Table 3.
Prediction accuracy comparison on response time root mean squared error (RMSE). The bold numbers indicate the result of the approach.
| Matrices | Methods | Matrix Density(MD) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | 25% | 30% | ||
| 2.95% Untrustworthy Users | UPCC | 2.4882 | 2.2699 | 1.9419 | 1.8698 | 1.8088 | 1.7901 |
| IPCC | 2.5753 | 2.3225 | 2.1973 | 1.931 | 1.8888 | 1.7575 | |
| UIPCC | 2.3637 | 2.0274 | 1.9799 | 1.8419 | 1.7403 | 1.7391 | |
| CURA | 1.88 | 1.7196 | 1.5648 | 1.5471 | 1.4329 | 1.4015 | |
| GUIPCC | 2.3637 | 1.974 | 1.9099 | 1.8119 | 1.7003 | 1.6791 | |
| TAP | 1.6645 | 1.6308 | 1.6446 | 1.6517 | 1.6679 | 1.6851 | |
| GNMF | 2.2754 | 2.0785 | 1.8724 | 1.7029 | 1.6823 | 1.6547 | |
| GURAP | 1.4939 | 1.4329 | 1.3757 | 1.3325 | 1.3269 | 1.2845 | |
| Improvement vs. TAP (%) | 10.25% | 12.14% | 16.35% | 19.33% | 20.44% | 23.77% | |
| Improvement vs. GNMF (%) | 34.34% | 31.06% | 26.53% | 21.75% | 21.13% | 22.37% | |
| 5.90% Untrustworthy Users | UPCC | 2.5332 | 2.3007 | 2.1174 | 1.9267 | 1.8613 | 1.8157 |
| IPCC | 2.6811 | 2.3964 | 2.1436 | 1.9987 | 1.882 | 1.8305 | |
| UIPCC | 2.4767 | 2.2887 | 2.0342 | 1.9264 | 1.8226 | 1.793 | |
| CURA | 1.8871 | 1.7339 | 1.5566 | 1.5582 | 1.4636 | 1.4102 | |
| GUIPCC | 2.4263 | 2.1584 | 1.9342 | 1.8768 | 1.8023 | 1.7734 | |
| TAP | 1.7067 | 1.6521 | 1.6563 | 1.6648 | 1.6858 | 1.6904 | |
| GNMF | 2.333 | 2.0166 | 1.8986 | 1.8069 | 1.7309 | 1.6952 | |
| GURAP | 1.4967 | 1.4459 | 1.3769 | 1.3343 | 1.3246 | 1.2835 | |
| Improvement vs. TAP (%) | 12.30% | 12.48% | 16.87% | 19.85% | 21.43% | 24.07% | |
| Improvement vs. GNMF (%) | 35.85% | 28.30% | 27.48% | 26.15% | 23.47% | 24.29% | |