informatics

Review
Fashion Recommendation Systems, Models and Methods:
A Review
Samit Chakraborty 1,2, * , Md. Saiful Hoque 2,3 , Naimur Rahman Jeem 4 , Manik Chandra Biswas 1 ,
Deepayan Bardhan 5 and Edgar Lobaton 5

1 Wilson College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA; [email protected]
2 Department of Textile Engineering, Daffodil International University, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh;
[email protected]
3 Department of Human Ecology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada
4 Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada;
[email protected]
5 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC 27695, USA; [email protected] (D.B.); [email protected] (E.L.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In recent years, the textile and fashion industries have witnessed an enormous amount of
growth in fast fashion. On e-commerce platforms, where numerous choices are available, an efficient
recommendation system is required to sort, order, and efficiently convey relevant product content or
information to users. Image-based fashion recommendation systems (FRSs) have attracted a huge
amount of attention from fast fashion retailers as they provide a personalized shopping experience
to consumers. With the technological advancements, this branch of artificial intelligence exhibits





 a tremendous amount of potential in image processing, parsing, classification, and segmentation.
Despite its huge potential, the number of academic articles on this topic is limited. The available
Citation: Chakraborty, S.; Hoque,
M.S.; Rahman Jeem, N.; Biswas, M.C.;
studies do not provide a rigorous review of fashion recommendation systems and the corresponding
Bardhan, D.; Lobaton, E. Fashion filtering techniques. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first scholarly article to review
Recommendation Systems, Models the state-of-the-art fashion recommendation systems and the corresponding filtering techniques. In
and Methods: A Review. Informatics addition, this review also explores various potential models that could be implemented to develop
2021, 8, 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/ fashion recommendation systems in the future. This paper will help researchers, academics, and
informatics8030049 practitioners who are interested in machine learning, computer vision, and fashion retailing to
understand the characteristics of the different fashion recommendation systems.
Academic Editors: Olga Kurasova
and Devon S. Johnson Keywords: fashion recommendation system; e-commerce; filtering techniques; algorithmic models;
performance
Received: 26 May 2021
Accepted: 29 June 2021
Published: 26 July 2021

1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Clothing is a kind of symbol that represents people’s internal perceptions through their
published maps and institutional affil- outer appearance. It conveys information about their choices, faith, personality, profession,
iations. social status, and attitude towards life. Therefore, clothing is believed to be a nonverbal way
of communicating and a major part of people’s outer appearance [1]. Recent technological
advancements have enabled consumers to track current fashion trends around the globe,
which influence their choices [2,3]. The fashion choices of consumers depend on many
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
factors, such as demographics, geographic location, individual preferences, interpersonal
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
influences, age, gender, season, and culture [4–8]. Moreover, previous fashion recommen-
This article is an open access article
dation research shows that fashion preferences vary not only from country to country but
distributed under the terms and also from city to city [9]. The combination of fashion preferences and the abovementioned
conditions of the Creative Commons factors associated with clothing choices could transmit the image features for a better
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// understanding of consumers’ preferences [7]. Therefore, analyzing consumers’ choices and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ recommendations is valuable to fashion designers and retailers [9–11]. Additionally, con-
4.0/). sumers’ clothing choices and product preference data have become available on the Internet

Informatics 2021, 8, 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics8030049 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/informatics

Informatics 2021, 8, 49 2 of 34

in the form of text or opinions and images or pictures. Since these images contain informa-
tion about people from all around the world, both online and offline fashion retailers are
using these platforms to reach billions of users who are active on the Internet [10,12,13].
Therefore, e-commerce has become the predominant channel for shopping in recent years.
The ability of recommendation systems to provide personalized recommendations and
respond quickly to the consumer’s choices has contributed significantly to the expansion
of e-commerce sales [14].
According to different studies, e-commerce retailers, such as Amazon, eBay, and Shop-
style, and social networking sites, such as Pinterest, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Chic-
topia, and Lookbook, are now regarded as the most popular media for fashion advice and
recommendations [15–22]. Research on textual content, such as posts and comments [23],
emotion and information diffusion [24], and images has attracted the attention of modern-
day researchers, as it can help to predict fashion trends and facilitate the development of
effective recommendation systems [5,25–27]. An effective recommendation system is a
crucial tool for successfully conducting an e-commerce business. Fashion recommendation
systems (FRSs) generally provide specific recommendations to the consumer based on their
browsing and previous purchase history. Social-network-based FRSs consider the user’s
social circle, fashion product attributes, image parsing, fashion trends, and consistency
in fashion styles as important factors since they impact upon the user’s purchasing deci-
sions [28–38]. FRSs have the ability to reduce transaction costs for consumers and increase
revenue for retailers. With the exception of a single study from 2016 that focuses only on
apparel recommendation systems [10], no current research presents recent advances in
research on fashion recommendation systems. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to
present an integrative review of the research related to fashion recommendation systems.
Moreover, Guan et al. cited research published until 2015. Therefore, the first objective of
this paper is to review the most recent research published on this topic from 2010 to 2020.
The previous study did not provide an in-depth analysis of the computational methods or
algorithms corresponding to the fashion recommendation systems. This review study aims
to fulfill this research gap and rigorously study the principles underlying, the methods
used by, and the performance of the state-of-the-art fashion recommendation systems. To
the best of our knowledge, this in-depth study is first of its kind. It includes research articles
related to image parsing, clothing and body shape identification, and fashion attribute
recognition, which are critical parts of fashion recommendation systems (FRSs). This review
paper also provides a guideline for a research methodology to be used by future researchers
in this field. The first section of this review discusses the history and background of FRSs.
The second section presents a concise history and overview of recommendation systems.
The third section aims to integrate the scholarly articles related to FRSs published in the
last decade. The fourth section defines the metrics that are used by researchers to present
and discuss recommendation results. The fifth section forms the major part of this review
and focuses on various FRSs followed by different computational algorithmic models and
recommendation filtering techniques used in fashion recommendation research. It will help
researchers to understand these crucial parts of a FRS. The final section highlighted the
existing challenges of using state-of-the-art recommendation systems followed by provid-
ing recommendations to overcome them and proposing a novel FRS based on the research
findings discussed in section five. The study of the existing literature revealed that fashion
recommendation systems have a huge impact on consumers’ buying decisions. Hence,
fashion retailers and researchers are exploring and developing state-of-the-art recommen-
dation models to improve the accessibility, navigability and consumers’ overall purchasing
experience. One of the prime elements that has been continuously researched in these
articles was the improvement of existing and the development of new algorithms relevant
to the filtering techniques [4,15,33,39–51]. This review paper has identified state-of-the
art algorithms and filtering techniques that have high potential to become more popular
in the future. The sections of this paper are arranged in the order of the important FRS
components, so that the reader can gain a substantial understanding of components such
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 3 of 34

as algorithmic models before moving to other important components such as filtering

techniques. This review paper will guide future aspirants to conduct further in-depth and
innovative empirical research on fashion recommendation systems. The organizational
structure of this article is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Organizational structure of the article.

2. History and Overview of Recommendation System

The era of recommendation systems originally started in the 1990s based on the
widespread research progress in Collective Intelligence. During this period, recommen-
dations were generally provided to consumers based on their rating structure [52]. The
first consumer-focused recommendation system was developed and commercialized by
Goldberg, Nichols, Oki and Terry in 1992. Tapestry, an electronic messaging system was
developed to allow users only to rate messages as either a good or bad product and ser-
vice [53]. However, now there are plenty of methods to obtain information about the
consumer’s liking for a product through the Internet. These data can be retrieved in the
forms of voting, tagging, reviewing and the number of likes or dislikes the user provides.
It may also include reviews written in blogs, videos uploaded on YouTube or messages
about a product. Regardless of communication and presentation, medium preferences
are expressed in the form of numerical values [52,54]. Table 1 presents the history of the
progress of fashion recommendation systems over the last few decades.

Table 1. History of recommendation systems; produced by the authors based on [52,55,56].

Year Recommendation System Approach Properties

• Content filtering.
• Mail filtering agent for providing a cognitive
Before 1992 Mafia, developed in 1990
intelligence-based service for document
processing.

• Collaborative filtering.
Tapestry, developed in 1992 • Developed by Palo Alto.
• Allowed users only to rate messages as either good
1992 to 1998 or bad product and service.

Grouplens, first used in 1994 • Rate data to form the recommendation.

Movielens, proposed in 1997 • Useful to construct a well-known dataset.

Informatics 2021, 8, 49 4 of 34

Table 1. Cont.

Year Recommendation System Approach Properties

PLSA (Probabilistic Latent Semantic • Developed by Thomas Hofmann.

1999 to 2005
Analysis), proposed in 1999 • Collaborative filtering.
Several Latent Factor Models such as
Singular Value Decompositions (SVD),
2005 to 2009 Robust Singular Value Decomposition
• Collaborative filtering approach.
(RSVD), Normalized Singular Value
• Find out factors from rating patterns.
Deviation (NSVD).

2010 to Context-aware-based, • Combined techniques of content and collaborative

onwards instant-personalization-based approach.

E-commerce retailers started implementing fashion recommendation systems in

the early 2000s. However, implementation was mostly in the development stage until
2007–2008 [10,52,55,57–59]. As with other products such as electronics and books, fashion
products were also recommended based on the user’s previous purchase history. With
the continuous progress in computer vision algorithms, personalized recommendations
utilizing personal factors and user reviews have become more popular today [10,58,60].

2.1. Recommendation System

Recommendation system (RS) is referred to as a decision-making approach for users
under a multidimensional information environment [61]. RS has also been defined as an
e-commerce tool, which helps consumers search based on knowledge that is related to a
consumer’s choices and preferences [59]. RS also assists in augmenting social processes by
using the recommendations of other users when there is no abundant personal information
or knowledge of the alternatives [52]. RS handles the complication of information overload
that consumers usually encounter by offering customized service, exclusive content, and
personalized recommendations [57].
There are multiple phases involved in the recommendation system that develop
the foundation of any state-of-the-art recommendation system. These are defined as the
information collection phase, the learning phase, and the recommendation phase. Figure 2
shows the interrelationship of these phases involved in the recommendation process. It
shows that information collection is the initial stage of RS, which is followed by the learning
phase and the recommendation phase. The recommendation provided in the last phase
can be generated based on information gathered during the information collection phase.

2.1.1. Information Collection Phase

In this phase a user’s relevant information is collected to develop a user profile or
model based on the user’s characteristics, behaviors, and the content of the resources they
have browsed, which are applicable in prediction phase tasks. The accurate functioning of
a recommendation agent depends on the proper construction of a user profile or model.
The system can offer a quick yet appropriate recommendation when it has all the required
information about the user. Thus, the success of a recommendation or recommender
system largely depends on the ability of the model to denote users’ current preferences or
choices [57,62,63].
The foundation of the recommendation system relies on three types of input such
as explicit feedback, implicit feedback, and hybrid feedback. Explicit feedback needs
to be of high quality as it encompasses users’ explicit input regarding their interest in
or choice of a product. The accuracy of the prediction or recommendation relies on
user ratings. Therefore, if the users do not provide enough information, it limits the
accuracy of the system. Despite this requirement, explicit feedback is still considered a
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 5 of 34

crucial information input process as it provides more reliable data and builds transparency
into the recommendation procedure [57,64,65]. Implicit feedback is also important in
understanding users’ preferences, which are inferred indirectly through observation of
user behavior. Although this method does not require the same effort from the users, it is
often seen as less accurate [57,66]. Hybrid feedback is considered a combination of explicit
and implicit feedback. It can be accomplished by utilizing the implicit feedback data as a
check on the explicit feedback rating or by providing users with the opportunity to give
feedback only if they choose to explicitly express their interest.

Figure 2. Phases of recommendation process.

2.1.2. Learning Phase

A learning algorithm is applied in this phase to filter and exploit the users’ features
based on the feedback collected in the information collection phase. The learning algo-
rithms used in this phase are helpful for drawing out the appropriate patterns relevant for
application during the recommendation stage [57,62,63].

2.1.3. Recommendation Phase

The recommendation phase recommends the types of items that a user or consumer
may prefer. Recommendations can be provided either directly based on the dataset col-
lected during the information collection phase (which might be memory- or model-based)
or through the browsing history of users observed by the system [57,62,63]. Recommenda-
tions can also be provided by combining the learned information with the rating matrix
to recommend learning resources [67]. Researchers reported improved recommendation
accuracy using hybrid models in comparison with product content-based or other user-
preference-based collaborative models [68].

3. Channels of Scholarly Dissemination Related to Fashion Recommendation

System (FRS)
Articles published from January 2010 to June 2020 have been considered for the review
purpose of this article. Various online literature resources or databases such as Scopus,
Web of Science, Science Direct, and Design and Applied Arts Index (DAAI) have been used
to find the literature. Boolean operator techniques i.e., “AND” or “OR” strategies were
used to search articles from these sources. Keywords grouped in three categories as listed
below were used to conduct the final search.
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 6 of 34

Group 1: Fashion OR Style OR Apparel OR Clothing.

