time, the authors enhanced prediction accuracy. However, the proposed model predicted a limited set of movies with less accuracy [ 23 ]. The authors in [ 25 ] evaluated aggregation strategies: average and most pleasure, on two baseline models Alternating Least Squares (ALS) and Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). For clustering, they applied cosine similarity, and for recommendation they used two baseline models. Based on results they concluded that average strategy produces better results than MP, and SVD model predicted more accurate ratings than ALS.

In recent years, the research community has widely applied deep learning to the recommender systems, which helps in capturing hidden features and implicit relationships between users and items. Huang et al . proposed a mutli attention-based group recommender model that considered preference interactions and sociality between group members [ 51 ]. The proposed system utilized multiattention-based neural network model to train group feature and preference learning modules for groups on items. The deep semantic feature for each group is learned. However, the system is complex as it utilizes a neural network for each social attribute of the members. Moreover, the recommendation performance is degraded by using lesser number of sub-features.

It can observed from the aforementioned discussion that the deep learning based models are mostly applied to recommender systems to provide individual recommendations. However, the applications of deep learning to group recommender systems are under-explored due to the specific challenges of group recommender systems, where preference of each member has to be taken care of to estimate an overall recommendation for the group. Most of the existing deep learning based approaches have some performance deficiencies caused by their failure to capture implicit interactions among group members and poor preference estimations between groups and their members. To address these issues, the proposed group recommendation framework HTGF uses NCF that considers latent features to capture implicit relationships among group members and movies. This mechanism improves the prediction accuracy and minimizes the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE).

Transformer-based approaches

Over recent years, the increase in social media and e-commerce websites have initiated a paradigm shift in recommender system research towards transformer-based approaches that utilize NLP tasks to extract users’ preferential information [ 52 – 56 ]. For instance, Aipe et al . proposed a sentiment-aware recommendation model to develop a patient assisted health-care system [ 17 ]. The proposed model performs sentiment-based scoring on the information extracted from the medical forum. A deep learning model comprising of CNN is proposed for sentiment analysis, followed by LSTM for the classification of data into specific sentiment class. Top-n similar posts are retrieved for a blog classified with positive sentiment, and a probabilistic model is developed to suggest treatments for specific health condition. However, the model can suffer with anomalies due to lack of any standard procedure for dataset annotation. Moreover, no details are provided about the source of the dataset and the quantitative evaluation of the suggested modules.

In [ 18 ], the authors proposed a financial product recommendation system, namely R-Transformer, based on transformer approach. The proposed system generates user and financial product state vectors based on historical interaction sequence of users and financial products. The resultant vectors are high-dimensional and sparse, and therefore a pre-processing phase is introduced to reduce the dimensionality using autoencoder. The processed data is input to the transformer layer to compute user financial products’ score vector by utilizing time-series information. However, the source of financial data and its attributes are not clearly defined. The authors in [ 19 ] performed a comparison of content-based recommendation systems that are based on: (a) Vector Space Model (VSM), (b) Bidirectional Recurrent Neural Networks (BRNN), and (c) a semantic-aware recommendation system that uses Linked Open Data (LOD)-based textual descriptions of items, and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) for language modeling. The BERT textual classification is performed using the paragraphs as input, and cold start problem is addressed by increasing the availability of textual data. The results indicated better performance of BERT-based content recommendation system on movie data.

