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

Safe Exploration for Optimizing Contextual Bandits

Contextual bandit problems are a natural fit for many information retrieval tasks, such as learning to rank, text classification, recommendation, etc. However, existing learning methods for contextual bandit problems have one of two drawbacks: they either do not explore the space of all possible document rankings (i.e., actions) and, thus, may miss the optimal ranking, or they present suboptimal rankings to a user and, thus, may harm the user experience. We introduce a new learning method for contextual bandit problems, Safe Exploration Algorithm (SEA), which overcomes the above drawbacks. SEA starts by using a baseline (or production) ranking system (i.e., policy), which does not harm the user experience and, thus, is safe to execute, but has suboptimal performance and, thus, needs to be improved. Then SEA uses counterfactual learning to learn a new policy based on the behavior of the baseline policy. SEA also uses high-confidence off-policy evaluation to estimate the performance of the newly learned policy. Once the performance of the newly learned policy is at least as good as the performance of the baseline policy, SEA starts using the new policy to execute new actions, allowing it to actively explore favorable regions of the action space. This way, SEA never performs worse than the baseline policy and, thus, does not harm the user experience, while still exploring the action space and, thus, being able to find an optimal policy. Our experiments using text classification and document retrieval confirm the above by comparing SEA (and a boundless variant called BSEA) to online and offline learning methods for contextual bandit problems.Comment: 23 pages, 3 figure

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

Generate, Filter, and Fuse: Query Expansion via Multi-Step Keyword Generation for Zero-Shot Neural Rankers

Query expansion has been proved to be effective in improving recall and precision of first-stage retrievers, and yet its influence on a complicated, state-of-the-art cross-encoder ranker remains under-explored. We first show that directly applying the expansion techniques in the current literature to state-of-the-art neural rankers can result in deteriorated zero-shot performance. To this end, we propose GFF, a pipeline that includes a large language model and a neural ranker, to Generate, Filter, and Fuse query expansions more effectively in order to improve the zero-shot ranking metrics such as nDCG@10. Specifically, GFF first calls an instruction-following language model to generate query-related keywords through a reasoning chain. Leveraging self-consistency and reciprocal rank weighting, GFF further filters and combines the ranking results of each expanded query dynamically. By utilizing this pipeline, we show that GFF can improve the zero-shot nDCG@10 on BEIR and TREC DL 2019/2020. We also analyze different modelling choices in the GFF pipeline and shed light on the future directions in query expansion for zero-shot neural rankers

Regression Compatible Listwise Objectives for Calibrated Ranking

As Learning-to-Rank (LTR) approaches primarily seek to improve ranking quality, their output scores are not scale-calibrated by design -- for example, adding a constant to the score of each item on the list will not affect the list ordering. This fundamentally limits LTR usage in score-sensitive applications. Though a simple multi-objective approach that combines a regression and a ranking objective can effectively learn scale-calibrated scores, we argue that the two objectives can be inherently conflicting, which makes the trade-off far from ideal for both of them. In this paper, we propose a novel regression compatible ranking (RCR) approach to achieve a better trade-off. The advantage of the proposed approach is that the regression and ranking components are well aligned which brings new opportunities for harmonious regression and ranking. Theoretically, we show that the two components share the same minimizer at global minima while the regression component ensures scale calibration. Empirically, we show that the proposed approach performs well on both regression and ranking metrics on several public LTR datasets, and significantly improves the Pareto frontiers in the context of multi-objective optimization. Furthermore, we evaluated the proposed approach on YouTube Search and found that it not only improved the ranking quality of the production pCTR model, but also brought gains to the click prediction accuracy

RD-Suite: A Benchmark for Ranking Distillation

The distillation of ranking models has become an important topic in both academia and industry. In recent years, several advanced methods have been proposed to tackle this problem, often leveraging ranking information from teacher rankers that is absent in traditional classification settings. To date, there is no well-established consensus on how to evaluate this class of models. Moreover, inconsistent benchmarking on a wide range of tasks and datasets make it difficult to assess or invigorate advances in this field. This paper first examines representative prior arts on ranking distillation, and raises three questions to be answered around methodology and reproducibility. To that end, we propose a systematic and unified benchmark, Ranking Distillation Suite (RD-Suite), which is a suite of tasks with 4 large real-world datasets, encompassing two major modalities (textual and numeric) and two applications (standard distillation and distillation transfer). RD-Suite consists of benchmark results that challenge some of the common wisdom in the field, and the release of datasets with teacher scores and evaluation scripts for future research. RD-Suite paves the way towards better understanding of ranking distillation, facilities more research in this direction, and presents new challenges.Comment: 15 pages, 2 figures. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2011.04006 by other author

Query Expansion by Prompting Large Language Models

Query expansion is a widely used technique to improve the recall of search systems. In this paper, we propose an approach to query expansion that leverages the generative abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). Unlike traditional query expansion approaches such as Pseudo-Relevance Feedback (PRF) that relies on retrieving a good set of pseudo-relevant documents to expand queries, we rely on the generative and creative abilities of an LLM and leverage the knowledge inherent in the model. We study a variety of different prompts, including zero-shot, few-shot and Chain-of-Thought (CoT). We find that CoT prompts are especially useful for query expansion as these prompts instruct the model to break queries down step-by-step and can provide a large number of terms related to the original query. Experimental results on MS-MARCO and BEIR demonstrate that query expansions generated by LLMs can be more powerful than traditional query expansion methods.Comment: 7 pages, 2 figure