Group 2: Recommend*.
Group 3: Filtering Technique OR Algorithm OR Model OR Artificial Intelligence OR
Neural Network OR Deep Learning OR Meta-Learning OR Fuzzy Techniques OR Model
OR Image Processing OR Image Retrieval OR Image Feature extraction.
Final Search = Group 1 AND Group 2, Group 1 AND Group 2 AND Group 3.
Overall, 230 scholarly articles and 9 web sources have been reviewed. Among these,
214 scholarly articles were found containing the required keywords when using the search
strategy mentioned above. Among these, 132 articles are indexed in Scopus, 26 in Web of
Science, 3 in Science Direct and 1 in the Design and Applied Arts Index (DAAI) database.
In addition, 50 articles and 2 patents were found in Google Scholar, published in different
peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

4. Metrics Used in Fashion Recommendation System Evaluation

The performance of a recommendation algorithm is evaluated by using some specific
metrics that indicate the accuracy of the system. The type of metric used depends on
the type of filtering technique. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Receiver Operating
Characteristics (ROC), Area Under Cover (AUC), Precision, Recall and F1 score is generally
used to evaluate the performance or accuracy of the recommendation algorithms.
Root-mean square error (RMSE). RMSE is widely used in evaluating and comparing
the performance of a recommendation system model compared to other models. A lower
RMSE value indicates higher performance by the recommendation model. RMSE, as
mentioned by [69], can be as represented as follows:
s
1
RMSE =
Np ∑ ( pui − rui )2 (1)
u,i

where, Np is the total number of predictions, pui is the predicted rating that a user u will
select an item i and rui is the real rating.
Precision. Precision can be defined as the fraction of correct recommendations or
predictions (known as True Positive) to the total number of recommendations provided,
which can be as represented as follows:

True Positive ( TP)

Precision = (2)
True Positive( TP) + False Positive ( FP)

It is also defined as the ratio of the number of relevant recommended items to the
number of recommended items expressed as percentages.
Recall. Recall can be defined as the fraction of correct recommendations or predictions
(known as True Positive) to the total number of correct relevant recommendations provided,
which can be as represented as follows:

True Positive ( TP)

Recall = (3)
True Positive( TP) + False Negative ( FN )

It is also defined as the ratio of the number of relevant recommended items to the total
number of relevant items expressed as percentages.
F1 Score. F1 score is an indicator of the accuracy of the model and ranges from 0 to
1, where a value close to 1 represents higher recommendation or prediction accuracy. It
represents precision and recall as a single metric and can be as represented as follows:

Precision ∗ Recall
F1 score = 2 × (4)
Precision + Recall
Coverage. Coverage is used to measure the percentage of items which are recom-
mended by the algorithm among all of the items.
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 7 of 34

Accuracy. Accuracy can be defined as the ratio of the number of total correct recom-
mendations to the total recommendations provided, which can be as represented as follows:

TP + FN
Accuracy = (5)
TP + FN + TN + FP
Intersection over union (IoU). It represents the accuracy of an object detector used on
a specific dataset [70].
TP
IoU = (6)
TP + FN + FP
ROC. ROC curve is used to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the algorithm’s
performance [57].
AUC. AUC measures the performance of recommendation and its baselines as well as
the quality of the ranking based on pairwise comparisons [5].
Rank aware top-N metrics. The rank aware top-N recommendation metric finds some of
the interesting and unknown items that are presumed to be most attractive to a user [71].
Mean reciprocal rank (MRR), mean average precision (MAP) and normalized discounted
cumulative gain (NDCG) are three most popular rank aware metrics.
MRR. MRR is calculated as a mean of the reciprocal of the position or rank of first rele-
vant recommendation [72,73]. MRR as mentioned by [72,73] can be expressed as follows:

1 1
MRR =
Nu ∑ Ln k ∈ Ru
(7)
u∈ Nu u [ ]

where u, Nu and Ru indicate specific user, total number of users and the set of items rated
by the user, respectively. L indicates list of ranking length (n) for user (u) and k represents
the position of the item found in the he lists L.
MAP: MAP is calculated by determining the mean of average precision at the points
where relevant products or items are found. MAP as mentioned by [73] can be expressed
as follows.
n
1
MAP = ∑
Nu | Ru | k=1
1( Lnu [k] ∈ Ru ) Pu @k (8)

where Pu represents precision in selecting relevant item for the user.

NDCG: NDCG is calculated by determining the graded relevance and positional
information of the recommended items, which can be expressed as follows [73].

∑nk=1 G (u, n, k) D (k)

NDCGu = (9)
∑nk=1 G ∗ (u, n, k) D (k)

where D (k) is a discounting function, G (u, n, k) is the gain obtained recommending an

item found at k-th position from the list L and G* (u, n, k) is the gain related to k-th item in
the ideal ranking of n size for u user.

5. Fashion Recommendation System (FRS), Algorithmic Models and Filtering Techniques

FRS can be defined as a means of feature matching between fashion products and
users or consumers under specific matching criteria. Different research addressed apparel
attributes such as the formulation of colors, clothing shapes, outfit or styles, patterns or
prints and fabric structures or textures [10,58,74,75]. Guan et al. studied these features
using image recognition, product attribute extraction and feature encoding. Researchers
have also considered user features such as facial features, body shapes, personal choice or
preference, locations and wearing occasions in predicting users’ fashion interests [31,75–78].
A well-defined user profile can differentiate a more personalized or customized recommen-
dation system from a conventional system [28,79]. Various research projects on apparel
recommendation systems with personalized styling guideline and intelligent recommenda-
tion engines have been conducted based on similarity recommendation and expert advisor
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 8 of 34

recommendation systems [10,58,61]. Image processing, image parsing, sensory engineer-

ing, computational algorithms, and computer vision techniques have been extensively
employed to support these systems [32,80–84].

5.1. Classification of Fashion Recommendation System (FRS)

Fashion recommendation systems (FRS) proposed by researchers vary from each other
based on the filtering techniques used, information collection and learning procedures,
feature extraction methods and types of recommendations provided to users or consumers.
The paper has categorized the recommendation systems into five classes such as fashion
image retrieval, a personal wardrobe recommendation system, a knowledge-based recom-
mendation system, smart or intelligent recommendation systems and a social-network-
based recommendation system based on previous research and academic articles. These
recommendation systems or approaches have been discussed briefly in Table 2
A fashion image retrieval system is formulated based on clusters of fashion products
and their feature similarity as well as correlation analysis based on individual historical
data [85,86]. Personal wardrobe recommendation systems explore similar fashion styles
based on wardrobe usage history [10,87]. Fashion pairing recommendation systems, also
referred to as fashion coordination systems, are based on the rules of matching different
types of clothing items with styling knowledge [4,10,51]. A smart or intelligent recom-
mendation approach uses features or attributes of the clothing and user in terms of users’
body shapes, contextual information of wear, outfit type and genre characteristics [88–90].
A social-network-based recommendation approach offers recommendations to many social-
media-based information discovery and social collaborations among potential collaborators
using social networking features. Sachdeva and Pandey (2020) focused on the analysis
of patterns for different consumer groups with finely grained fashion elements using a
large-scale fashion trend dataset (FIT) compiled from Instagram reports. The usage details
were provided to the Knowledge Enhanced Recurrent Network model (KERN), which
takes advantage of the capacity of deep recurrent neural networks to model time series
of fashion elements, considering very complex patterns effectively. It can reinforce the
prediction of styles. These recommendation systems or approaches have been discussed
briefly in Table 2.

Table 2. Classification of fashion recommendation systems (FRS).

Recommendation
References Features and Implementation
System

• Offers recommendations based on previous sales, clothes purchase

records, eye movement records and item click rate.
• Provides clothing suggestions using analytical hierarchy procedure of
Fashion image [7,10,11,25,34,85,
use’s choice and interest.
retrieval 86,91–99]
• CNN can be used for feature extraction and image classification in
conjunction with RNN, which helps in the retrieval of similar image
products.

• Offers clothing recommendations by matching wardrobe management

profile with explicit input of time, location, weather conditions and
typical schedule provided by user.
Personal wardrobe [10,31,88,90,93, • Smart closet system can suggest appropriate fashion items estimating
recommendation 100–108] the information related to weather and events.
• Bayesian network can be employed to offer personalized fashion
recommendation system developed based on the history of wardrobe
items usage.
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 9 of 34

Table 2. Cont.

Recommendation
References Features and Implementation
System

• Adoption of this system helps in the representation of different style

genres based on the knowledge of fashion coordination and image
recognition.
Fashion pairing • Implementation of this approach combines both visual and textual
[4,10,15,22,36,45–
recommendation information to express a knowledge-based fashion coordination
49,109–124]
system system and use image detection technology for extracting fashion
styles with similar features.
• It can recommend design scheme via a searching method using genetic
algorithms (GA) and artificial neural networks.

• Its domain expertise knowledge of mixing and matching criteria

facilitates exploring the interrelationship between the fashion and the
user using intelligent algorithms.
• Use of decision tree, analytical hierarchy process, sensory engineering,
Smart or [33,39–
fuzzy mathematics, genetic algorithms, neural networks and support
intelligent 44,50,74,88,89,
vector machines to learn the skill of clothing attribute evaluation.
recommendation 112,123,125–137]
• Implementation of expert rules to propose an intelligent fashion
recommendation system of expert information collection based on eye
gaze tracking and the application of interactive evolutionary
algorithms to predict users’ style preferences.

• Personalized clothing recommendation built using three types of data:

(1) user social circles that show the relationships among users; (2) user
clothing records that indicate the interest and preferences of users for
certain fashion items; and (3) matching of pairs of fashion items that
represent style consistency among different items.
Social-network-
[7,8,31,43,92,133, • Combination with wardrobe recommendations provides more
based
138–152] information about users to retailers, which can create an interactive
recommendation
online shopping experience.
• Peer recommendations functioning through social shopping sites can
increase the accuracy of predictions based on the sharing of lifestyles
or experiences with friends, family members and colleagues, who
understand the users.

5.2. Algorithmic Models Used in Fashion Recommendation Systems

The models most used in developing fashion recommendation systems are multilayer
perceptron (MLP), recurrent neural network (RNN), k-nearest neighbor (kNN), convolu-
tional neural networks (CNN), Bayesian networks, generative adversarial network (GAN)
and autoencoder (AE) [8,12,31,51,86,103,153–158]. Researchers modified the algorithms
and tuned the hyperparameters to different extents to increase the prediction accuracy. The
rest of this section provides an overview of the main methodologies used.

5.2.1. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)

A convolutional neural network (CNN) is constructed of multiple convolutional
layers, where the number of layers is customized based on the desired recommendation
system outcome. These layers can vary in terms of convolutional layers, filter size and fully
connected layers. Researchers increase or decrease the depth of the network to achieve
better results with the highest accuracy. Kernel and batch sizes are fixed depending on
the desired input/output of the layer. There is an optional pooling layer to reduce the
dimensionality of the data. The most common form of pooling layer is max pooling,
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 10 of 34

which often ranges between 2 × 2 and 4 × 4. Softmax, Sigmoid, ReLU and TanH are
the most common activation functions for CNN, which can be used either separately or
in stacked form. Adam and stochastic gradient (SGD) are two popular optimizers used
in tuning hyperparameters of CNN models. CNN is very popular in recommendation
systems for its strong feature extraction and image classification capabilities. Yu et al
proposed a combined matrix and tensor factorization model using CNNs for an aesthetic-
based clothing recommendation to learn the images and their aesthetic features [159].
Nguyen et al. utilized the convolutional and max-pooling layer to obtain visual features
from different patches of images [120].

5.2.2. Recurrent Neural Network (RNN)

Recurrent neural network (RNN) is a generalization of feed forward neural network
that has an internal memory. RNN can use the internal state (memory) to process sequences
of inputs. There can be one to many input vectors as well as output nodes depending on the
type of research and goal, where these are not co-dependent. The dimension of the input
vectors can be of any size. The hidden states vary from the number of input vectors to the
number of states for the next cell. The most common activation function used in RNN is
ReLU. Long Short Term memory (LSTM) networks are a modified version of RNNs, which
can remember past data in memory more effectively. The vanishing gradient problem of
RNN is resolved in LSTM and so it is highly used to classify, process, and predict time
series data. Wu et al. designed a session-based recommendation model for a fashion
e-commerce website by utilizing the basic recurrent neural network (RNN) to predict what
a user will buy next based on the click history [154]. Quadrana et al. proposed a similar
hierarchical RNN for session-based recommendation, which deals with both session-aware
recommendations when user identifiers are present [160]. However, to inject context
information into input and output layers, Smirnova and Vasil proposed a context-aware
and session-based recommendation system based on conditional RNNs [161]. Han et al.
studied two distinct fashion recommendation techniques in their research, where they
trained a bidirectional LSTM model to predict an item conditioned on previous items to
facilitate the learning of compatibility relationships among the items [162]. They used
Polyvore dataset to perform extensive experiments to evaluate the performance of their
proposed model compared to different state-of-the-art recommendation models.
Li et al. presented an attention-based LSTM (Long Short-term Memory) model for
hash tag recommendation, which can capture the sequential property and also recognize
the informative words from micro blog posts by taking advantage of both RNNs and
attention mechanism [92]. The predicted rating (r̂) of item j given by user i at time t is
defined as:

r̂ui|t = f (uut , vit , uu , vi ) (10)

Here, in Equation (7), uu and vi are the stationary latent attributes of user and item.
Besides, uut , and vit are learned from LSTM, uu and vi are learned by standard matrix
factorization.

5.2.3. Multilayer Perceptron (MLP)

A multilayer perceptron (MLP) is a form of artificial neural network architecture
that contains a series of layers, which are composed of neurons and their connections.
The neurons have the ability to calculate the weighted sum of its inputs and apply an
activation function to obtain a signal, which is transmitted to the next neuron. The number
of layers can be from 2 to infinity as more and more deep neural networks are introduced
depending on the project goal. The batch value and neurons vary but not limited from 8 to
64 and 128 to 512, respectively. Usually, the input and output layers have linear activation
function, and the hidden layers commonly have Sigmoid, ReLU, Softmax, tanh, etc. The
common optimizers used in MLP are Adam, Adadelta, Adagrad, Adamax, Nadam, SGD,
RMSprop, etc.
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 11 of 34

A multilayer perceptron (MLP) model has been applied io different recommenda-

tion systems including for fashion clothing [163] and makeup recommendations [164].
Cheng et al. proposed an advanced model of MLP, which can solve both regression and
classification problems [165]. Here, the wide learning component is a single layer percep-
tron, and the deep learning component is a multilayer perceptron. Combining these two
(wide learning component: single layer perceptron and the deep learning component: mul-
tilayer perceptron) learning techniques enabled the model to capture both memorization
and generalization, which helps the model to catch direct features from historic data as
well as generalizing it, which can improve both the accuracy and diversity of the recom-
mendation. Chen et al. extended the model to decrease the running time for large-scale
industrial-level recommendation tasks by replacing the deep learning component with an
efficient locally connected network [15].

5.2.4. Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)

Generative adversarial networks (GAN) are deep-learning-based generative models
in which two neural networks (generator and discriminator) compete to become more
accurate in their predictions. The goal of the generator is to artificially manufacture (fake)
outputs that could easily be mistaken for real data and the discriminator tries to identify
which output is not real.
Among the two major components of GAN: the generator network is a simple feed-
forward neural network (i.e., five layers) and the discriminator network is a classifier, which
is slightly different from the generator network. The discriminator network processes the
image and gives a probability of a class for that image. Calculation of a GAN’s accuracy is
performed using a scoring algorithm such as using pre-trained inception V3 network by
comparing extracted features of both the generated and real image.
The objective functions of the GAN’s discriminator and generator are defined as:

DminV ( D ) = Ex,c∼ pdata ( x,c) Lreal ( x, c) + Ec∼ p(c),z∼ p(z) L f ake ( G (z, c), c), GminV ( G ) DminV ( D ) = Ec∼ p(c),z∼ p(z) L f ake (11)

Here, in Equation (11), Lreal ( x, c) = [ D ( x, c) − 1]2 and L f ake ( x, c) = [ D ( x, c)]2 , which

means the discriminator D tries to predict ‘1’ for the real image and ‘00 for fake images and
the generator G tries to generate ‘realistic’ images to fool discriminator D until the quality
of the generated images is acceptable.
Kang et al. proposed a generative adversarial network: an unsupervised learning
framework-based recommendation system that can generate new clothing in order to
provide more accurate recommendations to users [5]. They used the Bayesian personalized
ranking (BPR) optimization framework for implicit feedback, which optimizes rankings by
considering triplets (u, i, j) e D.