Lin et al . compared the performance of popular open-source machine learning libraries, such as Scikit-learn and TensorFlow [ 57 ]. The authors evaluated the advantages, error measures, and processing times of the aforementioned tools. It was concluded in the study that Scikit-learn could be a better choice for traditional machine learning approaches, and TensorFlow is good for neural networks. In [ 58 ], the authors proposed a method of automatically computing features from a video file by using MPEG-7 visual descriptors and deep learning-based hidden layers. The aim is to analyze a movie stream content and extract a set of low-level features, which can be used to make personalized recommendations as per a user’s preferences. However, the process requires high computation and processing time to extract features from full-length movies, making it a computationally expensive task. Fu et al . proposed a CF-recommendation model based on deep learning [ 21 ]. The model consists of first building a user-item low dimensional vector by using word embedding in NLP based on context of the user. The context is captured from user-user co-occurrence information in the past. Similarly, the knowledge of items is obtained by observing the past item-item co-occurrence. In the second phase, feed-forward neural network is developed to generate prediction from pre-learned embedded vectors of users and items. The model attempted to improve the prediction accuracy at the higher cost of computational complexity.

The aforementioned recommendation systems are designed with an aim to perform individual recommendations, whereas our main focus is towards group recommendation. Moreover, the models employed sentiment analysis to compute ratings which can lead to increased complexity in the case of group recommendation systems, where certain tradeoffs need to be taken into account to reach a consensus among group members. Table 1 presents a summary and limitations of recent state-of-the-art schemes.

HTGF framework

The overall architecture of our proposed HTGF is shown in Fig 2 . The whole process consists of two phases: (a) group formation and (b) group recommendation. Group recommendation is a complex process and many factors can effect the performance of group recommendations. Selecting an appropriate similarity measure to form group is the key component of any group recommendation system.

In group formation, a user may be associated with multiple groups. Users’ preferences vary from group to group. For instance, a user has different preferences while watching a movie with friends, and may have different interests while watching movie with family. We used FCM [ 63 ] to represent user to group associations. FCM assigns a membership value to each user corresponding to each group. Initially, we have calculated the mean genre ratings of users, and then apply FCM to cluster users into multiple groups by assigning membership value to users in each cluster. After calculating the membership value, we applied PCC to select the highly similar users to a user u . Top-k users similar to u were selected to form group. Group rating matrix is sparse, so to predict the ratings of unrated movies, we apply NCF [ 29 ] to group ratings and train it on group members ratings. After learning the implicit preferences of group members, NCF predicts the ratings of movies. To compute the group rating on item i we apply average aggregation strategy, as shown in Fig 2 . The average ratings of every movie is calculated, and based on that Top-k movies are recommended to the group. Table 2 shows the notations and their meanings used in the subsequent text.

Proposed model

The existing datasets do not have any explicitly embedded information to represent groups. In literature, researchers proposed various clustering methods to form groups [ 64 ]. One of the popular and well-known algorithm is FCM, as it generates better results than k-means [ 11 ]. The FCM is applied to cluster users into groups i.e., friends or family. For instance, a person has different preferences while watching a movie with friends, and may have a different taste while watching a movie with family. In FCM, users are split into c number of clusters by allowing a user to have membership corresponding to each cluster. The objective function O of FCM is as follows.

Where c is the total number of clusters, n is the total number of users, m is the fuzziness parameter (1.25 ≤ m ≤ 2). Eq (3) states that the total membership value of each user corresponding to each group is one. The objective function must be minimized.

Where v i is the i th cluster center, and μ ik ∈ M , is the membership value of user k to the cluster i . A detailed explanation of Fuzzy C-means can be found in [ 63 ].

After forming clusters, the Pearson similarity is computed between users to improve intra-group similarity. We used Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) because it is one the well-known method used for similarity measurement. In order to measure the similarity between two users u and v , PCC uses the common users ratings on item to calculate similarity [ 65 ]. Pearson Similarity can be defined as follows.

Pearson similarity ranges from [−1, +1]. Negative correlation indicates that users are not similar, and positive correlation indicates that users are highly similar. The similarity computation between user u and v in cluster k is defined as:

Where S uvc is the product of similarity between users u and v , and the membership of v in cluster c . Based on Eq (7) , the Top-k similar users are selected to form a group. After forming group, NCF [ 29 ] is used to predict the unrated movies of group members. Fig 3 describes the NCF framework. NCF is a layered model as it consists of an input layer, hidden layers, and output layer.

