Balancing Speed and Quality in Online Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval

In Online Learning to Rank (OLTR) the aim is to find an optimal ranking model by interacting with users. When learning from user behavior, systems must interact with users while simultaneously learning from those interactions. Unlike other Learning to Rank (LTR) settings, existing research in this field has been limited to linear models. This is due to the speed-quality tradeoff that arises when selecting models: complex models are more expressive and can find the best rankings but need more user interactions to do so, a requirement that risks frustrating users during training. Conversely, simpler models can be optimized on fewer interactions and thus provide a better user experience, but they will converge towards suboptimal rankings. This tradeoff creates a deadlock, since novel models will not be able to improve either the user experience or the final convergence point, without sacrificing the other. Our contribution is twofold. First, we introduce a fast OLTR model called Sim-MGD that addresses the speed aspect of the speed-quality tradeoff. Sim-MGD ranks documents based on similarities with reference documents. It converges rapidly and, hence, gives a better user experience but it does not converge towards the optimal rankings. Second, we contribute Cascading Multileave Gradient Descent (C-MGD) for OLTR that directly addresses the speed-quality tradeoff by using a cascade that enables combinations of the best of two worlds: fast learning and high quality final convergence. C-MGD can provide the better user experience of Sim-MGD while maintaining the same convergence as the state-of-the-art MGD model. This opens the door for future work to design new models for OLTR without having to deal with the speed-quality tradeoff.Comment: CIKM 2017, Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Managemen

Differentiable Unbiased Online Learning to Rank

Online Learning to Rank (OLTR) methods optimize rankers based on user interactions. State-of-the-art OLTR methods are built specifically for linear models. Their approaches do not extend well to non-linear models such as neural networks. We introduce an entirely novel approach to OLTR that constructs a weighted differentiable pairwise loss after each interaction: Pairwise Differentiable Gradient Descent (PDGD). PDGD breaks away from the traditional approach that relies on interleaving or multileaving and extensive sampling of models to estimate gradients. Instead, its gradient is based on inferring preferences between document pairs from user clicks and can optimize any differentiable model. We prove that the gradient of PDGD is unbiased w.r.t. user document pair preferences. Our experiments on the largest publicly available Learning to Rank (LTR) datasets show considerable and significant improvements under all levels of interaction noise. PDGD outperforms existing OLTR methods both in terms of learning speed as well as final convergence. Furthermore, unlike previous OLTR methods, PDGD also allows for non-linear models to be optimized effectively. Our results show that using a neural network leads to even better performance at convergence than a linear model. In summary, PDGD is an efficient and unbiased OLTR approach that provides a better user experience than previously possible.Comment: Conference on Information and Knowledge Management 201

Optimizing Ranking Models in an Online Setting

Online Learning to Rank (OLTR) methods optimize ranking models by directly interacting with users, which allows them to be very efficient and responsive. All OLTR methods introduced during the past decade have extended on the original OLTR method: Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent (DBGD). Recently, a fundamentally different approach was introduced with the Pairwise Differentiable Gradient Descent (PDGD) algorithm. To date the only comparisons of the two approaches are limited to simulations with cascading click models and low levels of noise. The main outcome so far is that PDGD converges at higher levels of performance and learns considerably faster than DBGD-based methods. However, the PDGD algorithm assumes cascading user behavior, potentially giving it an unfair advantage. Furthermore, the robustness of both methods to high levels of noise has not been investigated. Therefore, it is unclear whether the reported advantages of PDGD over DBGD generalize to different experimental conditions. In this paper, we investigate whether the previous conclusions about the PDGD and DBGD comparison generalize from ideal to worst-case circumstances. We do so in two ways. First, we compare the theoretical properties of PDGD and DBGD, by taking a critical look at previously proven properties in the context of ranking. Second, we estimate an upper and lower bound on the performance of methods by simulating both ideal user behavior and extremely difficult behavior, i.e., almost-random non-cascading user models. Our findings show that the theoretical bounds of DBGD do not apply to any common ranking model and, furthermore, that the performance of DBGD is substantially worse than PDGD in both ideal and worst-case circumstances. These results reproduce previously published findings about the relative performance of PDGD vs. DBGD and generalize them to extremely noisy and non-cascading circumstances.Comment: European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR) 201

Efficient Exploration of Gradient Space for Online Learning to Rank

Online learning to rank (OL2R) optimizes the utility of returned search results based on implicit feedback gathered directly from users. To improve the estimates, OL2R algorithms examine one or more exploratory gradient directions and update the current ranker if a proposed one is preferred by users via an interleaved test. In this paper, we accelerate the online learning process by efficient exploration in the gradient space. Our algorithm, named as Null Space Gradient Descent, reduces the exploration space to only the \emph{null space} of recent poorly performing gradients. This prevents the algorithm from repeatedly exploring directions that have been discouraged by the most recent interactions with users. To improve sensitivity of the resulting interleaved test, we selectively construct candidate rankers to maximize the chance that they can be differentiated by candidate ranking documents in the current query; and we use historically difficult queries to identify the best ranker when tie occurs in comparing the rankers. Extensive experimental comparisons with the state-of-the-art OL2R algorithms on several public benchmarks confirmed the effectiveness of our proposal algorithm, especially in its fast learning convergence and promising ranking quality at an early stage.Comment: To appear on SIGIR '18: The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieva

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