D = (u, i, j)  ueU ∧ ieIu+ ∧ jeI \ Iu+

 
(12)

Here, in Equation (12), ieIu+ is an item about which the user u has expressed interest,
and jeI \ Iu+ is the one about which they have not.

5.2.5. k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN)

The k-nearest neighbor (kNN) algorithm is a simple supervised learning algorithm
which can be used to solve both classification and regression problems. It depends on
labeled input data to produce output when given new unlabeled data. It is a non-parametric
algorithm, so it does not make any assumptions on any underlying data distribution and
does not use the training data points to perform any generalization. The output of the
algorithm is based on the feature similarity.
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 12 of 34

In the KNN algorithm, the k most similar items are obtained by using different
similarity measures such as Cosine, Euclidean, etc. The formula can be derived using
simple Euclidean Distance as:
s
q n
d( p, q) = d(q, p) = 2 2 2
( q1 − p1 ) + ( q2 − p2 ) + . . . + ( q n − p n ) = ∑ ( q i − p i )2 (13)
i =1

Here, in Equation (13), n is the number of dimensions or features. The data point
located at the minimum distance from the test point is assumed to belong to the same class.
Viriato De Melo et al. proposed a content-based approach for clothing recommenda-
tion by combining textual attributes, visual features, and human visual attention in order
to compose the clothes’ profile, which outperformed their baseline approaches [158]. The
kNN algorithm is used for the item rating considering the past behavior of the user and
the similarity between items.

5.2.6. Autoencoder (AE)

An autoencoder is an unsupervised learning technique for neural networks that can
learn efficient data representations or encoding by training the network to ignore signal
noise. It consists of an encoder, code, and decoder where the encoder and decoder are both
fully connected to, and feed forward neural networks and the code is a single layer of an
artificial neural network user for reducing dimensionality. Here, the input passes through
the encoder to produce the code and then output is produced at the decoder using only the
code as the input where the dimensionality of the input and output needs to be the same.
The number of layers of code determines the rate of compression, the lower the number,
the higher the compression ratio. An autoencoder can be as deep as we want and can be
any number between 2 and infinity depending on the research goal. Besides, the most
common loss functions used in these kinds of models are mean squared error (MSE) and
binary cross-entropy.
The two general reasons for using an autoencoder in a recommendation system are
either to learn about lower-dimensional feature representations or to fill the blanks in the
interaction matrix. Collaborative denoising autoencoder (CDAE) is one of the most highly
used autoencoders, which is principally used for ranking prediction. The reconstruction is
defined as:
     
(u) (u)
h r̂ pre f = f W2 · g W1 · r̂ pre f + Vu + b1 + b2 (14)
(u)
Here, in Equation (14), r̂ pre f is user observed implicit feedback; Vu ∈ Rk denotes the
weight matrix for the user node. Gao et al. developed a F clothes matching scheme based
on Siamese network and autoencoder [12]. They used triple autoencoder and Bayesian
personalized ranking to map three kinds of features into the same latent space to learn the
compatibility between tops and bottoms.

5.2.7. Bayesian Networks

Bayesian networks are a kind of probabilistic graphical model, which are usually
used for prediction, anomaly detection, diagnostics, time series prediction, reasoning, and
decision-making. This kind of network is a graph, which is made of nodes and directed
links. Each node represents a variable, where the number of variables in a node can be one
to any number, and in that case, they are called multivariable nodes. The variables can be
both discrete and continuous. The required links are automatically determined from data
using the structural learning algorithm.
Bayesian networks can be used to model the joint probability distribution of mul-
tiple random variables where a random variable is represented as a node and the links
represent dependencies between the variables. Ono et al. constructed a user recommenda-
tion model using Bayesian networks considering the users’ contexts in addition to their
personalities [156]. They selected effective variables from many observed attributes and
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 13 of 34

determined local network structures and estimated conditional probability tables. For this,
the pseud product attributes were calculated from impression attributes whose scores were
defined as:
I (r, CID )
score = (15)
H (r |CID )
Here, in Equation (15), I (r, CID ) is the mutual information between the attribute
value r and the content ID, H (r |CID ) is the conditional entropy of r.
Researchers also used the naïve Bayes algorithm to develop recommendation sys-
tem [166,167]. It is a classification algorithm, which uses Bayes’ theorem for classification.
This algorithm performs equally well with the problems above irrespective of their linear
or non-linear separation [166]. Wei, et. al. (2020) used a naïve Bayes classifier to predict
and investigate users’ emotions followed by the determination of users’ sentiments toward
specific items and calculating the product-to-product similarity based on collaborative
filtering [167].
Table 3 presents the machine-learning algorithms that are most used in fashion recom-
mendation system research. It exemplifies the research that used these algorithmic models
to develop recommendation systems and highlights the performance of these models for
the benefit of the researchers and retailers.

Table 3. Popular algorithmic models used in fashion recommendation systems.

Algorithm/Model Recommendation System Used Performance

• Guan, et al. and Liu, et al. used CNN to The proposed CNN model achieved a
develop content-based filtering maximum of Normalized Discounted
Convolutional Neural technique [10,168]. Cumulative Gain (NDCG) ranking score
Networks (CNN) • The recommendation system showed of 0.50, which outperformed support
weather-oriented clothing pairing results vector machine (SVM), because SVM
as output based on the image attributes. achieved an NDCG score of 0.45.

• Heinz et al. used RNN to build a

recommendation system utilizing
dynamic collaborative filtering The proposed RNN model achieved a
Recurrent Neural technique [50]. higher AUC value of 88.5% compared to
Network (RNN) • The RNN-based recommendation the AUC value of 80.2% achieved by a
system recognized individual style popularity ranking baseline approach.
preferences from a modest number of
purchases by combining sales events.

• Alashkar et al. used MLP to build a fully

automatic makeup recommendation
system utilizing content-based filtering The proposed MLP model achieved a
Multilayer Perceptron techniques [164]. minimal squared loss function value,
(MLP) • The model recommended homogeneous which was 48% lower than distance-based
makeup style according to its similarity recommendation model.
automatically classified facial traits and
synthesized the makeup style as well.
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 14 of 34

Table 3. Cont.

Algorithm/Model Recommendation System Used Performance

• Kang et al. used GAN to develop a

The proposed method outperformed the
personalized recommendation system
strongest content unaware method
utilizing collaborative filtering
(Bayesian Personalized Ranking)
Generative adversarial techniques [5].
substantially by around 5.13% in terms of
network (GAN) • The models learnt the distribution of
accuracy and achieved a 6.8%
fashion images and generated novel
improvement over a retrieval-based
fashion items, which maximized users’
method in terms of preference score.
preferences.

• Leininger et al. proposed an advanced

retail recommendation system using
kNN and collaborative filtering
The model achieved a higher accuracy in
kNN (k-nearest techniques [169].
terms of AUC (91%) than that of the AUC
neighbor) • The model computed the distance to
(85%) of the baseline model.
similar items by using cosine similarity
followed by individual clustering of the
products.

• Gao et al. developed clothes matching

scheme based on Siamese network and
autoencoder utilizing content-based The proposed model achieved an AUC
filtering techniques [12]. value 0.884 compared to the AUC value of
Autoencoder
• The model extracted visual and textual 0.762 achieved by the probabilistic
features followed by recommending knowledge distillation (PKD) method.
clothing based on the input image
(top/bottom part clothing) of the user.

• Yu-Chu et al. used a Bayesian network

to develop a personalized
clothing-recommendation system The proposed model outperformed the
utilizing content-based filtering basic Bayesian model by 50% in terms of
Bayesian Networks techniques [103]. frequency of selection (of the same cloth)
• The model recommended a clothing and by 90% in terms of recommended
combination or selected personal items combinations
based on personal preferences rather
than other users’ behavior.

5.2.8. Other Methodologies

The study of algorithmic models revealed that researchers achieved better recommen-
dation accuracy when combining multiple algorithms and techniques together rather than
using a single algorithm-based baseline model. Apart from the abovementioned algorith-
mic models, researchers have also proposed various other potential algorithms, such as
the cosine similarity-based algorithm [51,169] and fuzzy logic techniques [33,132,170] and
multicriteria-based methods [77,137,171–173] have gained popularity in recent times.
Hu et al. proposed three cosine-based similarity algorithms for aesthetic-based col-
laborative clothing recommendation systems to provide recommendations to users using
frequency similarity [51]. These were: cosine-based similarity (COS); adjusted cosine-based
similarity (ACOS); and COS-based inverse user frequency (IUF).
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 15 of 34

| N (i ) ∩ N ( j)|
SCOS (i, j) = p (16)
| N (i )| · | N ( j)|
∑u∈U C (u, i ) − C (i ) · C (u, j) − C ( j)



S ACOS (i, j) = q q (17)
∑u∈U C (u, i ) − C (i ) · ∑u∈U C (u, j) − C ( j)

| N (i ) ∩ N ( j)| · ∑u∈ N (i)∩ N ( j)  1 

log 1+|Θ(u)|λ
S IUF (i, j) = p (18)
| N (i )| · | N ( j)|
Here, in Equations (16)–(18), N (i ) and N ( j) are two sets of consumers who pur-
chased goods i and j individually. | N | is the size of the set, C (u, i ) is the co-occurrence
matrix, C ( j) is used to represent the average times consumers purchase goods j. Further,
 1  is used to control the impact of the active consumers.
loglog 1+|Θ(u)| λ

Researchers also used fuzzy theory and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to
develop a consumer-oriented fashion recommendation system to facilitate using online
shopping experience as a virtual sales advisor [33,132,170]. The initial stage of fuzzy logic
application establishes the fuzzy membership functions of fuzzy sets. These membership
functions are important for reflecting the features of fuzzy concepts as well as attaining
mathematical tasks and processing [170]. Researchers have also used fuzzy comprehensive
evaluation to assess objects influenced by multifactor criteria [174].
Researchers have frequently used multicriteria decision-based models to develop
fashion recommendation systems [77,100,130–132,137,171–173,175]. Adewumi et al. used
unified modeling language (UML) to develop a unified framework for outfit recommenda-
tions, where users specified the date as an input parameter through a weather API that was
afterwards passed through an inference engine, a multicriteria decision making module
and hybrid artificial intelligence techniques to provide a suitable recommendation [171].
Zeng et al. recommended a perception-based recommender system comprised of two
distinct models, where these two models worked together to provide recommendations
by characterizing human body measurements and their perceptions of different body
shapes [135].

5.3. Recommendation Filtering Techniques

The selection of an effective and accurate filtering technique is crucial for developing
a successful recommendation system. Therefore, an elaborate understanding of these tech-
niques is required before implementing them in a commercial platform. Figure 3 presents
a classification tree containing four widely used recommendation-filtering techniques.

5.3.1. Content-Based Filtering (CBF) Technique

The content-based filtering (CBF) technique examines the features of a recommended
item by classifying users’ (or consumers’) and products’ profile data based on the products’
features [10]. The use of domain-dependent algorithms emphasizes the analysis of the
products’ features, which are utilized to generate predictions. Although the applications of
content-based filtering techniques have been more successful in recommending web pages,
publications and news articles, researchers have implemented this technique to develop
fashion recommendation system as well [93,111,119,123,143,176–178]. In this technique,
user profiles are matched with the features extracted from the product content, which pro-
vides the recommendation where the user has evaluated a specific product in the past [56].
The products that have the highest relation with the positively scored or rated items are
generally recommended to users. The content-based technique uses different kinds of
models to explore the similarity between items to generate a meaningful recommendation,
which is the main distinctive feature between content-based and collaborative filtering
techniques [179,180]. These machine-learning techniques propose recommendations by
learning the core or foundations of the underlying model. In this type of filtering the
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 16 of 34

rating of an item is calculated based on the other ratings. Figure 4 shows a bipartite graph
generated from the user interaction, where the orange shirt will receive a rating for user 1
because the other 2 reviews about that shirt both gave it 5 stars. This method of filtering is
used when the target user is not known and much about the apparel to be sold is known.
Here, the directed edges from the users to the items represent users’ interaction with the
items through likes, comments, retweets, etc.

Figure 3. Classification of filtering techniques for recommendation systems.

Figure 4. Content-based filtering process.

Researchers have used probabilistic models such as the Bayesian classifier [176], deci-
sion tree [181] and neural network model [123] to develop content-based recommendation
systems. CBF does not require profiles of other users as it can adjust its recommendations
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 17 of 34

within a short period even if the user’s profile changes. Viriato de developed a recom-
mendation system based on a combination of textual features, visual attributes and visual
attention using a content-based filtering technique [158]. Their proposed model, named
CRESA (Clothing Recommendation System developed using Attributes such as textual
attributes, visual features, and visual attention), outperformed standard models such as
the k-nearest neighbor (kNN) model. It achieved an average precision of 74.8%, which
was better than the other standard models. Wu et al. also adopted a similar approach of
providing fashion recommendations based on the visual and textual information provided
by the users [153].

5.3.2. Collaborative Filtering (CF) Technique

The collaborative filtering (CF) algorithm is one of the most successful techniques
among all of the filtering techniques available for the recommendation system [182]. CF
is a domain-independent prediction technique for analyzing hard-to-describe content by
observing metadata [97,159,183]. This filtering technique is formed by using a dataset of
the preferences of a group of users to make a recommendation to another group of users
who show similar types of behavior. The fundamental assumption of CF is based on the
similarities of users, which build a neighborhood group. Therefore, this technique is called
user-based collaborative filtering [159,179,184,185]. In collaborative filtering, automatic
predictions are made based on the reviews given by other people. Therefore, the major
assumption is that if two people have similar interests in a common dataset then their
interests would be similar for the rest as well [159,185]. Figure 5 represents an interaction
matrix, where each row represents users, and each column represents product or item. This
utility matrix contains partial data, where likeliness or interaction needs to be predicted
based on the rating (i.e., 1 to 5) given by other users to a specific item. In this figure, rating
5 represents the highest interaction and rating 1 represents the lowest interaction. When
a new item or user is added to the platform, the cosine similarity algorithm or k-nearest
neighbor can be used while calculating the predicted value [186]. The figure also shows
that as user 2 and user 3 have similar choices for item 3 and item 4, the CF method would
predict that for item 2 (the yellow shirt) user 3 will have a similar interaction as user 2,
i.e., 1 star. Additionally, that is how the rest of the selections would be filled in.

Figure 5. Collaborative filtering process.

