Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Comparing Pointwise and Listwise Objective Functions for Random-Forest-Based Learning-to-Rank

Published: 17 August 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Current random-forest (RF)-based learning-to-rank (LtR) algorithms use a classification or regression framework to solve the ranking problem in a pointwise manner. The success of this simple yet effective approach coupled with the inherent parallelizability of the learning algorithm makes it a strong candidate for widespread adoption. In this article, we aim to better understand the effectiveness of RF-based rank-learning algorithms with a focus on the comparison between pointwise and listwise approaches.
We introduce what we believe to be the first listwise version of an RF-based LtR algorithm. The algorithm directly optimizes an information retrieval metric of choice (in our case, NDCG) in a greedy manner. Direct optimization of the listwise objective functions is computationally prohibitive for most learning algorithms, but possible in RF since each tree maximizes the objective in a coordinate-wise fashion. Computational complexity of the listwise approach is higher than the pointwise counterpart; hence for larger datasets, we design a hybrid algorithm that combines a listwise objective in the early stages of tree construction and a pointwise objective in the latter stages. We also study the effect of the discount function of NDCG on the listwise algorithm.
Experimental results on several publicly available LtR datasets reveal that the listwise/hybrid algorithm outperforms the pointwise approach on the majority (but not all) of the datasets. We then investigate several aspects of the two algorithms to better understand the inevitable performance tradeoffs. The aspects include examining an RF-based unsupervised LtR algorithm and comparing individual tree strength. Finally, we compare the the investigated RF-based algorithms with several other LtR algorithms.

Supplementary Material

a20-ibrahim-apndx.pdf (ibrahim.zip)
Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, Comparing Pointwise and Listwise Objective Functions for Random-Forest-Based Learning-to-Rank