In output layer, sigmoid activation function is used. The input layer consists of two feature vectors v u U and v i I that describes the user u and movie i . The parameter y ^ u i is the predicted rating of user u on movie i and can be defined as follows [ 29 ].

Where P ∈ R U × K and Q ∈ R I × K are the latent factors of users and movies. Θ f denotes model parameters, f is layered neural network. The loss function of NCF is defined as follows.

Where y ˜ is the observed interaction, and ý is the unobserved interaction between the user and movie. Eq (9) is the objective function of NCF. In order to minimize objective function, Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) is used. After predicting the unrated movies ratings, we apply average aggregation strategy on group ratings and recommend Top-k movies to the group. The following equation is used to calculate average group rating:

Where j be the number of users in a group, r ai is the rating of user a on movie i , and G r i is the group rating on movie i .

The pseudocode for Group Formation is presented in Algorithm 1.

• Initializations (Line 1−Line 4) : The algorithm takes as input the following parameters: ( a ) ratings of users, ( b ) Items; consisting of movies’ title and genres, ( c ) k-users, which is the number of users in a group. In Line 1, genres are extracted from Movies. Line 2 − 3 initialize the mean genre matrix and initial membership matrix to 0. Line 4 calculates the initial clusters’ centers as defined in Eq (4) .
• Average genre ratings are calculated in Line 5−Line 14, where r u is the ratings set of user u , r ui is the rating of user u on item i , and x u is mean genre ratings of user u .
• Clustering : Line 15 to 19 calculate the Pearson Similarity using Eq (6) . The initial membership is calculated in Line 20 to 26, i.e., if a user has ever watched a movie in the genre g j , then m u j ′ = 1 , otherwise it is 0. In Line 27, the FCM clustering is applied to get the membership value of each user corresponding to each cluster.
• Similarity calculation (Line 28−Line 34) : The Similarity among users in clusters C is calculated which is defined in Eq (7) .
• Group Formation (Line 35−Line 40) : After Similarity Matrix computation, Top-k similar users are selected to create a group.

Algorithm 1 Pseudocode for Group Formation

  Input : ratings ( R ), items ( I ), k-users ;

  Output : Groups

1: J ← set of genres( I )

2: X ← 0

3: M ′ ← 0

4: V ← getInitialClusterCenter ()

5: for each user u ∈ U do

6:   for each item i ∈ r u do

7:    for each genre j ∈ J do

8:     if i contains j then

9:      x uj + = r ui

10:     end if

11:    end for

12:    x u = x u | r u |

13:   end for

14: end for

15: for each user u ∈ U do

16:   for each user v ∈ U do

17:    Sim ( u , v ) ← PCC ( u , v )

18:   end for

19: end for

20: for each user u ∈ U do

21:   for each genre j ∈ J do

22:    if x uj ≠ 0 then

23:     m u j ′ = 1

24:    end if

25:   end for

26: end for

27: M ← FCM ( V , M ′, X )

28: for each user u ∈ U do

29:   for each user v ∈ U do

30:    for each cluster c ∈ C do

31:     S ( u , v , c ) = Sim ( u , v ) × M ( v , c )

32:    end for

33:   end for

34: end for

35: for each user u ∈ U do

36:   for each cluster c ∈ C do

37:    G ← getSorted ( S , k-users )

38:   end for

39: end for

40: return G

In the following, we present an illustrative example of the proposed system.

Illustrative example

A sample dataset consisting of 10 users and 7 movies is shown in Table 3 . The information about movie genres is presented in Table 4 . Users’ similarity computed with Eq (6) is shown in Table 5 , whereas Table 6 indicates user to cluster score using FCM. The Similarity computation between users in cluster 1 and cluster 2 is presented in Tables ​ Tables7 7 and ​ and8, 8 , respectively. The similarity between user u and v in a cluster c is computed using Eq (7) , i.e., by taking the product of Pearson Similarity between u and v , and membership of v in cluster c . Assuming a user u 3 and cluster c 1 , the actual ratings of Top-k similar users to u 3 are presented in Table 9 . After forming the group, the NCF is applied to predict the ratings of unrated items, as shown in Table 10 . Average aggregation strategy is applied on predicted ratings to generate Top-k recommendations, as shown in Table 11 .