Although the CF technique is critical and has some issues, such as data sparseness and
the cold-start problem, recommendation systems based on CF techniques have successfully
worked for many renowned business stores and services [179,184,187,188]. Yu et al. pro-
posed a collaborative clothing recommendation system that overcomes the problem of cap-
turing the aesthetic preferences of users by using a novel tensor factorization model [159].
They used the Amazon dataset and the Aesthetic Visual Analysis (AVA) dataset to train
the recommendation models and the aesthetic network, respectively. The Amazon dataset
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 18 of 34

contains records of 39,371 users and 23,022 items. The AVA dataset contains over 250,000
images with aesthetic ratings from 1 to 10 and 14 photographic styles representing com-
plementary colors, duotones, light on white, long exposure, high dynamic range, motion
blur, negative image, silhouettes, soft focus, vanishing point and image grain. They pro-
posed a dynamic collaborative filtering model using both aesthetic features and CNN
features (DCFA) and compared it with baseline models such as the matrix factorization
(MF) method, state-of-the-art visual-based recommendation method (VBPR) and state-
of-the-art context-aware recommendation method (CMTF). DCFA and VBPR performed
better on the test dataset compared to other models. However, the proposed DCFA model
outperforms VBPR by 8.53% in terms of higher recall and 8.73% in terms of higher normal-
ized discounted cumulative gain. Song et al. developed a personalized compatibility-based
recommendation model (GP-BPR) using collaborative filtering [189]. The model is com-
prised of two key modeling elements: general compatibility and personal preference, which
illustrate the interaction between items as well as the interaction between user and item.
Their proposed personal preference modeling technique can facilitate delivering vital clues
regarding user’s personal preference. They also developed a large-scale dataset, named
IQON3000, using the images available in the online fashion community IQON for the per-
formance evaluation of the recommendation model. De Divitiis et al. also adopted a similar
approach to propose a garment recommender system by combining memory augmented
neural network (MANN) and matrix factorization (MF) techniques [190]. They considered
personalized suggestions as an additional element to user preferences and purchase his-
tories. They also used IQON3000 for their experiment and reported better performance
compared to GP-BPR. The MANN+MF and GP-BPR obtain mean average precision of
0.15 and 0.13, respectively, while retrieving the same number of items (~20 items). Addi-
tionally, Sagar et al. introduced PAI-BPR (Personalized Attributewise Interpretable—BPR)
as an outfit compatibility model that can capture user–item interaction along with gen-
eral item–item interaction based on the user’s personal preferences and identifying the
discordant and harmonious attributes between fashion items [191]. They used multilayer
perceptron (MLP) to learn the non-linear interactions and leverage both the textual and
visual modalities in the context of item description and image, respectively. They also
used matrix factorization to incorporate the latent content-based preference factors for the
personal preference modeling of an item. They also used IQON3000 for their experiment
and reported better performance in terms of AUC (0.8502) compared to Bi-LSTM (0.66110,
BPR-MF (0.7867), VBPR (0.8088) and GP-BPR (0.8321).

Model-Based Collaborative Filtering Technique

The model-based CF algorithm works by constructing a model for the prediction of
ratings on the unseen items of users based on the past ratings of the users [97,183]. Machine
learning or data mining approaches can be used to build the model-based CF technique.
To do so, this model may categorize users into single or multiple clusters. However, single
cluster categorization is often problematic for prediction or recommendation as the user
may have a variation of tastes with the different items [42,192]. Therefore, most of the
model-based CF algorithms categorize the user into multiple clusters [184]. With the
evolution of the use of learning algorithms, model-based recommendation systems have
begun to use some algorithms such as association rules, clustering, decision tree, artificial
neural network, link analysis, regression and Bayesian classifiers [57,193,194].

Memory-Based Collaborative Filtering Technique

Unlike the model-based CF filtering technique, a memory-based CF algorithm predicts
the user’s seen items based on the users’ past ratings. This technique of CF filtering is
simple and straightforward, and that is why it has been broadly accepted for real-life
application [195]. This model can quickly incorporate the most up-to-date information
for the prediction, which is considered one of the advantages of this model. However,
making the memory-based algorithm scalable is one of the biggest challenges of this
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 19 of 34

technique [196]. A memory-based CF recommendation system can be built on either a

user-based or an item-based technique. In the case of a user-based technique, this involves
calculating the similarities of the user ratings on the same items forms the model. On the
contrary, the item-based technique is constructed by calculating the similarities between
the items [57,187,197].

Hybrid Collaborative Filtering Technique

The hybrid collaborative filtering (CF) technique is a combination of the memory-
and model-based CF filtering techniques. This technique has been developed to utilize
the advantages of memory and model-based CF techniques and to mitigate the issues
CF technique has, such as sparsity and diversity [188]. Wang et al. proposed a hybrid
collaborative filtering technique-based recommendation model, which combines a fashion
theme-based model with user’s body attributes as well as clothing features [173]. They
developed the dataset using both real world data and a 3D scanned body image dataset.
Their model achieved 80% accuracy, which is higher than existing fashion recommendation
systems used in the research conducted by [41,94,131,198].

5.3.3. Hybrid Filtering Technique

The hybrid filtering (HF) technique combines multiple recommendation techniques
to achieve better system optimization and avoid different limitations and challenges of a
basic recommendation system. The concept behind implementing the hybrid technique is
that the combination of algorithms would provide more appropriate and effective recom-
mendations to users than a single algorithm. Hence, this is the disadvantage of using one
algorithm-based recommendation system [179,199]. This construction is beneficial when
the dataset lacks user preferences; information about such preferences builds the founda-
tion of collaborative recommendations. By assuming the result of content-based filtering
(R1) and result of collaborative filtering (R2), the hybrid filtering technique calculates the
weights of these results as R3 and then, depending on the weights, it combines the results
by influencing the higher weighted result and recommends the final product R4, which
resembles the results R1 and R2, as shown in Figure 6.
Qian et al. proposed a hybrid visual recommendation system by combining condi-
tional random fields with deep lab multiscale (MSc) and large field-of-view (large FOV)-
based neural networks [143]. Their recommendation system has two properties. Firstly,
it is knowledge-based, which helps it learn a pairwise preference or occurrence matrix
based on the knowledge learnt from examples such as images uploaded to fashion blogs.
Secondly, it has features of content-based filtering as it uses a deep learning network for
learning the feature representation. They used 10,000 street-style images for image seg-
mentation, 45,645 street-style images for product localization and 14,000 online fashion
images for texture classification. Their proposed DeepLab-MSc-LargeFOV + CRF for image
segmentation outperformed other baseline models such as fully convolutional networks
(FCN), combination of convolutional networks (FCN) and the conditional random field
(CRF) network model. The proposed model achieved 73.99% mean intersection over union
(IoU), which was higher than the other baseline models. Their proposed recurrent fully
convolutional networks (R-FCN) achieved an average mean precision (m-AP) of 83.4%,
which was higher than that of the baseline models single shot multibox detector and
recurrent convolutional neural network (R-CNN).
Hybrid filtering techniques can be classified into seven categories: weighted hybridiza-
tion; switching hybridization; cascade hybridization mixed hybrids; feature-combination;
feature-augmentation; and metalevel hybridization [200]. Weighted hybridization gen-
erates a recommendation or prediction list by combining the results of multiple recom-
mendation systems based on the integration of the scores derived from all of the filtering
techniques using a linear formula [201]. Switching hybridization switches to one of the
used recommendation techniques based on a heuristic, which reflects the system’s ability
to generate a good rating [202]. Cascade hybridization employs an iterative refinement
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 20 of 34

process to construct an order of preferences or choices of different items. A mixed hybrid

recommendation combines the prediction results of different recommendation techniques
simultaneously instead of having a single recommendation per item [201]. In the feature-
combination hybrid technique the features generated by a particular recommendation tech-
nique are supplied to another recommendation technique [200]. The feature-augmentation
technique uses the ratings and other relevant information produced by a previous recom-
mendation system as an input for another recommender, which results in the generation of
a model that is always richer in terms of information usage in comparison with a single
rating [57]. The metalevel hybrid technique uses an entire model as an input for a second
recommendation algorithm, which was previously learned by a first algorithm [202].

Figure 6. Hybrid filtering process.

5.3.4. Hyperpersonalization Filtering Technique

Personalization is a system that uses the profiling of customers to make certain as-
sumptions about the users. These assumptions are based on certain specific features and
traits gathered from the profiling. For example, suggesting ads to buyers since they have
ordered or searched for a similar product online is a very common strategy used these
days. This technique of personalization can bring a huge boom in sales for companies
according to their sales reports. Hyperpersonalization uses the same strategy and works
more on it. Hyperpersonalization is an advanced technique built over the concept of
personalization, in which the model not only investigates the item or product that was
bought, but also looks into other details such as location of purchase, mode of purchase,
cost of purchase, keywords inserted during purchase, demographics of the person who
purchased, etc. [34,124,130,135,139,203,204]. Hyperpersonalization delves into the intricate
details and thereby produces much better and effective personalization, which has made it
popular in recent times [5,29,146,205,206]. The implementation of this filtering technique
with virtual try-on facilities can develop a recommendation system that offers instant
image generation of a user wearing the selected fashion item [207,208]. The use of a gen-
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 21 of 34

erative adversarial network (GAN) in developing a state-of-the-art hyperpersonalization

recommendation system can facilitate an apparel type recommendation or clothing fit
recommendation with a real time image generation [157,206,209]. Kang et al. proposed a
visually aware deep Bayesian personalized ranking method (DVBPR) recommendation
system that can generate new clothing given a user profile and a product category, which
is designed with more customization in order to provide more accurate recommendations
to users or consumers [5]. Their system achieves an area-under-curve or AUC value of
79.64% on provided dataset, which is higher than that of baseline models such as random
ranking, popularity ranking (PopRank), weighted approximated ranking pairwise (WARP),
Bayesian personalized ranking combined with matrix factorization method (BPR-MF),
visual similarity-based raking method (VisRank), factorization machines (FM) and visually
aware personalized ranking (VBPR). There has not been rigorous research on hyperperson-
alized filtering-based recommendation models, as it is comparatively new compared to the
other three filtering techniques mentioned above. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel
hyperpersonalized filtering-based recommendation model in Section 6 below, which can
be used by future researchers in this field.

5.4. Strengths and Weakness of Filtering Techniques

The successful outcome of the recommendation system depends on the relevance
of the filtering technique and its compatibility with the proposed model. Therefore, re-
searchers should consider the strengths and weaknesses of the corresponding filtering tech-
niques while conducting research on fashion recommendation systems. Table 4 presents
the strengths and weakness of the each of the recommendation filtering techniques dis-
cussed above.

Table 4. Strengths and weakness of recommendation filtering techniques.

Filtering Techniques Strength Weakness

• As it is CBF domain-dependent,
rigorous domain knowledge is
required to make precise
• Products recommended based on the
recommendations.
evaluation of experienced users.
• The model only recommends products
• CBF does not need any information from
based on an existing database of
other users, which makes this technique
previous users’ interest, which restricts
more feasible and less time consuming.
Content-based its expansion.
• CBF can attain the specific interest of a
• Due to cold start problem, cannot be
user and make recommendations
applied to make recommendations to
accordingly.
new users.
• Provides a valuable explanation, which
• This method suffers limited content
motivates users to make decisions.
analysis issues, meaning users are
restricted to the items already
recommended.

• CF does not depend on domain

• Not applicable for new users, similar to
knowledge.
content-based methods.
• It does not require contextual attributes.
• Difficult to include side features for
This technique can be applied to one of
Collaborative query/items.
the multiple users’ generators.
• Single-rating CF was successful
• This method can allow users to discover
whereas multicriteria rating is still
new interests despite the absence of
under optimization.
content in the user’s profile.
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 22 of 34

Table 4. Cont.

Filtering Techniques Strength Weakness

• Proposed multicriteria rating over

CF-based recommendation.
• Solved cold start problem.
• Hybrid algorithm overcame the single
algorithms’ shortcomings. • Hybrid nature made this method
• Cascade hybridization, one of the HF complex because of the necessity of
Hybrid
methods, exhibited high sensitivity, applying numerous recommendation
resulting in efficient recommendations. parameters for analysis.
• HF does not exclusively depend on
collaborative data.
• Solved sparsity issue of CF method
using metalevel technique.

• Involves taking additional data, which

• Yields better results when it comes to
makes the process a bit more
customer satisfaction and needs.
expensive.
Hyperpersonalization • Enhanced customer experiences.
• Privacy invasion can be a concern, as
• Higher return on investment (ROI).
when more than the required data are
• Highly engaging social campaigns.
collected it can lead to a privacy issue.

6. Prospects, Challenges and Recommendations for Future Research

There has been significant progress recently in fashion recommendation system re-
search, which will benefit both consumers and retailers soon. The use of product and
user images, textual content, demographic history, and cultural information is crucial in
developing recommendation frameworks. Product attributes and clothing style matching
are common features of collaborative and content-based filtering techniques. Researchers
can develop more sophisticated hyperpersonalized filtering techniques considering the
correlation between consumers’ clothing styles and personalities. The methods based
on employing a scoring system for quantifying each product attribute will be helpful
in increasing the precision of the model. The use of virtual sales advisers in an online
shopping portal would provide consumers with a real time offline shopping experience.
Retailers can collect the data on users’ purchase history and product reviews from the
recommendation system and subsequently use them in style prediction for the upcoming
seasons. The integration of different domain information strengthens the deep learning
paradigm by enabling the detection of design component variation, which improves the
performance of the recommendation system in the long run. Deep learning approaches
should be more frequently used to quickly explore fashion items from different online
databases to provide prompt recommendations to users or consumers.
Image quality has always been a critical issue for recommendation systems. Product
images taken under controlled environments give higher accuracy in product retrieval and
prediction. However, photos taken in a random environment, such as selfies and street
style photos, create challenges for the model and lead to inaccurate predictions. Therefore,
there should be more research on image parsing, as it is crucial to understand product
attributes and human postures, which are applied to predict consumers’ fashion preferences.
Besides, the development of new state-of-the-art algorithms to analyze randomly captured
social media or street photos would be helpful to overcome different obstacles related to
image resolution, background, and other technical features. Database generation is always
challenging for researchers, particularly when the model is designed to identify new
factors and product contents from images that were not identified earlier. The annotation
or labeling of such a database is a tedious, time consuming and costly process. The
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 23 of 34

combination of different databases such as runway images, street photos, look-book images,
photos from photo sharing sites and social media images will make it easier to train the
model on various fashion categories. Hence, it will increase the robustness of the model.
The integration of product images available in online shops with street snapshots will create
a large dataset that can be used to parse body and clothing images and distinguish attributes
of clothes such as textures and clothing types. There has been limited in-depth research on
developing recommendation systems using text (review and comments), product images
and user photos together. Therefore, there should be more novel research on developing
recommendation models by combining sentiment analysis with user images to provide
intelligent and social-network-based hyperpersonalized recommendations. This can be
achieved by using hybrid and hyperpersonalized filtering techniques together to develop
the recommendation system. The use of social media is rapidly increasing around the
world. Nevertheless, retailers and researchers have not widely explored the potentiality of
using social media images for clothing recommendation. Moreover, there is still limited
research on using image analysis for online fashion recommendation. Therefore, future
research on social media should include a holistic analysis of users’ images, texts and facial
expressions to make the recommendation system more effective.
Researchers should also explore the potential of some widely used statistical tests, such
as the sign test and the Friedman test, as a metric of testing the significance of performance
evaluation or recommendation accuracy. The sign test is a simple test of significance
used to measure the performance of one system over another based on the probability
distribution [210]. The Friedman test is a non-parametric test identical to the repeated-
measures ANOVA. It ranks the algorithms individually for each dataset, where the best
performing algorithm is assigned the 1st rank, the second-best algorithm is assigned the
2nd rank, etc. [211].

