## 4 Evaluation of System Presentation and Efficacy
### System Evaluation  
The following comparisons and experiments invited users from related departments (department of information and communication), unrelated departments (department of business management), and the middle/high age-bracket (users above 45 years of age). There were 10 persons in each group, and the 3 groups were used as a reference frame for analysis. All comparisons and evaluation results were based on opinions in which there was a 75% or greater agreement in the three groups, which represented that the majority of the people were in agreement. The three main comparison objects of the PHI agent are similar to personal mobile APPs, such as Google Fit, Millet Movement, and Motion-Pedometer [34]. Table 4 shows the comparison results of the \"basic display\" functions of the related system. The corresponding comparison systems are not much different from the proposed system, and the parts of the function display are similar. Table 5 illustrates the \"advanced query\" functions between the proposed system and the control system, showing the main wisdom of the proposed system that can recommend suitable health information in a timely and appropriate manner. In summary, the three control APPs are displayed in a bar graph when displaying the number of steps in its most recent use. The Millet Movement must be bound to the Millet bracket to be applied, meaning its system cannot be paired with other wearable devices. The motion-pedometer requires a fee to activate other advanced functions, such as recommendation functions. However, the aforementioned functions, namely the mobile APP proposed by the PHI agent, can be easily solved, which is completely in line with the original intention of this research--timely, appropriate, and free, and the latest and complete mobile information services. Figure 8: System screen display of the beverage safety (BS) agent: (**a**) system homepage and scanning page; (**b**) the additive query page; (**c**) “Help needed” page; and (**d**) “Manual Query” page. The RI agent effectiveness experiment first researched the system's effectiveness and various function tests. This study used the comparison table for LBSs, as proposed by [PERSON] [37], and classified the proposed 12 items into location positioning, hardware device, application management, and system presentation for comparison [35]. This experiment indicated that a sound information recommender system must conform to more verification conditions; therefore, the information recommendation and value added service classes were added to the comparison table, as shown in Table 6. The object system compared in this experiment was the LBS system developed by the government--Taiwan Food Map ([[http://www.foodmap.tw/FM.html](http://www.foodmap.tw/FM.html)]([http://www.foodmap.tw/FM.html](http://www.foodmap.tw/FM.html))). As the system quality matches this system, it was selected as the control group. The overall function's up-to-standard rate of this system was 87.5%, whereas the up-to-standard rate of the Taiwan Food Map, as developed by the government, was only 43.7%. The reasons were that (1) this system uses location information efficiently to provide a more accurate \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Google Fit** & **Millet Movement** & **Motion-Pedometer** & **PHI Agent** \\ \hline User profile & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline Query the number & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ of steps in the day & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline Query the calories & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ on the day & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Legend: “\(\checkmark\)” means it has this function, whereas “\(\mathbf{x}\)” means it does not.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison results of system basic functions.