Performance evaluation

In this section, we present the performance evaluation of proposed HTGF. The MovieLens 1M dataset [ 30 ] is used to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed model. The dataset includes 6040 users, 3900 movies, and 1,000,209 ratings. Every user rated at least 20 movies in MovieLens dataset. The movies include 19 different genres. MovieLens 1M is a standard dataset widely used by researchers in movie recommender systems as it contains rich feature set of movies, and users’ historical ratings information that are required to properly train a model to perform movie recommendations. MovieLens 1M is a standard dataset widely used by researchers in recommendation systems. We compare our work with baseline models i.e., ALS and SVD, which are used by most of the existing schemes for comparisons in group recommendation scenarios [ 25 ]

• The ALS algorithm factorizes a given matrix R into two factors U and V , such that R ≈ U T V . Here, U represents set of users and V represents set of movies. The unknown row dimension is given as a parameter to the algorithm and is called latent factors. The i th column of the user matrix is denoted by u i and the i th column of the movie matrix is v i . The matrix R can be called the ratings matrix with ( R ) i , j = r i , j . Further details on ALS can be found in [ 66 ].
• The SVD matrix factorization method maps users and movies to a joint latent factor space of dimensionality f . A user u is associated to a row vector represented by p u ∈ R f , and a movie v is associated with a column vector given by q u ∈ R f . A user’s estimated rank for a movie v is represented as r ^ u , v = q v T × p u . More details about SVD can be found in [ 67 ].

Performance metrics

A user’s rating for a movie ranges from [1, 5], where 1 being lowest and 5 being highest. To evaluate the performance of HTGF, we considered RMSE, MAE, Precision, and Recall as traditional performance comparison benchmarks [ 68 ]. According to [ 69 ], we can evaluate a recommender system in two measures: (a) prediction accuracy and (b) classification accuracy. Prediction accuracy means how correctly our model predicts the ratings. For this, we use RMSE and MAE. Whereas classification accuracy quantifies the correctness of recommendations, and this includes Precision and Recall. We also calculate satisfaction in order to evaluate the effectiveness of recommendations. Following are the performance measures.

RMSE: It is a criterion for calculating the error. It can be defined as follows.

MAE: It is the absolute difference between predicted rating and actual rating. It can be represented as follows.

Precision: Precision is used to evaluate the recommended movies that are relevant to users. It is defined as the fraction of hits u It can be defined as follows.

Where hits u is the number of correctly recommended movies that are relevant to user u , and recset u is the set of Top-k recommended movies.

Recall: Recall is used to evaluate the fraction of instances over the total number of relevant recommendations. It can be defined as follows.

F1-Score: F1-score is used to evaluate the quality of HTGF. It can be calculated as follows.

Group Satisfaction: Group satisfaction measure is used to evaluate the group satisfaction for the recommended Top-k movies. Group satisfaction is denoted as follows:

Where g is the group, and R is the set of recommended movies. It is calculated by the average individual user satisfaction. | g | is the total number of members in the group [ 70 ].

The objective function is to maximize the group satisfaction. For this, we have to maximize the individual satisfaction on recommended movies.

Parameters setting

Table 12 summarizes the values of different parameters used in the proposed model. To prevent model from overfitting early stopping is used which sets epoch size to 20, and batch size to 64. A combination of Adam optimizer, Sigmoid, and Binary Cross Entropy was used which penalize the wrong predicted ratings. Group size ranges from 5 to 30, and Top-5 movies were recommended to groups.