6.1. Potential Algorithmic Models for the Future

6.1.1. Multi View Deep Neural Network
Multi view deep neural network (MV-DNN) is a cross-domain recommendation
system which treats users as the pivot view and each domain as an auxiliary view. The
primary model is based on the hypothesis that if the users have similar tastes in one
domain, they should have similar tastes in other domains as well [212]. Therefore, this
model can be inefficient in some cases for which it must have some preliminary knowledge
on the correlations across different domains. A MV-DNN or MV-CNN can be used in a FRS
along with a MLP, which could potentially learn from features of items from cross-domains
and user features as well as map users and items to a latent space where the similarity
between users and their preferred items can be maximized. Moreover, it can be a great
addition to a highly scalable fashion recommendation system to attain rich, feature-based
user representation by reducing the dimension of the inputs and the amount of training
data required.

6.1.2. Neural Collaborative Filtering

There was an idea to develop a two-way interaction between users’ preferences
and item features to pinpoint the recommendation system. A dual neural network was
proposed to model the two-way interaction between users and items. Fusing the neural
interpretation of matrix factorization (MF) with multilayer perceptron (MLP) to develop
a new generalized model by making use of both linearity of MF and non-linearity of
MLP could enhance the recommendation quality. Xue et al. and Zhang et al. proposed
replacing one-shot identifiers with columns or rows of the interaction matrix to retain the
user–item interaction patterns [213,214]. In general fashion recommendation systems, the
user satisfaction is not observed and there is an inherent scarcity of negative feedback.
Using a neural collaborative network in the final part of the system can reduce this by
using the output of one layer as the input of the next one to generate feedback for the
predicted recommendation. Moreover, it can increase the performance and quality of any
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 24 of 34

fashion recommendation system, for example color and style selection confidence, for any
specific user based on accurate feedback related to the product.

6.1.3. Neural Autoregressive-Based Recommendation

The neural autoregressive distribution estimator (NADE) is a tractable distribution
estimator, which provides a desirable alternative to the restricted Boltzmann machine
(RBM), which is not tractable. Zheng et al. proposed a NADE-based collaborative filtering
model (CF-NADE) by modeling the distribution of user ratings [215]. Later, Du et al.
improved the model using a user–item co-autoregressive approach and achieved better
performance in both rating estimation and personalized ranking tasks, which gives the
model high potential to be used in fashion recommendation systems [216]. Moreover, the
model can be further extended to a deep model by combining it with MLP or autoencoder
and can potentially use the implicit feedback to overcome the sparsity problem of the rating
matrix. The increased performance in rating estimation and personalized ranking tasks
can make the cross-matching of the products of the fashion recommendation system much
more accurate and time efficient.

6.1.4. Neural Graph Filtering

Liu, X. et al. developed a recommendation system applying neural graph filtering,
where they used the Polyvore dataset, the Polyvore-D dataset, and the Amazon Fashion
dataset for their experiment [217]. Neural graph filtering is based on graph structures with
nodes represented as visual embeddings of the apparel images and edges modeled by the
interrelationship among the apparel items. The edge information is accumulated and then
circulated through forward propagation to evaluate a compatibility score for a given set of
apparel or garment item. It describes the suitability of all the products within the set that
match each other. While determining the compatibility score, the inter-relationships among
all garment items are considered. Then, the garment set with the highest compatibility
score is confidently recommended to the user [217].

6.1.5. Hybrid Model

Zhang et al. combined CNNs with autoencoders for image feature extraction lever-
aging structural content, textual content and visual content with different embedding
techniques, which relates the products’ attributes with users’ preferences [218]. It combines
a heterogeneous network embedding method for interpreting structural information, a
stacked denoising autoencoder to learn feature representations from textual information
and stacked convolutional autoencoders for visual representation and finally completes
the recommendation process in a probabilistic form. Therefore, it could add great value
to a fashion recommendation system by generating new and high-quality visual clothing
recommendations for the users by combining the confidence scores with the structural
information. Vasileva et al. combined conditional similarity networks, visual-semantic
embedding, SiameseNet and metric approaches to develop a fashion recommendation
model [219]. They conducted extensive experiments on the Maryland Polyvore, Polyvore
Outfits-D and Polyvore Outfits datasets and found that their approach outperformed other
state-of-the-art recommendation techniques.

7. Discussion
This scholarly article has provided a comprehensive review of the methods, algorith-
mic models and filtering techniques used in the recent fashion recommendation-based
research papers. However, this review paper has some limitations too. Primarily, the
focus of this comprehensive review paper was to explore fashion recommendation-based
articles published in last decade that explicitly described their frameworks, algorithms,
and filtering techniques. To achieve this goal, the articles were searched using keywords
relevant to the topic title instead of using the PRISMA technique. However, it did not
affect the article extraction methodology, because the authors included and studied all the
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 25 of 34

research papers relevant to the research focus. However, future researchers could conduct
a systematic literature review on the same topic. The initial keyword searching did not
include “garment” and “outfit”; however, this did not influence the search results because
we also studied the fashion recommendation articles that contained these keywords. The
future research can also conduct a review of the datasets that have been used in fashion
recommendation-based research articles. Additionally, further reviews of fashion recom-
mendation systems can apply our proposed potential algorithms to any of the available
fashion image datasets to evaluate the performance of the recommender systems.

8. Conclusions
Recommendation systems have the potential to explore new opportunities for retailers
by enabling them to provide customized recommendations to consumers based on infor-
mation retrieved from the Internet. They help consumers to instantly find the products and
services that closely match with their choices. Moreover, different stat-of-the-art algorithms
have been developed to recommend products based on users’ interactions with their social
groups. Therefore, research on embedding social media images within fashion recommen-
dation systems has gained huge popularity in recent times. This paper presented a review
of the fashion recommendation systems, algorithmic models and filtering techniques based
on the academic articles related to this topic. The technical aspects, strengths and weak-
nesses of the filtering techniques have been discussed elaborately, which will help future
researchers gain an in-depth understanding of fashion recommender systems. However,
the proposed prototypes should be tested in commercial applications to understand their
feasibility and accuracy in the retail market, because inaccurate recommendations can
produce a negative impact on a customer. Moreover, future research should concentrate on
including time series analysis and accurate categorization of product images based on the
variation in color, trend and clothing style in order to develop an effective recommendation
system. The proposed model will follow brand-specific personalization campaigns and
hence it will ensure highly curated and tailored offerings for users. Hence, this research
will be highly beneficial for researchers interested in using augmented and virtual reality
features to develop recommendation systems.

Author Contributions: S.C.: Conceptualization, Methodology and Writing—Original Draft Prepa-

ration; M.S.H.: Conceptualization, Methodology and Writing—Original Draft Preparation; N.R.J.:
Writing—Original Draft Preparation and Writing—Reviewing and Editing; M.C.B.: Methodology
and Writing—Reviewing and Editing; D.B.: Writing—Original Draft Preparation and Writing—
Reviewing and Editing, E.L.: Supervision; Writing—Reviewing and Editing. The authors approved
the manuscript and agreed with the submission to the Informatics journal. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors would like to acknowledge Gregory Key
(Volunteer International Advisor and Mentor, North Carolina State University) for proofreading this
manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Barnard, M. Fashion as Communication, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2008.
2. Chakraborty, S.; Hoque, S.M.A.; Kabir, S.M.F. Predicting fashion trend using runway images: Application of logistic regression in
trend forecasting. Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2020, 13, 376–386. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 26 of 34

3. Karmaker Santu, S.K.; Sondhi, P.; Zhai, C. On application of learning to rank for e-commerce search. In Proceedings of the 40th
International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan, 7–11
August 2017; pp. 475–484. [CrossRef]
4. Garude, D.; Khopkar, A.; Dhake, M.; Laghane, S.; Maktum, T. Skin-tone and occasion oriented outfit recommendation system.
SSRN Electron. J. 2019. [CrossRef]
5. Kang, W.-C.; Fang, C.; Wang, Z.; McAuley, J. Visually-aware fashion recommendation and design with generative image models.
In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), New Orleans, LA, USA, 18–21 November
2017; pp. 207–216. [CrossRef]
6. Sachdeva, H.; Pandey, S. Interactive Systems for Fashion Clothing Recommendation. In Emerging Technology in Modelling and
Graphics; Mandal, J.K., Bhattacharya, D., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; Volume 937, pp. 287–294. [CrossRef]
7. Sun, G.-L.; Wu, X.; Peng, Q. Part-based clothing image annotation by visual neighbor retrieval. Neurocomputing 2016, 213, 115–124.
[CrossRef]
8. Zhang, Y.; Caverlee, J. Instagrammers, Fashionistas, and Me: Recurrent Fashion Recommendation with Implicit Visual Influence.
In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Beijing, China, 3–7
November 2019; pp. 1583–1592. [CrossRef]
9. Matzen, K.; Bala, K.; Snavely, N. StreetStyle: Exploring world-wide clothing styles from millions of photos. arXiv 2017,
arXiv:1706.01869.
10. Guan, C.; Qin, S.; Ling, W.; Ding, G. Apparel recommendation system evolution: An empirical review. Int. J. Cloth. Sci. Technol.
2016, 28, 854–879. [CrossRef]
11. Hu, Y.; Manikonda, L.; Kambhampati, S. What We Instagram: A First Analysis of Instagram Photo Content and User Types.
Available online: http://www.aaai.org (accessed on 1 May 2014).
12. Gao, G.; Liu, L.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y. Fashion clothes matching scheme based on Siamese Network and AutoEncoder. Multimed.
Syst. 2019, 25, 593–602. [CrossRef]
13. Liu, Y.; Gao, Y.; Feng, S.; Li, Z. Weather-to-garment: Weather-oriented clothing recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE
International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. (ICME), Hong Kong, China, 31 August 2017; pp. 181–186. [CrossRef]
14. Chakraborty, S.; Hoque, M.S.; Surid, S.M. A comprehensive review on image based style prediction and online fashion recom-
mendation. J. Mod. Tech. Eng. 2020, 5, 212–233.
15. Chen, W.; Huang, P.; Xu, J.; Guo, X.; Guo, C.; Sun, F.; Li, C.; Pfadler, A.; Zhao, H.; Zhao, B. POG: Personalized outfit generation for
fashion recommendation at Alibaba iFashion. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge
Discovery & Data Mining, Anchorage, AK, USA, 4–8 August 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA,
2019; pp. 2662–2670. [CrossRef]
16. Street Style Fashion. Available online: http://www.chictopia.com/browse/people (accessed on 12 July 2021).
17. Lindig, S. Outfit Recommendation Algorithm for Better Instagram Photos—Fashion Algorithm for Instagram. Available
online: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/trends/a11271/fashion-algorithm-suggests-outfits-for-better-instagram-
photos/ (accessed on 13 July 2021).
18. Lookbook. Available online: https://lookbook.nu/ (accessed on 13 July 2021).
19. Park, J.; Ciampaglia, G.L.; Ferrara, E. Style in the age of Instagram: Predicting success within the fashion industry using social
media. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing—CSCW ’16,
San Francisco, CA, USA, 27 February–2 March 2016; pp. 64–73. [CrossRef]
20. Shopstyle: Search and Find the Latest in Fashion. Available online: https://www.shopstyle.com/ (accessed on 13 July 2021).
21. Spiller, L.; Tuten, T. Integrating Metrics Across the Marketing Curriculum: The digital and social media opportunity. J. Mark.
Educ. 2015, 37, 114–126. [CrossRef]
22. Tsujita, H.; Tsukada, K.; Kambara, K.; Siio, I. Complete fashion coordinator: A support system for capturing and selecting daily
clothes with social networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces—AVI ’10, Rome,
Italy, 26–28 May 2010; p. 127. [CrossRef]
23. Lakkaraju, H.; Ajmera, J. Attention prediction on social media brand pages. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International
Conference on Information and Knowledge Management–CIKM ’11, Glasgow, UK, 24–28 October 2011; p. 2157. [CrossRef]
24. Stieglitz, S.; Dang-Xuan, L. Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media—Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior.
J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2013, 29, 217–248. [CrossRef]
25. Jagadeesh, V.; Piramuthu, R.; Bhardwaj, A.; Di, W.; Sundaresan, N. Large scale visual recommendations from street fashion
images. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining—KDD
’14, New York, NY, USA, 24–27 August 2014; pp. 1925–1934. [CrossRef]
26. Ma, Y.; Yang, X.; Liao, L.; Cao, Y.; Chua, T.-S. Who, where, and what to wear?: Extracting Fashion knowledge from social media. In
Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Nice, France, 21–25 October 2019; pp. 257–265. [CrossRef]
27. Yamaguchi, K.; Kiapour, M.H.; Ortiz, L.E.; Berg, T.L. Parsing clothing in fashion photographs. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Providence, RI, USA, 16–21 June 2012; pp. 3570–3577. [CrossRef]
28. An, H.; Kwon, S.; Park, M. A case study on the recommendation services for customized fashion styles based on artificial
intelligence. J. Korean Soc. Cloth. Text. 2019, 43, 349–360. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 27 of 34

