Unifying Online and Counterfactual Learning to Rank

Optimizing ranking systems based on user interactions is a well-studied problem. State-of-the-art methods for optimizing ranking systems based on user interactions are divided into online approaches - that learn by directly interacting with users - and counterfactual approaches - that learn from historical interactions. Existing online methods are hindered without online interventions and thus should not be applied counterfactually. Conversely, counterfactual methods cannot directly benefit from online interventions. We propose a novel intervention-aware estimator for both counterfactual and online Learning to Rank (LTR). With the introduction of the intervention-aware estimator, we aim to bridge the online/counterfactual LTR division as it is shown to be highly effective in both online and counterfactual scenarios. The estimator corrects for the effect of position bias, trust bias, and item-selection bias by using corrections based on the behavior of the logging policy and on online interventions: changes to the logging policy made during the gathering of click data. Our experimental results, conducted in a semi-synthetic experimental setup, show that, unlike existing counterfactual LTR methods, the intervention-aware estimator can greatly benefit from online interventions.Comment: Harrie Oosterhuis and Maarten de Rijke. 2021. Unifying Online and Counterfactual Learning to Rank: A Novel Counterfactual Estimator that Effectively Utilizes Online Interventions. In The 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM '21), March 8-12, 2021, Jerusalem, Israel. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3437963.344179

Unbiased Learning to Rank: Counterfactual and Online Approaches

This tutorial covers and contrasts the two main methodologies in unbiased Learning to Rank (LTR): Counterfactual LTR and Online LTR. There has long been an interest in LTR from user interactions, however, this form of implicit feedback is very biased. In recent years, unbiased LTR methods have been introduced to remove the effect of different types of bias caused by user-behavior in search. For instance, a well addressed type of bias is position bias: the rank at which a document is displayed heavily affects the interactions it receives. Counterfactual LTR methods deal with such types of bias by learning from historical interactions while correcting for the effect of the explicitly modelled biases. Online LTR does not use an explicit user model, in contrast, it learns through an interactive process where randomized results are displayed to the user. Through randomization the effect of different types of bias can be removed from the learning process. Though both methodologies lead to unbiased LTR, their approaches differ considerably, furthermore, so do their theoretical guarantees, empirical results, effects on the user experience during learning, and applicability. Consequently, for practitioners the choice between the two is very substantial. By providing an overview of both approaches and contrasting them, we aim to provide an essential guide to unbiased LTR so as to aid in understanding and choosing between methodologies.Comment: Abstract for tutorial appearing at SIGIR 201

Learning from User Interactions with Rankings: A Unification of the Field

Ranking systems form the basis for online search engines and recommendation services. They process large collections of items, for instance web pages or e-commerce products, and present the user with a small ordered selection. The goal of a ranking system is to help a user find the items they are looking for with the least amount of effort. Thus the rankings they produce should place the most relevant or preferred items at the top of the ranking. Learning to rank is a field within machine learning that covers methods which optimize ranking systems w.r.t. this goal. Traditional supervised learning to rank methods utilize expert-judgements to evaluate and learn, however, in many situations such judgements are impossible or infeasible to obtain. As a solution, methods have been introduced that perform learning to rank based on user clicks instead. The difficulty with clicks is that they are not only affected by user preferences, but also by what rankings were displayed. Therefore, these methods have to prevent being biased by other factors than user preference. This thesis concerns learning to rank methods based on user clicks and specifically aims to unify the different families of these methods. As a whole, the second part of this thesis proposes a framework that bridges many gaps between areas of online, counterfactual, and supervised learning to rank. It has taken approaches, previously considered independent, and unified them into a single methodology for widely applicable and effective learning to rank from user clicks.Comment: PhD Thesis of Harrie Oosterhuis defended at the University of Amsterdam on November 27th 202

To Model or to Intervene: A Comparison of Counterfactual and Online Learning to Rank from User Interactions