The efficiency of the proposed group recommender model is measured through group satisfaction metric. We split our dataset into 80 − 20, 80% ratings are used to train the model, and 20% ratings are used to evaluate the model. Performance of the proposed model was assessed by using RMSE, MAE, Recall, Precision, F1-Score, and group satisfaction measure. RMSE and MAE indicate the prediction accuracy of the model, while precision and recall are used to evaluate the group recommendations generated by the model. We calculate the effect of group satisfaction by varying the group size. Table 13 provides the comparison with existing models.

We used average aggregation strategy to aggregate the group members’ preferences. It is consensus-based strategy, and considers the preferences of all group members, unlike Most Pleasure strategy, which is a veto-based strategy. Lower values of RMSE and MAE indicate that the predicted ratings are close to the actual ratings. Higher the precision and recall means more relevant the recommendations are. We have also calculated the preferences of user for cluster 2, which is described in Table 14 . It is observed that same user has different preferences in different groups.

In Fig 4(a) , the proposed model is compared with the existing approaches based on RMSE. The RMSE of ALS and SVD is 0.8761 and 0.8244, respectively, and of HTGF is 0.7759. Lower RMSE means the model’s predicted ratings are close to the actual ratings. Whereas, in Fig 4(b) the comparison is based on MAE, which is for ALS and SVD is 0.6633 and 0.6534, respectively, and the MAE of HTGF is 0.6021. Lower MAE means higher the accuracy of model.

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

In Fig 5(a) , the comparison is based on Precision, which is 0.8960, 0.9440, and 1.0 for ALS, SVD, and HTGF, respectively. The comparison based on recall is described in Fig 5(b) . The values of recall for ALS, SVD, and HTGF are 0.0603, 0.0616, and 0.0653, respectively. Higher value of recall means greater coverage and more relevant the recommendations are. ALS and SVD indicate low performance in terms of precision and recall as their estimation mechanisms are sensitive to data sparseness. On the contrary, HTGF is trained on NCF Framework which utilizes the latent factors of users and items due to which it is not significantly effected by data sparseness.

(a) precision and (b) recall.

Fig 6(a) shows the comparison based on F1-score which is 0.1130, 1156, and 0.1226 for ALS, SVD, and HTGF. The precision of HTGF is highest for k = 10. However, increase in number of group members reduces the precision and recall. Fig 6(b) shows the impact of changing group size on the proposed framework in terms of precision, recall, and group satisfaction. We observe optimum value when group size is 10, which is same as of Nawi et al . [ 25 ] where it is calculated through elbow method. For the group size greater than 15, the HTGF shows almost constant results better than existing schemes which experience performance degradation above group size 10, and hence their graphs are not included in the figure. The values of recall are comparatively lower than the other parameters. This is mainly because of Eq (14) , in which the numerator representing the hits has lesser values. The number of hits of individual group members are comparatively smaller because of not lying in Top-k movies for a group, which lowers the overall value of recall. However, as can be observed in Table 13 , the recall of HTGF is better than existing schemes.

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

It can be observed from the results that proposed model predicts more accurate ratings compared to existing schemes. The matrix splitting and estimation procedure of ALS results in low accuracy as compared to SVD that splits the matrices into three sub-matrices. Moreover, the ALS and SVD experience degradation in recommendation quality as they fail to capture the implicit preferences of individuals participating in a group [ 25 ]. However, our proposed model based on NCF takes into account the latent feature vectors of users and movies which minimizes the error rate as compared to ALS and SVD.

Tables ​ Tables15 15 – 17 show the values for precision, recall, and F1-Score for the proposed scheme and the baselines by varying the group size. It can be observed that SVD shows better precision value for group size of 10 and greater. However, this is at the cost of lower values of recall. If we inspect the F1-Score of the three schemes, we can observe that the F1-Score of the proposed HTGF scheme is better than ALS and SVD. This is because, F1-Score formula incorporates the values of both precision and recall. It is noteworthy that some models gives high precision but they give low recall value so in order to find the more accurate results F1-score is used.