29. Jain, G.; Rakesh, S.; Nabi, M.K.; Chaturvedi, K. Hyper-personalization–fashion sustainability through digital clienteling. Res. J.
Text. Appar. 2018, 22, 320–334. [CrossRef]
30. Yin, R.; Li, K.; Lu, J.; Zhang, G. Enhancing Fashion Recommendation with Visual Compatibility Relationship. In Proceedings of
the The World Wide Web Conference on—WWW ’19, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 May 2019; pp. 3434–3440. [CrossRef]
31. Jo, J.; Lee, S.; Lee, C.; Lee, D.; Lim, H. Development of fashion product retrieval and recommendations model based on deep
learning. Electronics 2020, 9, 508. [CrossRef]
32. Cui, P.; Wang, F.; Liu, S.; Ou, M.; Yang, S.; Sun, L. Who should share what?: Item-level social influence prediction for users and
posts ranking. In Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information-
SIGIR ’11, Beijing, China, 24–28 July 2011; p. 185. [CrossRef]
33. Lu, H.; Chen, Y.; Dai, H.Q. Clothing recommendation based on fuzzy mathematics. Int. J. Adv. Oper. Manag. 2013, 5, 14. [CrossRef]
34. Mohammed Abdulla, G.; Singh, S.; Borar, S. Shop your right size: A system for recommending sizes for fashion products. In
Proceedings of the Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference on—WWW ’19, San Francisco, CA, USA,
13–17 May 2019; pp. 327–334. [CrossRef]
35. Polania, L.F.; Gupte, S. Learning Fashion Compatibility Across Apparel Categories for Outfit Recommendation. In Proceedings
of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Taipei, Taiwan, 22–25 September 2019; pp. 4489–4493.
[CrossRef]
36. Sonie, O.; Chelliah, M.; Sural, S. Concept to code: Deep learning for fashion recommendation. In Proceedings of the Companion
Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference on—WWW ’19, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 May 2019; pp. 1319–1320.
[CrossRef]
37. Stefani, M.A.; Stefanis, V.; Garofalakis, J. CFRS: A trends-driven collaborative fashion recommendation system. In Proceedings of
the 2019 10th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), Patras, Greece, 15–17 July
2019; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
38. Sun, G.-L.; Cheng, Z.-Q.; Wu, X.; Peng, Q. Personalized clothing recommendation combining user social circle and fashion style
consistency. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2017, 77, 17731–17754. [CrossRef]
39. Kwon, Y.-B.; Ogier, J.-M. (Eds.) Graphics recognition. new trends and challenges: 9th international workshop. In GREC 2011,
Seoul, Korea, 15–16 September 2011; Revised Selected Papers; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; Volume 7423. [CrossRef]
40. Lakshmi Pavani, M.; Bhanu Prakash, A.V.; Shwetha Koushik, M.S.; Amudha, J.; Jyotsna, C. Navigation through eye-tracking for
human–computer interface. In Information and Communication Technology for Intelligent Systems; Satapathy, S.C., Joshi, A., Eds.;
Springer: Singapore, 2019; Volume 107, pp. 575–586. [CrossRef]
41. Li, J.; Li, Y. Cognitive model based fashion style decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 4972–4977. [CrossRef]
42. Li, J.; Zhong, X.; Li, Y. A Psychological Decision Making Model Based Personal Fashion Style Recommendation System. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-centric Computing 2011 and Embedded and Multimedia Computing
2011; Park, J.J., Jin, H., Liao, X., Zheng, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 102, pp. 57–64. [CrossRef]
43. Li, R.; Zhou, Y.; Mok, P.Y.; Zhu, S. Intelligent clothing size and fit recommendations based on human model customisation
technology. In Proceedings of the WSCG ’2017: Short Communications Proceedings: The 25th International Conference in Central
Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision 2016 in Co-Operation with EUROGRAPHICS, Plzen, Czech
Republic, 29 May–2 June 2017; pp. 25–32.
44. Lin, Y.; Ren, P.; Chen, Z.; Ren, Z.; Ma, J.; de Rijke, M. Improving Outfit Recommendation with Co-supervision of Fashion
Generation. In Proceedings of the The World Wide Web Conference on—WWW ’19, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 May 2019;
pp. 1095–1105. [CrossRef]
45. Akabane, T.; Kosugi, S.; Kimura, S.; Arai, M. Method to consider familiarity in clothing coordination recommender systems. In
Proceedings of the 2011 3rd International Conference on Computer Research and Development, Shanghai, China, 11–13 March
2011; Volume 1, pp. 22–26.
46. Chae, Y.; Xu, J.; Stenger, B.; Masuko, S. Color navigation by qualitative attributes for fashion recommendation. In Proceedings
of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 12–15 January 2018; pp. 1–3.
[CrossRef]
47. Chung, W.; Shin, C.S. (Eds.) Advances in affective and pleasurable design. In Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International
Conference on Affective and Pleasurable Design, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 17–21 July 2017; Springer International Publishing: New
York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 585. [CrossRef]
48. Faria, A.P.; Cunha, J.; Providência, B. Fashion communication in the digital age: Findings from interviews with industry
professionals and design recommendations. Procedia CIRP 2019, 84, 930–935. [CrossRef]
49. Gu, X.; Wong, Y.; Peng, P.; Shou, L.; Chen, G.; Kankanhalli, M.S. Understanding fashion trends from street photos via neighbor-
constrained embedding learning. In Proceedings of the MM 2017-Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Multimedia Conference, Mountain
View, CA, USA, 23–27 October 2017; pp. 190–198. [CrossRef]
50. Heinz, X.S.; Bracher, C.; Vollgraf, R. An LSTM-Based Dynamic Customer Model for Fashion Recommendation. Available online:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.07347v1 (accessed on 12 July 2021).
51. Hu, Z.-H.; Li, X.; Wei, C.; Zhou, H.-L. Examining collaborative filtering algorithms for clothing recommendation in e-commerce.
Text. Res. J. 2018, 89, 2821–2835. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 28 of 34

52. Suganeshwari, G.; Syed Ibrahim, S.P.A. Survey on collaborative filtering based recommendation system. In Proceedings of the
3rd International Symposium on Big Data and Cloud Computing Challenges (ISBCC–16’); Vijayakumar, V., Neelanarayanan, V., Eds.;
Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 49, pp. 503–518. [CrossRef]
53. Rana, M.K.C. Survey paper on recommendation system. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 2012, 3, 3460–3462.
54. Alag, S. Collective Intelligence in Action; Manning: Greenwich, CT, USA, 2009.
55. Bhatnagar, V. (Ed.) Collaborative Filtering Using Data Mining and Analysis; IGI Global: Hershey, PE, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
56. Bobadilla, J.; Ortega, F.; Hernando, A.; Gutiérrez, A. Recommender systems survey. Knowl. Based Syst. 2013, 46, 109–132.
[CrossRef]
57. Isinkaye, F.; Folajimi, Y.; Ojokoh, B. Recommendation systems: Principles, methods and evaluation. Egypt. Inform. J. 2015, 16,
261–273. [CrossRef]
58. Plumbaum, T.; Kille, B. Personalized Fashion Advice. In Smart Information Systems; Hopfgartner, F., Ed.; Springer International
Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 213–237. [CrossRef]
59. Schafer, J.B.; Konstan, J.; Riedl, J. (Eds.) Recommender Systems in E-Commerce. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on
Electronic Commerce, Denver, CO, USA, 3–5 November 1999; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
60. Dalgleish, A.R. An Item Recommendation System. U.S. Patent No. US20110184831A1, 28 July 2011.
61. Rashid, A.M.; Albert, I.; Cosley, D.; Lam, S.K.; McNee, S.M.; Konstan, J.A.; Riedl, J. Getting to know you: Learning new user
preferences in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces—IUI ’02,
San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–16 January 2002; p. 127.
62. Geuens, S. Factorization machines for hybrid recommendation systems based on behavioral, product, and customer data.
In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Vienna, Austria, 16–20 September 2015; pp. 379–382.
63. Sharifi, Z.; Rezghi, M.; Nasiri, M. New algorithm for recommender systems based on singular value decomposition method.
In Proceedings of the ICCKE 2013, Mashhad, Iran, 31 October–1 November 2013; pp. 86–91. [CrossRef]
64. Jawaheer, G.; Weller, P.; Kostkova, P. Modeling user preferences in recommender systems: A classification framework for explicit
and implicit user feedback. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2014, 4, 1–26. [CrossRef]
65. Kardan, A.A.; Ebrahimi, M. A novel approach to hybrid recommendation systems based on association rules mining for content
recommendation in asynchronous discussion groups. Inf. Sci. 2013, 219, 93–110. [CrossRef]
66. Bauer, J.; Nanopoulos, A. Recommender systems based on quantitative implicit customer feedback. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 68,
77–88. [CrossRef]
67. Wan, S.; Niu, Z. A Hybrid E-Learning recommendation approach based on learners’ influence propagation. IEEE Trans. Knowl.
Data Eng. 2019, 32, 827–840. [CrossRef]
68. Ji, Z.; Pi, H.; Wei, W.; Xiong, B.; Woźniak, M.; Damasevicius, R. Recommendation based on review texts and social communities:
A hybrid model. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 40416–40427. [CrossRef]
69. Wei, Z.; Yan, Y.; Huang, L.; Nie, J. Inferring intrinsic correlation between clothing style and wearers’ personality. Multimed. Tools
Appl. 2017, 76, 20273–20285. [CrossRef]
70. Rosebrock, A. Intersection over Union (IoU) for Object Detection; Pyimagesearch, 2016. Available online: https://www.
pyimagesearch.com/2016/11/07/intersection-over-union-iou-for-object-detection/ (accessed on 13 July 2021).
71. Cremonesi, P.; Koren, Y.; Turrin, R. Performance of recommender algorithms on top-n recommendation tasks. In Proceedings of
the Fourth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Barcelona, Spain, 26–30 September 2010; Association for Computing
Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 39–46.
72. Taifi, M. MRR vs MAP vs NDCG: Rank-Aware Evaluation Metrics and when to Use Them. 2019. Available online: https:
//medium.com/swlh/rank-aware-recsys-evaluation-metrics-5191bba1683221 (accessed on 13 July 2021).
73. Valcarce, D.; Bellogín, A.; Parapar, J.; Castells, P. Assessing ranking metrics in top-N recommendation. Inf. Retr. 2020, 23, 411–448.
[CrossRef]
74. Guan, C.; Qin, S.; Long, Y. Apparel-based deep learning system design for apparel style recommendation. Int. J. Cloth. Sci. Technol.
2019, 31, 376–389. [CrossRef]
75. Zempo, K.; Sumita, U. Identifying Colors of Products and Associated Personalized Recommendation Engine in e-Fashion Business.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Modeling and Simulation, Plus Econophysics Colloquium 2014; Takayasu, H., Ito,
N., Noda, I., Takayasu, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 335–346. [CrossRef]
76. Hidayati, S.C.; Hsu, C.-C.; Chang, Y.-T.; Hua, K.-L.; Fu, J.; Cheng, W.-H. What dress fits me best?: Fashion recommendation on the
clothing style for personal body shape. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Multimedia Conference on Multimedia Conference—MM
’18, Yokohama, Japan, 11–14 June 2018; pp. 438–446. [CrossRef]
77. Piazza, A.; Kröckel, P.; Bodendorf, F. Emotions and fashion recommendations: Evaluating the predictive power of affective
information for the prediction of fashion product preferences in cold-start scenarios. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Web Intelligence, Amantea, Italy, 19–22 June 2017; pp. 1234–1240. [CrossRef]
78. Vecchi, A. (Ed.) Advanced Fashion Technology and Operations Management; IGI Global: Hershey, PE, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
79. Sharma, S.; Koehl, L.; Bruniaux, P.; Zeng, X. Garment fashion recommendation system for customized garment. In Proceedings of
the 2019 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Systems Management (IESM), Shanghai, China, 25–27 September
2019; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 29 of 34

80. Guigourès, R.; Ho, Y.K.; Koriagin, E.; Sheikh, A.-S.; Bergmann, U.; Shirvany, R. A hierarchical bayesian model for size recommen-
dation in fashion. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Columbia, BC, Canada, 2 October 2018;
pp. 392–396. [CrossRef]
81. Hou, M.; Wu, L.; Chen, E.; Li, Z.; Zheng, V.W.; Liu, Q. Explainable fashion recommendation: A semantic attribute region guided
approach. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1905.12862.
82. Tuinhof, H.; Pirker, C.; Haltmeier, M. Image-based fashion product recommendation with deep learning. In Machine Learning,
Optimization, and Data Scienc; Nicosia, G., Pardalos, P., Giuffrida, G., Umeton, R., Sciacca, V., Eds.; Springer International
Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Volume 11331, pp. 472–481. [CrossRef]
83. Verma, S.; Anand, S.; Arora, C.; Rai, A. Diversity in Fashion Recommendation Using Semantic Parsing. In Proceedings of the
2018 25th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Athens, Greece, 7–10 October 2018; pp. 500–504. [CrossRef]
84. Cardoso, Â.; Daolio, F.; Vargas, S. Product characterisation towards personalisation: Learning attributes from unstructured data
to recommend fashion products. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery &
Data Mining, London, UK, 19–23 August 2018; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 80–89.
[CrossRef]
85. Corbiere, C.; Ben-Younes, H.; Rame, A.; Ollion, C. Leveraging weakly annotated data for fashion image retrieval and label
prediction. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW), Venice, Italy,
22–29 October 2017; pp. 2268–2274. [CrossRef]
86. Xiang, J.; Zhang, N.; Pan, R.; Gao, W. Fabric Image Retrieval System Using Hierarchical Search Based on Deep Convolutional
Neural Network. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 35405–35417. [CrossRef]
87. Agrawal, P.; Dayama, P.S.; Saha, A.; Tamilselvam, S.G. Coordinated Event Based Wardrobe Recommendation. U.S. Patent
15/832,351, 6 June 2019.
88. Dong, A.H.; Shan, D.; Ruan, Z.; Zhou, L.Y.; Zuo, F. The design and implementation of an intelligent apparel recommend expert
system. Math. Probl. Eng. 2013, 2013, 1–8. [CrossRef]
89. Stan, C.; Mocanu, I. An intelligent personalized fashion recommendation system. In Proceedings of the 2019 22nd International
Conference on Control. Systems and Computer Science (CSCS), Bucharest, Romania, 28–30 May 2019; pp. 210–215. [CrossRef]
90. Tangseng, P.; Okatani, T. Toward explainable fashion recommendation. I. In Proceedings of the IEEE Winter Conference on
Applications of Computer Vision, Snowmass Village, CO, USA, 1–5 March 2020; pp. 2153–2162.
91. Kalantidis, Y.; Kennedy, L.; Li, L.-J. Getting the look: Clothing recognition and segmentation for automatic product suggestions in
everyday photos. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval–ICMR ’13,
Dallas, TX, USA, 16–20 April 2013; p. 105. [CrossRef]
92. Li, Y.; Liu, T.; Jiang, J.; Zhang, L. Hashtag recommendation with topical attention-based LSTM. In Proceedings of the COLING
2016, Osaka, Japan, 11–16 December 2016; pp. 3019–3029.
93. Liu, S.; Feng, J.; Song, Z.; Zhang, T.; Lu, H.; Xu, C.; Yan, S. Hi, magic closet, tell me what to wear! In Proceedings of the 20th ACM
International Conference on Multimedia—MM ’12, Nara, Japan, 29 October–2 November 2012; p. 619. [CrossRef]
94. Sekozawa, T.; Mitsuhashi, H.; Ozawa, Y. One-to-one recommendation system in apparel online shopping. Electron. Commun. Jpn.
2010, 94, 51–60. [CrossRef]
95. Zhou, Z.; Zhou, J.; Zhang, L. Demand-adaptive Clothing Image Retrieval Using Hybrid Topic Model. In Proceedings of the 2016
ACM on Multimedia Conference—MM ’16, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 15–19 October 2016; pp. 496–500. [CrossRef]
96. Li, Z.; Li, Y.; Tian, W.; Pang, Y.; Liu, Y. Cross-scenario clothing retrieval and fine-grained style recognition. In Proceedings of
the 2016 23rd International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), Cancun, Mexico, 4–8 December 2016; pp. 2912–2917.
[CrossRef]
97. Huang, J.; Feris, R.S.; Chen, Q.; Yan, S. Cross-domain image retrieval with a dual attribute-aware ranking network. In Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Santiago, Chile, 7–13 December 2015; pp. 1062–1070.
98. Jiang, S.; Wu, Y.; Fu, Y. Deep bi-directional cross-triplet embedding for cross-domain clothing retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2016
ACM on Multimedia Conference—MM ’16, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 15–19 October 2016; pp. 52–56. [CrossRef]
99. Jung, J.; Matsuba, Y.; Mallipeddi, R.; Funaya, H.; Ikeda, K.; Lee, M. Evolutionary programming based recommendation system
for online shopping. In Proceedings of the 2013 Asia-Pacific Signal. and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and
Conference, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 29 October–1 November 2013; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
100. Liu, S.; Liu, L.; Yan, S. Magic mirror: An intelligent fashion recommendation system. In Proceedings of the 2013 2nd IAPR Asian
Conference on Pattern Recognition, Washington, DC, USA, 5–8 November 2013; pp. 11–15. [CrossRef]
101. Peifeng, H.; Yuzhe, C.; Jingping, S.; Zhaomu, H. Smart wardrobe system based on Android platform. In Proceedings of the
2016 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analysis (ICCCBDA), Chengdu, China, 5–7 July 2016;
pp. 279–285. [CrossRef]
102. Yamada, T.; Takami, K. Configuration of the system for a fashion coordination service based on clothes life logs. In Proceedings of
the TENCON 2012 IEEE Region. 10 Conference, Cebu, Philippines, 19–22 November 2012; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
103. Yu-Chu, L.; Kawakita, Y.; Suzuki, E.; Ichikawa, H. Personalized Clothing-Recommendation System Based on a Modified Bayesian
Network. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/IPSJ 12th International Symposium on Applications and the Internet, Izmir, Turkey,
16–20 July 2012; pp. 414–417. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 30 of 34