Learning to Rank (LTR) from user interactions is challenging as user feedback often contains high levels of bias and noise. At the moment, two methodologies for dealing with bias prevail in the field of LTR: counterfactual methods that learn from historical data and model user behavior to deal with biases; and online methods that perform interventions to deal with bias but use no explicit user models. For practitioners the decision between either methodology is very important because of its direct impact on end users. Nevertheless, there has never been a direct comparison between these two approaches to unbiased LTR. In this study we provide the first benchmarking of both counterfactual and online LTR methods under different experimental conditions. Our results show that the choice between the methodologies is consequential and depends on the presence of selection bias, and the degree of position bias and interaction noise. In settings with little bias or noise counterfactual methods can obtain the highest ranking performance; however, in other circumstances their optimization can be detrimental to the user experience. Conversely, online methods are very robust to bias and noise but require control over the displayed rankings. Our findings confirm and contradict existing expectations on the impact of model-based and intervention-based methods in LTR, and allow practitioners to make an informed decision between the two methodologies.Comment: SIGIR 201

Policy-Aware Unbiased Learning to Rank for Top-k Rankings

Counterfactual Learning to Rank (LTR) methods optimize ranking systems using logged user interactions that contain interaction biases. Existing methods are only unbiased if users are presented with all relevant items in every ranking. There is currently no existing counterfactual unbiased LTR method for top-k rankings. We introduce a novel policy-aware counterfactual estimator for LTR metrics that can account for the effect of a stochastic logging policy. We prove that the policy-aware estimator is unbiased if every relevant item has a non-zero probability to appear in the top-k ranking. Our experimental results show that the performance of our estimator is not affected by the size of k: for any k, the policy-aware estimator reaches the same retrieval performance while learning from top-k feedback as when learning from feedback on the full ranking. Lastly, we introduce novel extensions of traditional LTR methods to perform counterfactual LTR and to optimize top-k metrics. Together, our contributions introduce the first policy-aware unbiased LTR approach that learns from top-k feedback and optimizes top-k metrics. As a result, counterfactual LTR is now applicable to the very prevalent top-k ranking setting in search and recommendation.Comment: SIGIR 2020 full conference pape

Accelerated Convergence for Counterfactual Learning to Rank

Counterfactual Learning to Rank (LTR) algorithms learn a ranking model from logged user interactions, often collected using a production system. Employing such an offline learning approach has many benefits compared to an online one, but it is challenging as user feedback often contains high levels of bias. Unbiased LTR uses Inverse Propensity Scoring (IPS) to enable unbiased learning from logged user interactions. One of the major difficulties in applying Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) approaches to counterfactual learning problems is the large variance introduced by the propensity weights. In this paper we show that the convergence rate of SGD approaches with IPS-weighted gradients suffers from the large variance introduced by the IPS weights: convergence is slow, especially when there are large IPS weights. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel learning algorithm, called CounterSample, that has provably better convergence than standard IPS-weighted gradient descent methods. We prove that CounterSample converges faster and complement our theoretical findings with empirical results by performing extensive experimentation in a number of biased LTR scenarios -- across optimizers, batch sizes, and different degrees of position bias.Comment: SIGIR 2020 full conference pape

Cascade Model-based Propensity Estimation for Counterfactual Learning to Rank

Unbiased CLTR requires click propensities to compensate for the difference between user clicks and true relevance of search results via IPS. Current propensity estimation methods assume that user click behavior follows the PBM and estimate click propensities based on this assumption. However, in reality, user clicks often follow the CM, where users scan search results from top to bottom and where each next click depends on the previous one. In this cascade scenario, PBM-based estimates of propensities are not accurate, which, in turn, hurts CLTR performance. In this paper, we propose a propensity estimation method for the cascade scenario, called CM-IPS. We show that CM-IPS keeps CLTR performance close to the full-information performance in case the user clicks follow the CM, while PBM-based CLTR has a significant gap towards the full-information. The opposite is true if the user clicks follow PBM instead of the CM. Finally, we suggest a way to select between CM- and PBM-based propensity estimation methods based on historical user clicks.Comment: 4 pages, 2 figures, 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR '20