Learning to rank with multiple objective functions

We investigate the problem of learning to rank with document retrieval from the perspective of learning for multiple objective functions. We present solutions to two open problems in learning to rank: first, we show how multiple measures can be combined into a single graded measure that can be learned. This solves the problem of learning from a 'scorecard' of measures by making such scorecards comparable, and we show results where a standard web relevance measure (NDCG) is used for the top-tier measure, and a relevance measure derived from click data is used for the second-tier measure; the second-tier measure is shown to significantly improve while leaving the top-tier measure largely unchanged. Second, we note that the learning-to-rank problem can itself be viewed as changing as the ranking model learns: for example, early in learning, adjusting the rank of all documents can be advantageous, but later during training, it becomes more desirable to concentrate on correcting the top few documents for each query. We show how an analysis of these problems leads to an improved, iteration-dependent cost function that interpolates between a cost function that is more appropriate for early learning, with one that is more appropriate for late-stage learning. The approach results in a significant improvement in accuracy with the same size models. We investigate these ideas using LambdaMART, a state-of-the-art ranking algorithm.

[1]  Maksims Volkovs,et al.  BoltzRank: learning to maximize expected ranking gain , 2009, ICML '09.

[2]  Olivier Chapelle,et al.  Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance , 2009, CIKM.

[3]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  SoftRank: optimizing non-smooth rank metrics , 2008, WSDM '08.

[4]  Quoc V. Le,et al.  Learning to Rank with Nonsmooth Cost Functions , 2006, Neural Information Processing Systems.

[5]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents , 2000, SIGIR '00.

[6]  Kalervo Järvelin,et al.  Proceedings of Sheffield SIGIR, 2004, July 25th-29th : the Twenty-Seventh Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in information Retrieval , 2004 .

[7]  Chao Liu,et al.  Click chain model in web search , 2009, WWW '09.

[8]  Xiaojie Yuan,et al.  Are click-through data adequate for learning web search rankings? , 2008, CIKM '08.

[9]  Chiranjib Bhattacharyya,et al.  Structured learning for non-smooth ranking losses , 2008, KDD.

[10]  Qiang Wu,et al.  Adapting boosting for information retrieval measures , 2010, Information Retrieval.

[11]  Eric Brill,et al.  Improving web search ranking by incorporating user behavior information , 2006, SIGIR.

[12]  Christopher J. C. Burges,et al.  From RankNet to LambdaRank to LambdaMART: An Overview , 2010 .

[13]  Hsuan-Tien Lin,et al.  An Ensemble Ranking Solution for the Yahoo ! Learning to Rank Challenge , 2010 .

[14]  Gregory N. Hullender,et al.  Learning to rank using gradient descent , 2005, ICML.

[15]  Tie-Yan Liu,et al.  Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach , 2007, ICML '07.

[16]  Filip Radlinski,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in Web search , 2007, TOIS.

[17]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Improving Web Search Ranking by Incorporating User Behavior Information , 2019, SIGIR Forum.

[18]  J. Friedman Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[19]  Qiang Wu,et al.  Learning to Rank Using an Ensemble of Lambda-Gradient Models , 2010, Yahoo! Learning to Rank Challenge.

[20]  Pinar Donmez,et al.  On the local optimality of LambdaRank , 2009, SIGIR.

[21]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data , 2002, KDD.