104. Dai, J.-Y. Overall Design of Intelligent Wardrobe System. In Proceedings of the DEStech Transactions on Social Science, Education
and Human Science, 2018 3rd Annual International Conference on Education Science and Education Management (ESEM 2018),
Wuhan, China, 20–22 April 2018. [CrossRef]
105. Dumeljic, B.; Larson, M.; Bozzon, A. Moody closet: Exploring intriguing new views on wardrobe recommendation. In Proceedings
of the First International Workshop on Gamification for Information Retrieval, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 13 April 2014;
pp. 61–62.
106. Khan, N.S.; Tumpa, S.N.; Shwapnil, S.S. Proposed blueprint of an automated smart wardrobe using digital image processing.
In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering (ICAEE), Dhaka, Bangladesh,
26–28 September 2019; pp. 32–37. [CrossRef]
107. Liew, J.S.Y.; Kaziunas, E.; Liu, J.; Zhuo, S. Socially-interactive dressing room: An iterative evaluation on interface design.
In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI EA ’11,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; p. 2023. [CrossRef]
108. Limaksornkul, C.; Nakorn, D.N.; Rakmanee, O.; Viriyasitavat, W. Smart closet: Statistical-based apparel recommendation system.
In Proceedings of the Student Project Conference (ICT-ISPC), IEEE Third ICT International, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand, 26–27
March 2014.
109. Gu, S.; Liu, X.; Cai, L.; Shen, J. Fashion coordinates recommendation based on user behavior and visual clothing style. In Pro-
ceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Communication and Information Processing—ICCIP ’17, Tokyo, Japan, 24–26
November 2017; pp. 185–189. [CrossRef]
110. Guan, C.; Qin, S.; Ling, W.; Long, Y. Enhancing apparel data based on fashion theory for developing a novel apparel style
recommendation system. In Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies; Rocha, Á., Adeli, H., Reis, L.P., Costanzo,
S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 747, pp. 31–40. [CrossRef]
111. Guo, Y.; Wang, M.; Li, X. Application of an improved Apriori algorithm in a mobile e-commerce recommendation system. Ind.
Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 287–303. [CrossRef]
112. Hong, Y.; Zeng, X.; Bruniaux, P.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, X. Development of a new knowledge-based fabric recommendation system by
integrating the collaborative design process and multi-criteria decision support. Text. Res. J. 2018, 88, 2682–2698. [CrossRef]
113. Iliukovich-Strakovskaia, A.; Tsvetkova, V.; Dral, E.; Dral, A. Non-personalized Fashion Outfit Recommendations. In Trends
and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies; Rocha, Á., Adeli, H., Reis, L.P., Costanzo, S., Eds.; Springer International
Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 747, pp. 41–52. [CrossRef]
114. Iwata, T.; Watanabe, S.; Sawada, H. Fashion coordinates recommender system using photographs from fashion magazines.
In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, Spain, 16–22 July 2011.
115. Joyse Barbosa Rocha, H.; de Barros Costa, E.; Tuane Silva, E.; Caroline Lima, N.; Cavalcanti, J. A Knowledge-based approach for
personalised clothing recommendation for women. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information
Systems, Porto, Portugal, 26–29 April 2017; pp. 610–617. [CrossRef]
116. Lei, J.L.; Wang, J.; Lu, G.D.; Fei, S.M. Applying collaborative filtering techniques for individual fashion recommendation. Adv.
Mater. Res. 2010, 102–104, 31–35. [CrossRef]
117. Masuko, S.; Hayashi, Y. KiTeMiROOM: A fashion-coordination system for mobile devices. In Proceedings of the CHI ’13 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems on—CHI EA ’13, Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2013; p. 601. [CrossRef]
118. Miura, S.; Yamasaki, T.; Aizawa, K. SNAPPER: Fashion Coordinate Image Retrieval System. In Proceedings of the 2013
International Conference on Signal—Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems, Kyoto, Japan, 2–5 December 2013; pp. 784–789.
[CrossRef]
119. Na, Y.; Agnhage, T. Relationship between the preference styles of music and fashion and the similarity of their sensibility. Int. J.
Cloth. Sci. Technol. 2013, 25, 109–118. [CrossRef]
120. Nguyen, H.T.H.; Wistuba, M.; Grabocka, J.; Drumond, L.R.; Schmidt-Thieme, L. Personalized deep learning for tag recommenda-
tion. In Proceedings of the Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; Kim, J., Shim, K., Cao, L., Lee, J.-G., Lin, X.,
Moon, Y.-S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 10234, pp. 186–197. [CrossRef]
121. Otsuki, A. Community Analysis of Fashion Coordination Using a Distance of Categorical Data Sets. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2017, 7,
60–72. [CrossRef]
122. Sonie, O.; Chelliah, M.; Sural, S. Personalised fashion recommendation using deep learning. In Proceedings of the ACM India
Joint International Conference on Data Science and Management of Data—CoDS-COMAD ’19, Goa, India, 11–13 January 2019;
p. 368. [CrossRef]
123. Vuruskan, A.; Ince, T.; Bulgun, E.Y.; Guzelis, C. Intelligent fashion styling using genetic search and neural classification. Int. J.
Cloth. Sci. Technol. 2015, 27, 283–301. [CrossRef]
124. Wen, Y.; Liu, X.; Xu, B. Personalized Clothing Recommendation Based on Knowledge Graph. In Proceedings of the 2018
International Conference on Audio, Language and Image Processing (ICALIP), Shanghai, China, 23–24 June 2018; pp. 1–5.
[CrossRef]
125. Bagwari, S.; Singh, R.; Gehlot, A. Internet of things based intelligent wardrobe. SSRN Electron. J. 2019. [CrossRef]
126. Chakraverty, S.; Mithal, A. IoT based weather and location aware recommender system. In Proceedings of the 2018 8th
International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), Noida, India, 11–12 January 2018;
pp. 636–643. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 31 of 34

127. Chen, W.-Y.; Chen, J.-L.; Chen, L.-G. On-the-fly fashion photograph recommendation system with robust face shape features. In
Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 10–13 January 2014;
pp. 502–503. [CrossRef]
128. Chen, X.; Chen, H.; Xu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Cao, Y.; Qin, Z.; Zha, H. Personalized fashion recommendation with visual explanations
based on multimodal attention network: Towards visually explainable recommendation. In Proceedings of the 42nd International
ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Paris, France, 21–25 July 2019; pp. 765–774.
[CrossRef]
129. Mao, Q.; Dong, A.; Miao, Q.; Pan, L. Intelligent costume recommendation system based on expert system. J. Shanghai Jiaotong
Univ. Sci. 2018, 23, 227–234. [CrossRef]
130. Tu, Q.; Dong, L. An intelligent personalized fashion recommendation system. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference
on Communications, Circuits and Systems (ICCCAS), Chengdu, China, 28–30 July 2010; pp. 479–485. [CrossRef]
131. Vogiatzis, D.; Pierrakos, D.; Paliouras, G.; Jenkyn-Jones, S.; Possen, B. Expert and community based style advice. Expert Syst.
Appl. 2012, 39, 10647–10655. [CrossRef]
132. Wang, L.C.; Zeng, X.Y.; Koehl, L.; Chen, Y. Intelligent Fashion Recommender System: Fuzzy Logic in Personalized Garment
Design. IEEE Trans. Human-Mach. Syst. 2014, 45, 95–109. [CrossRef]
133. Yang, Z.; Su, Z.; Yang, Y.; Lin, G. From Recommendation to Generation: A Novel Fashion Clothing Advising Framework.
In Proceedings of the 2018 7th International Conference on Digital Home (ICDH), Guilin, China, 30 November–1 December 2018;
pp. 180–186. [CrossRef]
134. Yinggang, X.; Zhiliang, W.; Qing, Z. Humanized Clothing Recommendation System Based on Fuzzy Set Theory. In Proceedings
of the 2007 Chinese Control Conference, Zhangjiajie, China, 26–31 July 2007; pp. 380–385. [CrossRef]
135. Zeng, X.; Koehl, L.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y. An intelligent recommender system for personalized fashion design. In Proceedings of
the 2013 Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), Edmonton, AB, Canada, 24–28 June 2013;
pp. 760–765. [CrossRef]
136. Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Shi, Y.; Guo, Y.; Xu, C.; Zhang, E.; Tang, J.; Fang, Z. Fashion Evaluation Method for Clothing Recommendation
Based on Weak Appearance Feature. Sci. Program. 2017, 2017, 1–12. [CrossRef]
137. Zhang, X.; Jia, J.; Gao, K.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Li, J. Trip Outfits advisor: Location-oriented clothing recommendation. IEEE
Trans. Multimed. 2017, 19, 2533–2544. [CrossRef]
138. Anandhan, A.; Shuib, L.; Ismail, M.A.; Mujtaba, G. Social media recommender systems: Review and open research issues. IEEE
Access 2018, 6, 15608–15628. [CrossRef]
139. Hsieh, C.-Y.; Li, Y.-M. Fashion Recommendation with Social Intelligence on Personality and Trends. In Proceedings of the 2019
8th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), Toyama, Japan, 7–11 July 2019; pp. 85–90. [CrossRef]
140. Lu, Z.; Hu, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zeng, B. Learning binary code for personalized fashion recommendation. In Proceedings of
the 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Long Beach, CA, USA, 15–20 June 2019;
pp. 10554–10562. [CrossRef]
141. Jaradat, S. Deep Cross-Domain Fashion Recommendation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Recommender
Systems, Como, Italy, 27–31 August 2017; pp. 407–410. [CrossRef]
142. Jiang, M.; Cui, P.; Liu, R.; Yang, Q.; Wang, F.; Zhu, W.; Yang, S. Social contextual recommendation. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM
International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management—CIKM ’12, Maui, HI, USA, 29 October–2 November
2012; p. 45. [CrossRef]
143. Qian, Y.; Giaccone, P.; Sasdelli, M.; Vasquez, E.; Sengupta, B. Algorithmic clothing: Hybrid recommendation, from street-style-to-
shop. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1705.09451.
144. Sanchez-Riera, J.; Lin, J.-M.; Hua, K.-L.; Cheng, W.-H.; Tsui, A.W. i-Stylist: Finding the right dress through your social networks.
In MultiMedia Modeling; Amsaleg, L., Guðmundsson, G.P., Gurrin, C., Jónsson, G.P., Satoh, S., Eds.; Springer International
Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 10132, pp. 662–673. [CrossRef]
145. Schall, D. Social Network-Based Recommender Systems; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [CrossRef]
146. Zhan, H.; Shi, B.; Chen, J.; Zheng, Q.; Duan, L.-Y.; Kot, A.C. Fashion Recommendation on Street Images. In Proceedings of the
2019 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Taipei, Taiwan, 22–25 September 2019; pp. 280–284. [CrossRef]
147. Zhou, W.; Mok, P.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Shen, J.; Qu, Q.; Chau, K. Fashion recommendations through cross-media information
retrieval. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 2019, 61, 112–120. [CrossRef]
148. Li, T.; Liu, A.; Huang, C. A similarity scenario-based recommendation model with small disturbances for unknown items in
social networks. IEEE Access 2016, 4, 9251–9272. [CrossRef]
149. Li, Y.; Luo, Y.; Huang, Z. Fashion recommendation with multi-relational representation learning. In Advances in Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining; Lauw, H.W., Wong, R.C.-W., Ntoulas, A., Lim, E.-P., Ng, S.-K., Pan, S.J., Eds.; Springer International
Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2020; Volume 12084, pp. 3–15. [CrossRef]
150. Margaris, D.; Vassilakis, C.; Georgiadis, P. Recommendation information diffusion in social networks considering user influence
and semantics. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 2016, 6, 108. [CrossRef]
151. Murakami, T.; Kurosawa, Y.; Kurashita, Y.; Mera, K.; Takezawa, T. Extracting characteristics of fashion models from magazines
for item recommendation. In Text, Speech, and Dialogue; Král, P., Matoušek, V., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York,
NY, USA, 2015; Volume 9302, pp. 51–60. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 32 of 34

