Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2911451.2911537acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Learning to Rank with Selection Bias in Personal Search

Published: 07 July 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Click-through data has proven to be a critical resource for improving search ranking quality. Though a large amount of click data can be easily collected by search engines, various biases make it difficult to fully leverage this type of data. In the past, many click models have been proposed and successfully used to estimate the relevance for individual query-document pairs in the context of web search. These click models typically require a large quantity of clicks for each individual pair and this makes them difficult to apply in systems where click data is highly sparse due to personalized corpora and information needs, e.g., personal search. In this paper, we study the problem of how to leverage sparse click data in personal search and introduce a novel selection bias problem and address it in the learning-to-rank framework. This paper proposes a few bias estimation methods, including a novel query-dependent one that captures queries with similar results and can successfully deal with sparse data. We empirically demonstrate that learning-to-rank that accounts for query-dependent selection bias yields significant improvements in search effectiveness through online experiments with one of the world's largest personal search engines.

References

[1]
J. A. Aslam, E. Kanoulas, V. Pavlu, S. Savev, and E. Yilmaz. Document selection methodologies for efficient and effective learning-to-rank. In 32nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR), pages 468--475, 2009.
[2]
R. Bekkerman. Automatic categorization of email into folders: Benchmark experiments on Enron and SRI corpora. Technical report, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2004.
[3]
P. F. Brown, V. J. D. Pietra, R. L. Mercer, S. A. D. Pietra, and J. C. Lai. An estimate of an upper bound for the entropy of English. Computational Linguistics, 18(1):31--40, 1992.
[4]
C. J. Burges. From RankNet to LambdaRank to LambdaMART: An overview. Technical Report MSR-TR-2010-82, Microsoft Research, 2010.
[5]
S. Büttcher, C. L. A. Clarke, P. C. K. Yeung, and I. Soboroff. Reliable information retrieval evaluation with incomplete and biased judgements. In 30th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR), pages 63--70, 2007.
[6]
D. Carmel, G. Halawi, L. Lewin-Eytan, Y. Maarek, and A. Raviv. Rank by time or by relevance?: Revisiting email search. In 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pages 283--292, 2015.
[7]
D. Chan, R. Ge, O. Gershony, T. Hesterberg, and D. Lambert. Evaluating online ad campaigns in a pipeline: Causal models at scale. In 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pages 7--16, 2010.
[8]
O. Chapelle and Y. Zhang. A dynamic bayesian network click model for web search ranking. In 18th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 1--10, 2009.
[9]
W. Chen, Z. Ji, S. Shen, and Q. Yang. A whole page click model to better interpret search engine click data. In 25th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2011.
[10]
A. Chuklin, I. Markov, and M. de Rijke. Click Models for Web Search. Morgan & Claypool, 2015.
[11]
N. Craswell, O. Zoeter, M. Taylor, and B. Ramsey. An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. In 1st International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM), pages 87--94, 2008.
[12]
M. Dudík, J. Langford, and L. Li. Doubly robust policy evaluation and learning. In 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 1097--1104, 2011.
[13]
S. Dumais, E. Cutrell, J. Cadiz, G. Jancke, R. Sarin, and D. C. Robbins. Stuff I've seen: A system for personal information retrieval and re-use. In 26th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR), pages 72--79, 2003.
[14]
G. Dupret and C. Liao. A model to estimate intrinsic document relevance from the clickthrough logs of a web search engine. In 3rd ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM), pages 181--190, 2010.
[15]
G. E. Dupret and B. Piwowarski. A user browsing model to predict search engine click data from past observations. In 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR), pages 331--338, 2008.
[16]
M. Grbovic, G. Halawi, Z. Karnin, and Y. Maarek. How many folders do you really need?: Classifying email into a handful of categories. In 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pages 869--878, 2014.
[17]
F. Guo, C. Liu, A. Kannan, T. Minka, M. Taylor, Y.-M. Wang, and C. Faloutsos. Click chain model in web search. In 18th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 11--20, 2009.
[18]
T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, 2001.
[19]
K. Hofmann, S. Whiteson, and M. de Rijke. Balancing exploration and exploitation in learning to rank online. In Advances in Information Retrieval -- 33rd European Conference on IR Research (ECIR), pages 251--263, 2011.
[20]
J. Huang, A. Gretton, K. M. Borgwardt, B. Schölkopf, and A. J. Smola. Correcting sample selection bias by unlabeled data. In 20th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pages 601--608, 2006.
[21]
T. Joachims. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pages 133--142, 2002.
[22]
T. Joachims, L. Granka, B. Pan, H. Hembrooke, and G. Gay. Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. In 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR), pages 154--161, 2005.
[23]
M. Kamvar, M. Kellar, R. Patel, and Y. Xu. Computers and iPhones and mobile phones, oh my!: A logs-based comparison of search users on different devices. In 18th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 801--810, 2009.
[24]
L. Li, S. Chen, J. Kleban, and A. Gupta. Counterfactual estimation and optimization of click metrics in search engines: A case study. In 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW) Companion, pages 929--934, 2015.
[25]
L. Li, W. Chu, J. Langford, and X. Wang. Unbiased offline evaluation of contextual-bandit-based news article recommendation algorithms. In 4th International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining (WSDM), pages 297--306, 2011.
[26]
T.-Y. Liu. Learning to rank for information retrieval. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 3(3):225--331, 2009.
[27]
T. Minka and S. Robertson. Selection bias in the LETOR datasets. In SIGIR Workshop on Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval (LR4IR), pages 48--51, 2008.
[28]
M. O'Brien and M. T. Keane. Modeling result--list searching in the world wide web: The role of relevance topologies and trust bias. In 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), pages 1--881, 2006.
[29]
T. Qin, T.-Y. Liu, J. Xu, and H. Li. Letor: A benchmark collection for research on learning to rank for information retrieval. Inf. Retr., 13(4):346--374, 2010.
[30]
M. Richardson, E. Dominowska, and R. Ragno. Predicting clicks: Estimating the click-through rate for new ads. In 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 521--530, 2007.
[31]
P. R. Rosenbaum and D. B. Rubin. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1):41--55, 1983.
[32]
A. Swaminathan and T. Joachims. Counterfactual risk minimization: Learning from logged bandit feedback. In 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 814--823, 2015.
[33]
Y. Yue, R. Patel, and H. Roehrig. Beyond position bias: Examining result attractiveness as a source of presentation bias in clickthrough data. In 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 1011--1018, 2010.
[34]
B. Zadrozny. Learning and evaluating classifiers under sample selection bias. In 21st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), page 114, 2004.
[35]
Z. Zheng, K. Chen, G. Sun, and H. Zha. A regression framework for learning ranking functions using relative relevance judgments. In 30th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR), pages 287--294, 2007.
[36]
Z. A. Zhu, W. Chen, T. Minka, C. Zhu, and Z. Chen. A novel click model and its applications to online advertising. In 3rd International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM), pages 321--330, 2010.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)LightAD: accelerating AutoDebias with adaptive samplingJUSTC10.52396/JUSTC-2022-010054:4(0405)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)A bias study and an unbiased deep neural network for recommender systemsWeb Intelligence10.3233/WEB-23003622:1(15-29)Online publication date: 26-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Meta Learning to Rank for Sparsely Supervised QueriesACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/3698876Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Learning to Rank with Selection Bias in Personal Search

