MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415883353 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3628684

LLM-SCRec: LLM-Powered Style-Context Insights for Fashion Recommendation

2025· article· en· W4415883353 on OpenAlexaff
Xinze Wang, Y. Li, Kun Zhou, Wenzhe Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbeddingEncoderEncoding (memory)Natural languageSimple (philosophy)Space (punctuation)Recommender systemExpressive power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fashion recommendation is increasingly shaped by platform-native narratives such as titles, captions, tags, and reviews, where users implicitly reveal their style preferences and the contexts in which items are chosen. However, existing systems often simplify such text into predefined labels or treat it as auxiliary metadata, which leads to semantic loss and limits the ability to model fine-grained, context-dependent preferences. This gap prevents recommendation models from fully exploiting the expressive power of natural language to capture style intent. To address these challenges, we propose LLM-SCRec, an interaction-centric framework that directly leverages large language models to extract <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">style–context insights</i> from raw user–item interaction text. Specifically, (1) a frozen LLM reads platform-native descriptions and generates high-dimensional interaction-level insights; (2) a lightweight encoder projects these insights into a compact embedding space and aligns them with collaborative signals through contrastive objectives; and (3) aggregated user/item representations are seamlessly integrated with existing ID-based recommenders through simple concatenation. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks show that this framework consistently improves performance on standard Top-<italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">K</i> metrics relative to strong baselines. Beyond accuracy, its plug-and-play nature makes the method practical: because it does not alter the backbone recommenders and requires only offline LLM processing, it offers an efficient and easily deployable solution.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207