152. Qian, X.; Feng, H.; Zhao, G.; Mei, T. Personalized recommendation combining user interest and social circle. IEEE Trans. Knowl.
Data Eng. 2014, 26, 1763–1777. [CrossRef]
153. Wu, Q.; Zhao, P.; Cui, Z. Visual and Textual Jointly Enhanced Interpretable Fashion Recommendation. IEEE Access 2020, 8,
68736–68746. [CrossRef]
154. Wu, S.; Ren, W.; Yu, C.; Chen, G.; Zhang, D.; Zhu, J. Personal recommendation using deep recurrent neural networks in NetEase.
In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Helsinki, Finland, 16–20 May 2016;
pp. 1218–1229. [CrossRef]
155. Jaradat, S.; Dokoohaki, N.; Hammar, K.; Wara, U.; Matskin, M. Dynamic CNN Models for Fashion Recommendation in Instagram.
In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Intl Conf on Parallel & Distributed Processing with Applications, Ubiquitous Computing &
Communications, Big Data & Cloud Computing, Social Computing & Networking, Sustainable Computing & Communications
(ISPA/IUCC/BDCloud/SocialCom/SustainCom), Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 11–13 December 2018; pp. 1144–1151. [CrossRef]
156. Ono, C.; Kurokawa, M.; Motomura, Y.; Asoh, H. A context-aware movie preference model using a bayesian network for
recommendation and promotion. In User Modeling 2007; Conati, C., McCoy, K., Paliouras, G., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2007; Volume 4511, pp. 247–257. [CrossRef]
157. Raffiee, A.H.; Sollami, M. GarmentGAN: Photo-realistic adversarial fashion transfer. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2003.01894.
158. Viriato de Melo, E.; Nogueira, E.A.; Guliato, D. Content-Based Filtering Enhanced by Human Visual Attention Applied to
Clothing Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 27th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence
(ICTAI), Vietri sul Mare, Italy, 9–11 November 2015; pp. 644–651. [CrossRef]
159. Yu, W.; Zhang, H.; He, X.; Chen, X.; Xiong, L.; Qin, Z. Aesthetic-based Clothing Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2018
World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web—WWW ’18, Lyon, France, 23–27 April 2018; pp. 649–658. [CrossRef]
160. Quadrana, M.; Karatzoglou, A.; Hidasi, B.; Cremonesi, P. Personalizing session-based recommendations with hierarchical
recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Como, Italy, 27–31
August 2017; pp. 130–137. [CrossRef]
161. Smirnova, E.; Vasile, F. Contextual sequence modeling for recommendation with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the
2nd Workshop on Deep Learning for Recommender Systems—DLRS 2017, Como, Italy, 27 August 2017; pp. 2–9. [CrossRef]
162. Han, X.; Wu, Z.; Jiang, Y.G.; Davis, L.S. Learning fashion compatibility with bidirectional lstms. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM
International Conference on Multimedia, Mountain View, CA, USA, 23–27 October 2017; pp. 1078–1086.
163. Bracher, C.; Heinz, S.; Vollgraf, R. Fashion DNA: Merging content and sales data for recommendation and article mapping. arXiv
2016, arXiv:1609.02489.
164. Alashkar, T.; Jiang, S.; Wang, S.; Fu, Y. Examples-rules guided deep neural network for makeup recommendation. In Proceedings
of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-17), San Francisco, CA, USA, 4–9 February 2017; pp. 941–947.
165. Cheng, H.-T.; Ispir, M.; Anil, R.; Haque, Z.; Hong, L.; Jain, V.; Liu, X.; Shah, H.; Koc, L.; Harmsen, J.; et al. Wide & deep learning
for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Deep Learning for Recommender Systems–DLRS 2016, New
York, NY, USA, 15 September 2016; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 7–10. [CrossRef]
166. Ismail, A.R.; Fanani, A.Z.; Shidik, G.F. Implementation of naive bayes algorithm with particle swarm optimization in classification
of dress recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and
Communication (iSemantic), Dian Nuswantoro, Indonesia, 19–20 September 2020; pp. 174–178.
167. Wei, W.; Wang, Z.; Fu, C.; Damaševičius, R.; Scherer, R.; Wožniak, M. Intelligent recommendation of related items based on naive
bayes and collaborative filtering combination model. J. Physics: Conf. Ser. 2020, 1682, 012043. [CrossRef]
168. Liu, Y.; Nie, J.; Xu, L.; Chen, Y.; Xu, B. Clothing recommendation system based on advanced user-based collaborative filtering
algorithm. In Signal and Information Processing, Networking and Computers; Sun, S., Chen, N., Tian, T., Eds.; Springer: Singapore,
2018; Volume 473, pp. 436–443. [CrossRef]
169. Leininger, L.; Gipson, J.; Patterson, K.; Blanchard, B. Advancing performance of retail recommendation systems. SMU Data Sci.
Rev. 2020, 3, 1–16.
170. Zhang, J.; Liu, K.; Dong, M.; Yuan, H.; Zhu, C.; Zeng, X. An intelligent garment recommendation system based on fuzzy
techniques. J. Text. Inst. 2019, 111, 1324–1330. [CrossRef]
171. Adewumi, A.; Taiwo, A.; Misra, S.; Maskeliunas, R.; Damasevicius, R.; Ahuja, R.; Ayeni, F. A Unified Framework for Outfit
Design and Advice. In Data Management, Analytics and Innovation; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 31–41.
172. Wakita, Y.; Oku, K.; Huang, H.H.; Kawagoe, K. A fashion-brand recommender system using brand association rules and features.
In Proceedings of the 2015 IIAI 4th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), Okayama, Japan, 12–16
July 2015; pp. 719–720.
173. Wang, Y.; Li, S.; Kot, A.C. Joint learning for image-based handbag recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International
Conference on Multimedia and Expo. (ICME), Turin, Italy, 29 June–3 July 2015; pp. 1–6.
174. Zeng, M.X. Development of an Intelligent Recommendation System to Garment Designers for Designing New Personalized
Products. Ph.D. Thesis, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Saint-Etienne, Saint-Étienne, France, 3 April 2017.
175. Ajmani, S.; Ghosh, H.; Mallik, A.; Chaudhury, S.; Mallik, A. An Ontology Based Personalized Garment Recommendation System.
In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent
Technologies (IAT), Atlanta, GA, USA, 20 November 2013; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): Atlanta, GA,
USA, 2013; Volume 3, pp. 17–20.
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 33 of 34

176. Boutemedjet, S.; Ziou, D. Predictive approach for user long-term needs in content-based image suggestion. IEEE Trans. Neural
Netw. Learn. Syst. 2012, 23, 1242–1253. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
177. Deldjoo, Y.; Schedl, M.; Cremonesi, P.; Pasi, G.; Cremonesi, P. Content-based multimedia recommendation systems: Definition
and application domains. Res. Publ. Politecnico di Milano 2018, 1–12.
178. Zhao, Y.; Araki, K. What to Wear in Different Situations?: A Content-based Recommendation System for Fashion Coordination.
In Proceedings of the Japanese Forum on Information Technology (FIT2011), Tokyo, Japan, 12–14 September 2011; pp. 619–628.
179. Tao, X.; Chen, X.; Zeng, X.; Koehl, L. A customized garment collaborative design process by using virtual reality and sensory
evaluation on garment fit. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 115, 683–695. [CrossRef]
180. Kumar, I.P.; Sambangi, S. Content based apparel recommendation system for fashion industry. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 2019, 8,
509–516. [CrossRef]
181. Duda, R.O.; Hart, P.E.; Stork, D.G. Pattern Classification; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
182. Ekstrand, M.D. Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems. Found. Trends in Hum. Comput. Interact. 2011, 4, 81–173. [CrossRef]
183. Pujahari, A.; Sisodia, D.S. Model-based collaborative filtering for recommender systems: An empirical survey. In Proceedings of
the 2020 First International Conference on Power, Control and Computing Technologies (ICPC2T), Raipur, India, 3–5 January
2020; pp. 443–447. [CrossRef]
184. Gai, S.; Zhao, F.; Kang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Wang, D.; Tang, A. Deep Transfer Collaborative Filtering for Recommender Systems.
In PRICAI 2019: Trends in Artificial Intelligence; Nayak, A.C., Sharma, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY,
USA, 2019; Volume 11672, pp. 515–528. [CrossRef]
185. Halder, K.; Poddar, L.; Kan, M.Y. Cold start thread recommendation as extreme multi-label classification. In Proceedings of the
The Web Conference 2018, Lyon, France, 23–27 April 2018; pp. 1911–1918.
186. Kurama, V. A Simple Introduction to Collaborative Filtering. 2019. Available online: https://builtin.com/data-science/
collaborative-filtering-recommender-system (accessed on 23 June 2021).
187. Liu, Y.J.; Gao, Y.B.; Bian, L.Y.; Wang, W.Y.; Li, Z.M. How to wear beautifully? Clothing pair recommendation. J. Comput. Sci.
Technol. 2018, 33, 522–530. [CrossRef]
188. Raghuwanshi, S.K.; Pateriya, R.K. Collaborative Filtering Techniques in Recommendation Systems. In Data, Engineering and
Applications; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 11–21.
189. Song, X.; Han, X.; Li, Y.; Chen, J.; Xu, X.S.; Nie, L. GP-BPR: Personalized compatibility modeling for clothing matching.
In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Nice, France, 21–25 October 2019; pp. 320–328.
190. De Divitiis, L.; Becattini, F.; Baecchi, C.; Del Bimbo, A. Garment Recommendation with Memory Augmented Neural Networks.
arXiv 2020, arXiv:2012.06200.
191. Sagar, D.; Garg, J.; Kansal, P.; Bhalla, S.; Shah, R.R.; Yu, Y. PAI-BPR: Personalized Outfit Recommendation Scheme with Attribute-
wise Interpretability. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Multimedia Big Data (BigMM) September
2020, New Delhi, India, 24–26 September 2020; pp. 221–230.
192. Hwangbo, H.; Kim, Y. An empirical study on the effect of data sparsity and data overlap on cross domain collaborative filtering
performance. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 89, 254–265. [CrossRef]
193. Chelliah, M.; Biswas, S.; Dhakad, L. Principle-to-program: Neural Fashion Recommendation with Multi-modal Input. In Proceed-
ings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Nice, France, 21–25 October 2019; Association for Computing
Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 2706–2708. [CrossRef]
194. Shin, Y.-G.; Yeo, Y.-J.; Sagong, M.-C.; Ji, S.-W.; Ko, S.-J. Deep fashion recommendation system with style feature decomposition.
In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 9th International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE-Berlin), Berlin, Germany, 8–11
September 2019; pp. 301–305. [CrossRef]
195. Zarei, M.R.; Moosavi, M.R. A Memory-Based Collaborative Filtering Recommender System Using Social Ties. In Proceedings
of the 2019 4th International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis (IPRIA), Tehran, Iran, 6–7 March 2019;
pp. 263–267. [CrossRef]
196. Lee, J.; Sun, M.; Lebanon, G. A comparative study of collaborative filtering algorithms. arXiv 2012, arXiv:1205.3193.
197. Liu, Y.; Cai, F.; Ren, P.; Gu, Z. Item life cycle based collaborative filtering. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2019, 36, 2743–2755. [CrossRef]
198. Wong, W.K.; Zeng, X.; Au, W.; Mok, P.; Leung, S. A fashion mix-and-match expert system for fashion retailers using fuzzy
screening approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 1750–1764. [CrossRef]
199. Adomavicius, G.; Zhang, J. Impact of data characteristics on recommender systems performance. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst.
2012, 3, 1–17. [CrossRef]
200. Raghuwanshi, S.K.; Pateriya, R.K. Recommendation systems: Techniques, challenges, application, and evaluation. In Soft
Computing for Problem Solving; Bansal, J.C., Das, K.N., Nagar, A., Deep, K., Ojha, A.K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; Volume
817, pp. 151–164. [CrossRef]
201. Shah, L.; Gaudani, H.; Balani, P. Survey on Recommendation System. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2016, 137, 43–49. [CrossRef]
202. Burke, R. Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments. User Model. User Adapt. Interact. 2002, 12, 331–370. [CrossRef]
203. Kawale, J.; Bui, H.H.; Kveton, B.; Tran-Thanh, L.; Chawla, S. Efficient Thompson Sampling for Online Matrix-Factorization
Recommendation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1297–1305.
204. Li, Y.-M.; Lin, L.-F.; Ho, C.-C. A social route recommender mechanism for store shopping support. Decis. Support Syst. 2017, 94,
97–108. [CrossRef]
Informatics 2021, 8, 49 34 of 34

205. Han, X.; Wu, Z.; Huang, W.; Scott, M.R.; Davis, L.S. FiNet: Compatible and diverse fashion image inpainting. In Proceedings of
the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Seoul, Korea, 27 October–3 November 2019; pp. 4481–4491.
206. Raj, A.; Sangkloy, P.; Chang, H.; Hays, J.; Ceylan, D.; Lu, J. SwapNet: Image based garment transfer. In Computer Vision ECCV
2018; Ferrari, V., Hebert, M., Sminchisescu, C., Weiss, Y., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018;
Volume 11216, pp. 679–695. [CrossRef]
207. Yu, L.; Zhong, Y.; Wang, X. Inpainting-Based Virtual Try-on Network for Selective Garment Transfer. IEEE Access 2019, 7,
134125–134136. [CrossRef]
208. Yu, R.; Wang, X.; Xie, X. VTNFP: An image-based virtual try-on network with body and clothing feature preservation. In Proceed-
ings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Seoul, Korea, 27 October–3 November 2019; pp. 10511–10520.
209. Lin, Y.-L.; Wang, M.-J.J. The development of a clothing fit evaluation system under virtual environment. Multimed. Tools Appl.
2015, 75, 7575–7587. [CrossRef]
210. Shani, G.; Gunawardana, A. Evaluating recommendation systems. In Recommender Systems Handbook; Springer: Boston, MA,
USA, 2011; pp. 257–297.
211. Demšar, J. Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2006, 7, 1–30.
212. Elkahky, A.M.; Song, Y.; He, X. A multi-view deep learning approach for cross domain user modeling in recommendation
systems. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web—WWW ’15, Florence, Italy, 18–22 May 2015;
pp. 278–288. [CrossRef]
213. Xue, H.-J.; Dai, X.; Zhang, J.; Huang, S.; Chen, J. Deep Matrix Factorization Models for Recommender Systems. In Proceedings
of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 19–25 August 2017;
pp. 3203–3209. [CrossRef]
214. Zhang, M.; Andrew, S. Gill, S. Exploring fashion choice criteria for older Chinese female consumers: A wardrobe study approach.
In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 109–121.
[CrossRef]
215. Zheng, Y.; Tang, B.; Ding, W.; Zhou, H. A Neural Autoregressive Approach to Collaborative Filtering. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1605.09477.
216. Du, C.; Li, C.; Zheng, Y.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, B. Collaborative Filtering with User-Item Co-Autoregressive Models. arXiv 2018,
arXiv:1612.07146 [Cs].
217. Liu, X.; Sun, Y.; Liu, Z.; Lin, D. Learning diverse fashion collocation by neural graph filtering. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2003.04888.
[CrossRef]
218. Zhang, F.; Yuan, N.J.; Lian, D.; Xie, X.; Ma, W.-Y. Collaborative Knowledge Base Embedding for Recommender Systems.
In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco,
CA, USA, 13–17 August 2016; pp. 353–362. [CrossRef]
219. Vasileva, M.I.; Plummer, B.A.; Dusad, K.; Rajpal, S.; Kumar, R.; Forsyth, D. Learning type-aware embeddings for fashion
compatibility. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Munich, Germany, 8–14 September 2018;
pp. 390–405.