Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/1571941.1572022acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Document selection methodologies for efficient and effective learning-to-rank

Published: 19 July 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Learning-to-rank has attracted great attention in the IR community. Much thought and research has been placed on query-document feature extraction and development of sophisticated learning-to-rank algorithms. However, relatively little research has been conducted on selecting documents for learning-to-rank data sets nor on the effect of these choices on the efficiency and effectiveness of learning-to-rank algorithms.
In this paper, we employ a number of document selection methodologies, widely used in the context of evaluation--depth-k pooling, sampling (infAP, statAP), active-learning (MTC), and on-line heuristics (hedge). Certain methodologies, e.g. sampling and active-learning, have been shown to lead to efficient and effective evaluation. We investigate whether they can also enable efficient and effective learning-to-rank. We compare them with the document selection methodology used to create the LETOR datasets.
Further, all of the utilized methodologies are different in nature, and thus they construct training data sets with different properties, such as the proportion of relevant documents in the data or the similarity among them. We study how such properties affect the efficiency, effectiveness, and robustness of learning-to-rank collections.

References

[1]
J. A. Aslam, V. Pavlu, and R. Savell. A unified model for metasearch and the efficient evaluation of retrieval systems via the hedge algorithm. In J. Callan, G. Cormack, C. Clarke, D. Hawking, and A. Smeaton, editors, Proceedings of the 26th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 393--394. ACM Press, July 2003.
[2]
J. A. Aslam, V. Pavlu, and E. Yilmaz. A statistical method for system evaluation using incomplete judgments. In S. Dumais, E. N. Efthimiadis, D. Hawking, and K. Jarvelin, editors, Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 541--548. ACM Press, August 2006.
[3]
C. Burges, T. Shaked, E. Renshaw, A. Lazier, M. Deeds, N. Hamilton, and G. Hullender. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In ICML '05: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, pages 89--96, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.
[4]
C. J. C. Burges, R. Ragno, and Q. V. Le. Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions. In B. Schölkopf, J. C. Platt, T. Homan, B. Schölkopf, J. C. Platt, and T. Homan, editors, NIPS, pages 193--200. MIT Press, 2006.
[5]
B. Carterette, J. Allan, and R. Sitaraman. Minimal test collections for retrieval evaluation. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 268--275, 2006.
[6]
B. Carterette, V. Pavlu, E. Kanoulas, J. A. Aslam, and J. Allan. Evaluation over thousands of queries. In S.-H. Myaeng, D. W. Oard, F. Sebastiani, T.-S. Chua, and M.-K. Leong, editors, Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 651--658. ACM Press, July 2008.
[7]
W. B. Croft, A. Moat, C. J. van Rijsbergen, R. Wilkinson, and J. Zobel, editors. Proceedings of the 21th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Aug. 1998. Information Science, 2008.
[8]
Y. Freund, R. Iyer, R. E. Schapire, and Y. Singer. An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 4:933--969, 2003.
[9]
D. Harman. Overview of the third text REtreival conference (TREC-3). In D. Harman, editor, Overview of the Third Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-3), pages 1--19. U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 1995.
[10]
T. Joachims. A support vector method for multivariate performance measures. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 377--384, 2005.
[11]
T. Joachims. Training linear SVMs in linear time. In ACM SIGKDD International Conference On Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pages 217--226, 2006.
[12]
K. S. Jones, S. Walker, and S. E. Robertson. A probabilistic model of information retrieval: development and comparative experiments. Inf. Process. Manage., 36(6):779--808, 2000.
[13]
T.-Y. Liu, T. Qin, J. Xu, X. Wenying, and H. Li. Letor: Benchmark dataset for research on learning to rank for information retrieval.
[14]
T. Y. Liu, J. Xu, T. Qin, W. Xiong, and H. Li. Letor: Benchmark dataset for research on learning to rank for information retrieval. In SIGIR '07: Proceedings of the Learning to Rank workshop in the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, 2007.
[15]
T. Minka and S. Robertson. Selection bias in the letor datasets. In SIGIR '08: Proceedings of the of the Learning to Rank workshop 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
[16]
V. Pavlu. Large Scale IR Evaluation. PhD thesis, Northeastern University, College of Computer and Information Science, 2008.
[17]
T. Qin, T.-Y. Liu, J. Xu, and H. Li. How to make letor more useful and reliable. In SIGIR '08: Proceedings of the of the Learning to Rank workshop 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
[18]
A. Singhal and G. Inc. Modern information retrieval: a brief overview. Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering, 24:2001, 2001.
[19]
M. Taylor, H. Zaragoza, N. Craswell, S. Robertson, and C. Burges. Optimisation methods for ranking functions with multiple parameters. In CIKM '06: Proceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 585--593, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.
[20]
E. M. Voorhees and D. Harman. Overview of the seventh text retrieval conference (TREC-7). In Proceedings of the Seventh Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-7), pages 1--24, 1999.
[21]
E. Yilmaz and J. A. Aslam. Estimating average precision with incomplete and imperfect judgments. In P. S. Yu, V. Tsotras, E. Fox, and B. Liu, editors, Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 102--111. ACM Press, November 2006.
[22]
C. Zhai and J. Laerty. A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to information retrieval. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 22(2):179--214, 2004.
[23]
J. Zobel. How reliable are the results of large-scale retrieval experiments? In Croft et al. {7}, pages 307--314.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Meta Learning to Rank for Sparsely Supervised QueriesACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/3698876Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • (2023)On the Effect of Low-Ranked Documents: A New Sampling Function for Selective Gradient BoostingProceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3555776.3577597(646-652)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2023
  • (2022)Stochastic Retrieval-Conditioned RerankingProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval10.1145/3539813.3545141(81-91)Online publication date: 23-Aug-2022
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Document selection methodologies for efficient and effective learning-to-rank

