A Theoretical Analysis of NDCG Type Ranking Measures

A central problem in ranking is to design a ranking measure for evaluation of ranking functions. In this paper we study, from a theoretical perspective, the widely used Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG)-type ranking measures. Although there are extensive empirical studies of NDCG, little is known about its theoretical properties. We first show that, whatever the ranking function is, the standard NDCG which adopts a logarithmic discount, converges to 1 as the number of items to rank goes to infinity. On the first sight, this result is very surprising. It seems to imply that NDCG cannot differentiate good and bad ranking functions, contradicting to the empirical success of NDCG in many applications. In order to have a deeper understanding of ranking measures in general, we propose a notion referred to as consistent distinguishability. This notion captures the intuition that a ranking measure should have such a property: For every pair of substantially different ranking functions, the ranking measure can decide which one is better in a consistent manner on almost all datasets. We show that NDCG with logarithmic discount has consistent distinguishability although it converges to the same limit for all ranking functions. We next characterize the set of all feasible discount functions for NDCG according to the concept of consistent distinguishability. Specifically we show that whether NDCG has consistent distinguishability depends on how fast the discount decays, and 1/r is a critical point. We then turn to the cut-off version of NDCG, i.e., NDCG@k. We analyze the distinguishability of NDCG@k for various choices of k and the discount functions. Experimental results on real Web search datasets agree well with the theory.Comment: COLT 201

Convex Calibration Dimension for Multiclass Loss Matrices

We study consistency properties of surrogate loss functions for general multiclass learning problems, defined by a general multiclass loss matrix. We extend the notion of classification calibration, which has been studied for binary and multiclass 0-1 classification problems (and for certain other specific learning problems), to the general multiclass setting, and derive necessary and sufficient conditions for a surrogate loss to be calibrated with respect to a loss matrix in this setting. We then introduce the notion of convex calibration dimension of a multiclass loss matrix, which measures the smallest `size' of a prediction space in which it is possible to design a convex surrogate that is calibrated with respect to the loss matrix. We derive both upper and lower bounds on this quantity, and use these results to analyze various loss matrices. In particular, we apply our framework to study various subset ranking losses, and use the convex calibration dimension as a tool to show both the existence and non-existence of various types of convex calibrated surrogates for these losses. Our results strengthen recent results of Duchi et al. (2010) and Calauzenes et al. (2012) on the non-existence of certain types of convex calibrated surrogates in subset ranking. We anticipate the convex calibration dimension may prove to be a useful tool in the study and design of surrogate losses for general multiclass learning problems.Comment: Accepted to JMLR, pending editin

On the (non-)existence of convex, calibrated surrogate losses for ranking

Abstract We study surrogate losses for learning to rank, in a framework where the rankings are induced by scores and the task is to learn the scoring function. We focus on the calibration of surrogate losses with respect to a ranking evaluation metric, where the calibration is equivalent to the guarantee that near-optimal values of the surrogate risk imply near-optimal values of the risk defined by the evaluation metric. We prove that if a surrogate loss is a convex function of the scores, then it is not calibrated with respect to two evaluation metrics widely used for search engine evaluation, namely the Average Precision and the Expected Reciprocal Rank. We also show that such convex surrogate losses cannot be calibrated with respect to the Pairwise Disagreement, an evaluation metric used when learning from pairwise preferences. Our results cast lights on the intrinsic difficulty of some ranking problems, as well as on the limitations of learning-to-rank algorithms based on the minimization of a convex surrogate risk