References

[1]
Gérard Biau. 2012. Analysis of a random forests model. Journal of Machine Learning Research 13, 1 (2012), 1063--1095.
[2]
Gérard Biau, Luc Devroye, and Gábor Lugosi. 2008. Consistency of random forests and other averaging classifiers. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9 (2008), 2015--2033.
[3]
Leo Breiman. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45, 1 (2001), 5--32.
[4]
Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: From pairwise approach to listwise approach. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, 129--136.
[5]
Olivier Chapelle and Yi Chang. 2011. Yahoo! learning to rank challenge overview. Journal of Machine Learning Research-Proceedings Track 14 (2011), 1--24.
[6]
Olivier Chapelle, Donald Metlzer, Ya Zhang, and Pierre Grinspan. 2009. Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 621--630.
[7]
David Cossock and Tong Zhang. 2006. Subset ranking using regression. Learning Theory (2006), 605--619.
[8]
Antonio Criminisi. 2011. Decision forests: A unified framework for classification, regression, density estimation, manifold learning and semi-supervised learning. Foundations and Trends® in Computer Graphics and Vision 7, 2--3 (2011), 81--227.
[9]
Antonio Criminisi and Jamie Shotton. 2013. Decision Forests for Computer Vision and Medical Image Analysis. Springer.
[10]
W. Bruce Croft, Donald Metzler, and Trevor Strohman. 2010. Search Engines: Information Retrieval in Practice. Addison-Wesley Reading.
[11]
Misha Denil, David Matheson, and Nando De Freitas. 2013. Narrowing the gap: Random forests in theory and in practice. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1310.1415 (2013).
[12]
Wei Fan, Haixun Wang, Philip S. Yu, and Sheng Ma. 2003. Is random model better? On its accuracy and efficiency. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, 2003 (ICDM’03). IEEE, 51--58.
[13]
Yoav Freund, Raj Iyer, Robert E. Schapire, and Yoram Singer. 2003. An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. Journal of Machine Learning Research 4 (2003), 933--969.
[14]
Yoav Freund and Robert E. Schapire. 1995. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. In Computational Learning Theory. Springer, 23--37.
[15]
Jerome H. Friedman. 2001. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine (English summary). Annals of Statistics 29, 5 (2001), 1189--1232.
[16]
Jerome H. Friedman. 2002. Stochastic gradient boosting. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 38, 4 (2002), 367--378.
[17]
Jerome H. Friedman and Peter Hall. 2007. On bagging and nonlinear estimation. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 137, 3 (2007), 669--683.
[18]
Yasser Ganjisaffar, Rich Caruana, and Cristina Videira Lopes. 2011a. Bagging gradient-boosted trees for high precision, low variance ranking models. In Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 85--94.
[19]
Yasser Ganjisaffar, Thomas Debeauvais, Sara Javanmardi, Rich Caruana, and Cristina Videira Lopes. 2011b. Distributed tuning of machine learning algorithms using MapReduce clusters. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Large Scale Data Mining: Theory and Applications. ACM, 2.
[20]
Robin Genuer. 2012. Variance reduction in purely random forests. Journal of Nonparametric Statistics 24, 3 (2012), 543--562.
[21]
Pierre Geurts, Damien Ernst, and Louis Wehenkel. 2006. Extremely randomized trees. Machine Learning 63, 1 (2006), 3--42.
[22]
Pierre Geurts and Gilles Louppe. 2011. Learning to rank with extremely randomized trees. In JMLR: Workshop and Conference Proceedings, Vol. 14.
[23]
Jisoo Ham, Yangchi Chen, Melba M. Crawford, and Joydeep Ghosh. 2005. Investigation of the random forest framework for classification of hyperspectral data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 43, 3 (2005), 492--501.
[24]
Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. 2009. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference and Prediction. Springer, 2nd Edition.
[25]
Muhammad Ibrahim and Mark Carman. 2014. Improving scalability and performance of random forest based learning-to-rank algorithms by aggressive subsampling. In Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Data Mining Conference. Australian Computer Society, 91--99.
[26]
Hemant Ishwaran. 2013. The effect of splitting on random forests. Machine Learning 99, 1 (2013), 75--118.
[27]
Kalervo Järvelin and Jaana Kekäläinen. 2000. IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 41--48.
[28]
Thorsten Joachims. 2002. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 133--142.
[29]
Yanyan Lan, Tie-Yan Liu, Zhiming Ma, and Hang Li. 2009. Generalization analysis of listwise learning-to-rank algorithms. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, 577--584.
[30]
Hang Li. 2011. Learning to rank for information retrieval and natural language processing. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies 4, 1 (2011), 1--113.
[31]
Ping Li, C. Burges, and Qiang Wu. 2007. Learning to rank using classification and gradient boosting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19 (2007), 897--904.
[32]
Yi Lin and Yongho Jeon. 2006. Random forests and adaptive nearest neighbors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 101, 474 (2006), 578--590.
[33]
Tie-Yan Liu. 2011. Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval. Springerverlag, Berlin.
[34]
Donald Metzler and W. Bruce Croft. 2007. Linear feature-based models for information retrieval. Information Retrieval 10, 3 (2007), 257--274.
[35]
Ananth Mohan. 2010. An Empirical Analysis on Point-Wise Machine Learning Techniques Using Regression Trees for Web-Search Ranking. Master’s thesis. Washington University in St. Louis.
[36]
Ananth Mohan, Zheng Chen, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2011. Web-search ranking with initialized gradient boosted regression trees. Journal of Machine Learning Research-Proceedings Track 14 (2011), 77--89.
[37]
Ramesh Nallapati. 2004. Discriminative models for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 64--71.
[38]
Yanjun Qi. 2012. Random forest for bioinformatics. In Ensemble Machine Learning. Springer, 307--323.
[39]
Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, and Hang Li. 2010a. A general approximation framework for direct optimization of information retrieval measures. Information Retrieval 13, 4 (2010), 375--397.
[40]
Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Jun Xu, and Hang Li. 2010b. LETOR: A benchmark collection for research on learning to rank for information retrieval. Information Retrieval 13, 4 (2010), 346--374.
[41]
C. Quoc and Viet Le. 2007. Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19 (2007), 193--200.
[42]
Marko Robnik-Šikonja. 2004. Improving random forests. In Machine Learning: ECML 2004. Springer, 359--370.
[43]
Erwan Scornet. 2014. On the asymptotics of random forests. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1409.2090 (2014).
[44]
Erwan Scornet, Gérard Biau, and Jean-Philippe Vert. 2014. Consistency of random forests. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1405.2881 (2014).
[45]
Mark R. Segal. 2004. Machine Learning Benchmarks and Random Forest Regression. Technical Report. Center for Bioinformatics & Molecular Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
[46]
Ming Tan, Tian Xia, Lily Guo, and Shaojun Wang. 2013. Direct optimization of ranking measures for learning to rank models. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’13). ACM, 856--864.
[47]
Michael Taylor, John Guiver, Stephen Robertson, and Tom Minka. 2008. Softrank: Optimizing non-smooth rank metrics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining. ACM, 77--86.
[48]
Stefan Wager. 2014. Asymptotic theory for random forests. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1405.0352 (2014).
[49]
Yining Wang, Liwei Wang, Yuanzhi Li, Di He, Tie-Yan Liu, and Wei Chen. 2013. A theoretical analysis of ndcg type ranking measures. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1304.6480 (2013).
[50]
Qiang Wu, Christopher J. C. Burges, Krysta M. Svore, and Jianfeng Gao. 2010. Adapting boosting for information retrieval measures. Information Retrieval 13, 3 (2010), 254--270.
[51]
Baoxun Xu, Joshua Zhexue Huang, Graham Williams, Mark Junjie Li, and Yunming Ye. 2012. Hybrid random forests: Advantages of mixed trees in classifying text data. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer, 147--158.
[52]
Jun Xu and Hang Li. 2007. Adarank: A boosting algorithm for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 391--398.
[53]
Yisong Yue, Thomas Finley, Filip Radlinski, and Thorsten Joachims. 2007. A support vector method for optimizing average precision. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 271--278.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Utilizing Ant Colony Optimization for Result Merging in Federated SearchEngineering, Technology & Applied Science Research10.48084/etasr.730214:4(14832-14839)Online publication date: 2-Aug-2024
  • (2024)Teachable Facets: A Framework of Interactive Machine Teaching for Information FilteringProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3627508.3638289(178-188)Online publication date: 10-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Model-based diversity-driven learn-to-rank test case prioritizationExpert Systems with Applications10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124768255(124768)Online publication date: Dec-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Comparing Pointwise and Listwise Objective Functions for Random-Forest-Based Learning-to-Rank