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGIR '09: Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
    July 2009
    896 pages
    ISBN:9781605584836
    DOI:10.1145/1571941
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 19 July 2009

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. document selection methodologies
    2. evaluation
    3. learning-to-rank
    4. sampling

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    SIGIR '09
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 792 of 3,983 submissions, 20%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
    Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Meta Learning to Rank for Sparsely Supervised QueriesACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/3698876Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
    • (2023)On the Effect of Low-Ranked Documents: A New Sampling Function for Selective Gradient BoostingProceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3555776.3577597(646-652)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2023
    • (2022)Stochastic Retrieval-Conditioned RerankingProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval10.1145/3539813.3545141(81-91)Online publication date: 23-Aug-2022
    • (2022)Deep Bayesian Active Learning for Learning to Rank: A Case Study in Answer SelectionIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering10.1109/TKDE.2021.305689434:11(5251-5262)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022
    • (2021)Getting Your Package to the Right Place: Supervised Machine Learning for GeolocationMachine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Applied Data Science Track10.1007/978-3-030-86514-6_25(403-419)Online publication date: 10-Sep-2021
    • (2021)Weakly Supervised Label SmoothingAdvances in Information Retrieval10.1007/978-3-030-72240-1_33(334-341)Online publication date: 30-Mar-2021
    • (2020)Research on Recommendation Method of Product Design Scheme Based on Multi-Way Tree and Learning-to-RankMachines10.3390/machines80200308:2(30)Online publication date: 5-Jun-2020
    • (2020)Sampling Query Variations for Learning to Rank to Improve Automatic Boolean Query Generation in Systematic ReviewsProceedings of The Web Conference 202010.1145/3366423.3380075(3041-3048)Online publication date: 20-Apr-2020
    • (2019)Reducing correlation of random forest–based learning‐to‐rank algorithms using subsample sizeComputational Intelligence10.1111/coin.1221335:4(774-798)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2019
    • (2019)Rankboost $$+$$ + : an improvement to RankboostMachine Learning10.1007/s10994-019-05826-xOnline publication date: 12-Aug-2019
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media