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGIR '16: Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
    July 2016
    1296 pages
    ISBN:9781450340694
    DOI:10.1145/2911451
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 07 July 2016

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. learning-to-rank
    2. personal search
    3. selection bias

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    SIGIR '16
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    SIGIR '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 62 of 341 submissions, 18%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 792 of 3,983 submissions, 20%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)466
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)67
    Reflects downloads up to 15 Oct 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)LightAD: accelerating AutoDebias with adaptive samplingJUSTC10.52396/JUSTC-2022-010054:4(0405)Online publication date: 2024
    • (2024)A bias study and an unbiased deep neural network for recommender systemsWeb Intelligence10.3233/WEB-23003622:1(15-29)Online publication date: 26-Mar-2024
    • (2024)Meta Learning to Rank for Sparsely Supervised QueriesACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/3698876Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
    • (2024)Average User-Side Counterfactual Fairness for Collaborative FilteringACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/365663942:5(1-26)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
    • (2024)Utilizing Non-click Samples via Semi-supervised Learning for Conversion Rate PredictionProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3640457.3688151(350-359)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
    • (2024)AIE: Auction Information Enhanced Framework for CTR Prediction in Online AdvertisingProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3640457.3688136(633-642)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
    • (2024)CoRAL: Collaborative Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models Improve Long-tail RecommendationProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3671901(3391-3401)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
    • (2024)Counteracting Duration Bias in Video Recommendation via Counterfactual Watch TimeProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3671817(4455-4466)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
    • (2024)Towards a Causal Decision-Making Framework for Recommender SystemsACM Transactions on Recommender Systems10.1145/36291692:2(1-34)Online publication date: 14-May-2024
    • (2024)Unbiased Learning to Rank Meets Reality: Lessons from Baidu's Large-Scale Search DatasetProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3626772.3657892(1546-1556)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media