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Transactions on Information Systems
      ACM Transactions on Information Systems  Volume 34, Issue 4
      September 2016
      217 pages
      ISSN:1046-8188
      EISSN:1558-2868
      DOI:10.1145/2954381
      Issue’s Table of Contents
      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]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 17 August 2016
      Accepted: 01 December 2015
      Revised: 01 December 2015
      Received: 01 May 2015
      Published in TOIS Volume 34, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. Learning-to-rank
      2. computational complexity
      3. evaluation metrics
      4. objective function
      5. random forest
      6. splitting criterion

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

      Funding Sources

      • NICTA (National ICT Australia)

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)35
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
      Reflects downloads up to 30 Aug 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Utilizing Ant Colony Optimization for Result Merging in Federated SearchEngineering, Technology & Applied Science Research10.48084/etasr.730214:4(14832-14839)Online publication date: 2-Aug-2024
      • (2024)Teachable Facets: A Framework of Interactive Machine Teaching for Information FilteringProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3627508.3638289(178-188)Online publication date: 10-Mar-2024
      • (2024)Model-based diversity-driven learn-to-rank test case prioritizationExpert Systems with Applications10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124768255(124768)Online publication date: Dec-2024
      • (2024)Dual cycle generative adversarial networks for web searchApplied Soft Computing10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111293153(111293)Online publication date: Mar-2024
      • (2023)Improving Product Search with Season-Aware Query-Product Semantic SimilarityCompanion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202310.1145/3543873.3587625(864-868)Online publication date: 30-Apr-2023
      • (2023)Software defect prediction using learning to rank approachScientific Reports10.1038/s41598-023-45915-513:1Online publication date: 2-Nov-2023
      • (2022)Learning to rank from relevance judgments distributionsJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2462973:9(1236-1252)Online publication date: Mar-2022
      • (2021)Research on Search Ranking Technology of Chinese Electronic Medical Record Based on Adarank2021 18th International Computer Conference on Wavelet Active Media Technology and Information Processing (ICCWAMTIP)10.1109/ICCWAMTIP53232.2021.9674101(63-70)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2021
      • (2021)A Learn-to-Rank Method for Model-Based Regression Test Case PrioritizationIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2021.30531639(16365-16382)Online publication date: 2021
      • (2021)Understanding Bias and Variance of Learning-to-Rank Algorithms: An Empirical FrameworkApplied Artificial Intelligence10.1080/08839514.2021.200916436:1Online publication date: 11-Dec-2021
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      Full Access

      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