Statistical analysis

In this subsection, we present the statistical significance of the results obtained previously. To find the statistical significance, we follow an approach similar to the one presented in [ 71 ]. We have checked the resulting values based on parameters, such as precision, recall, and F1-score and found their distribution is normal. In that case, there is a need for a parametric test that involves two variables so that we can compare our proposed scheme with the baselines. Amongst the various available options, we selected the most popular t -test to compute the significance level p with threshold value set as p < 0.05. We define the following hypothesis:

• H0: HTGF and baseline model have no difference.
• H1: A significant difference exists between HTGF and baseline models.

Table 18 presents the mean, standard deviation (SD), and p -value for the performance values obtained in Tables ​ Tables15 15 and ​ and17. 17 . It can be observed that the p -value for the parameter F1-Score is less than the significance level threshold, i.e., p < 0.05, which means that the significant difference exists among the values of HTGF and other baselines. So, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis.

Error analysis

In this subsection, we present the error analysis of our proposed model. To perform the error analysis, we follow the similar procedure discussed in [ 72 ]. We have conducted an analysis of group ratings which are predicted wrongly by our proposed model. For this purpose, we compared the proposed model’s predicted ratings with actual ratings and analyzed the data manually for finding the possible cues. As first step, we generated two csv files containing actual group ratings and predicted group ratings, and analyzed them manually. The error analysis code and csv files are uploaded on github [ 73 ]. During the analysis, we found that movies having the following genres occurring together (action, sci-fi, thriller) are usually predicted wrongly, and the movies having any of the genres (action, comedy, drama, sci-fi) are predicted correctly by our proposed model. Fig 7 shows the genre counts that are correctly predicted by our model. Most of the time, movies having genres: action, drama, comedy, fantasy, and sci-fi are popular among all group members.

A pattern is found that the rating of movie having both genres (comedy, drama), or (drama, sci-fi), or (action, sci-fi) are predicted correctly by our model. Fig 8 shows the ratings that are wrongly predicted by our model. We observed that when the genres such as, action and sci-fi, occur along with thriller, our model predicts the wrong ratings. Fig 9 presents the mix ratings of our model. During manual analysis we found that our model is confused when movie has the combination of genres: (action, adventure, sci-fi) or (sci-fi, war), or (action, sci-fi, thriller). From the aforementioned discussion, we concluded that our model is not able to predict rantings when movie has genres (action, sci-fi, thriller) occurring simultaneously. Moreover, our model predicts average ratings when the movie has genre combination of (action, adventure, sci-fi), and our model predicts correct ratings when the movie has any of the following genres: (action, comedy, drama, sci-fi). In case of the genre ‘thriller’, most of the time our model predicts wrong ratings.

A hybrid Two-Phase Group Recommender Framework (HTGF) is presented, and results are compared with the existing models. The proposed work integrates clustering techniques such as PCC and FCM that allows a user’s membership to different groups based on preference similarity. NCF is used to predict the ratings of unrated items of group members. NCF exhibited better performance over the counterparts as it uses the latent factors of users and items. Different from the previous work the proposed work discusses a new perspective of group formation by allowing a user to have multiple groups. It has been observed that the same user has different preferences in different groups. For instance, a user may have different preferences while watching movie with friends, than with family. The evaluation of proposed model with MovieLens-1M dataset indicates improved performance of HTGF compared to existing schemes.

In future, we intend to use multi attention neural networks instead of average aggregation strategy to recommend Top-k movies to the group. Group members can influence each other, so we will consider the influence of group members during group formation and explore its impact on final recommendations. Moreover, we are interested to explore the transformer-based methods using NLP approaches for group recommendations. Furthermore, we will test our model on multiple datasets to see the impact on performance.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

Movie Recommendation System Using NLP Tools

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.