Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3583780.3615031acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Replace Scoring with Arrangement: A Contextual Set-to-Arrangement Framework for Learning-to-Rank

Published: 21 October 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Learning-to-rank is a core technique in the top-N recommendation task, where an ideal ranker would be a mapping from an item set to an arrangement (a.k.a. permutation). Most existing solutions fall in the paradigm of probabilistic ranking principle (PRP), i.e., first score each item in the candidate set and then perform a sort operation to generate the top ranking list. However, these approaches neglect the contextual dependence among candidate items during individual scoring, and the sort operation is non-differentiable. To bypass the above issues, we propose Set-To-Arrangement Ranking (STARank), a new framework directly generates the permutations of the candidate items without the need for individually scoring and sort operations; and is end-to-end differentiable. As a result, STARank can operate when only the ground-truth permutations are accessible without requiring access to the ground-truth relevance scores for items. For this purpose, STARank first reads the candidate items in the context of the user browsing history, whose representations are fed into a Plackett-Luce module to arrange the given items into a list. To effectively utilize the given ground-truth permutations for supervising STARank, we leverage the internal consistency property of Plackett-Luce models to derive a computationally efficient list-wise loss. Experimental comparisons against 9 the state-of-the-art methods on 2 learning-to-rank benchmark datasets and 3 top-N real-world recommendation datasets demonstrate the superiority of STARank in terms of conventional ranking metrics. Notice that these ranking metrics do not consider the effects of the contextual dependence among the items in the list, we design a new family of simulation-based ranking metrics, where existing metrics can be regarded as special cases. STARank can consistently achieve better performance in terms of PBM and UBM simulation-based metrics.

References

[1]
Qingyao Ai, Keping Bi, Jiafeng Guo, and W Bruce Croft. 2018. Learning a deep listwise context model for ranking refinement. In SIGIR.
[2]
Irwan Bello, Sayali Kulkarni, Sagar Jain, Craig Boutilier, Ed Chi, Elad Eban, Xiyang Luo, Alan Mackey, and Ofer Meshi. 2018. Seq2slate: Re-ranking and slate optimization with rnns. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02019 (2018).
[3]
Chris Burges, Tal Shaked, Erin Renshaw, Ari Lazier, Matt Deeds, Nicole Hamilton, and Greg Hullender. 2005. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In ICML.
[4]
Christopher JC Burges. 2010. From ranknet to lambdarank to lambdamart: An overview. Learning (2010).
[5]
Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In ICML.
[6]
Olivier Chapelle and Yi Chang. 2011. Yahoo! learning to rank challenge overview. In Proceedings of the learning to rank challenge. 1--24.
[7]
Aleksandr Chuklin, Ilya Markov, and Maarten de Rijke. 2015. Click models for web search. Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services 7, 3 (2015), 1--115.
[8]
Xinyi Dai, Jiawei Hou, Qing Liu, Yunjia Xi, Ruiming Tang, Weinan Zhang, Xiuqiang He, Jun Wang, and Yong Yu. 2020. U-rank: Utility-oriented learning to rank with implicit feedback. In CIKM.
[9]
Yajuan Duan, Long Jiang, Tao Qin, Ming Zhou, and Heung Yeung Shum. 2010. An empirical study on learning to rank of tweets. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010).
[10]
Georges E Dupret and Benjamin Piwowarski. 2008. A user browsing model to predict search engine click data from past observations. In SIGIR.
[11]
Jerome H Friedman. 2001. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics (2001), 1189--1232.
[12]
John Guiver and Edward Snelson. 2009. Bayesian inference for Plackett-Luce ranking models. In proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning. 377--384.
[13]
Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, Yunming Ye, Zhenguo Li, and Xiuqiang He. 2017. DeepFM: a factorization-machine based neural network for CTR prediction. In IJCAI.
[14]
Balázs Hidasi, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, and Domonkos Tikk. 2015. Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks. ICLR (2015).
[15]
Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation 9, 8 (1997), 1735--1780.
[16]
David R Hunter. 2004. MM algorithms for generalized Bradley-Terry models. The annals of statistics (2004).
[17]
Thorsten Joachims. 2002. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In KDD.
[18]
Thorsten Joachims. 2006. Training linear SVMs in linear time. In KDD.
[19]
Thorsten Joachims, Laura Granka, Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, and Geri Gay. 2017. Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. In SIGIR.
[20]
Thorsten Joachims, Laura A Granka, Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, and Geri Gay. 2005. Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. In SIGIR.
[21]
Juho Lee, Yoonho Lee, Jungtaek Kim, Adam Kosiorek, Seungjin Choi, and Yee Whye Teh. 2019. Set transformer: A framework for attention-based permutation-invariant neural networks. In ICML.
[22]
Tie-Yan Liu. 2011. Learning to rank for information retrieval. (2011).
[23]
Liang Pang, Jun Xu, Qingyao Ai, Yanyan Lan, Xueqi Cheng, and Jirong Wen. 2020. Setrank: Learning a permutation-invariant ranking model for information retrieval. In SIGIR.
[24]
Robin L Plackett. 1975. The analysis of permutations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) (1975).
[25]
Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. 2017. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In CVPR.
[26]
Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Jun Xu, and Hang Li. 2010. LETOR: A benchmark collection for research on learning to rank for information retrieval. Information Retrieval (2010).
[27]
Yanru Qu, Han Cai, Kan Ren, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, Ying Wen, and Jun Wang. 2016. Product-based neural networks for user response prediction. In ICDM.
[28]
Steffen Rendle. 2010. Factorization machines. In ICDM.
[29]
Matthew Richardson, Ewa Dominowska, and Robert Ragno. 2007. Predicting clicks: estimating the click-through rate for new ads. In WWW.
[30]
Stephen E Robertson. 1977. The probability ranking principle in IR. Journal of documentation (1977).
[31]
Zhiqing Sun, Shikhar Vashishth, Soumya Sanyal, Partha Talukdar, and Yiming Yang. 2019. A re-evaluation of knowledge graph completion methods. ACL (2019).
[32]
Michael Taylor, John Guiver, Stephen Robertson, and Tom Minka. 2008. Softrank: optimizing non-smooth rank metrics. In WSDM.
[33]
Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS.
[34]
Oriol Vinyals, Meire Fortunato, and Navdeep Jaitly. 2015. Pointer networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.03134 (2015).
[35]
Fen Xia, Tie-Yan Liu, Jue Wang, Wensheng Zhang, and Hang Li. 2008. Listwise approach to learning to rank: theory and algorithm. In ICML.
[36]
Emine Yilmaz, Manisha Verma, Nick Craswell, Filip Radlinski, and Peter Bailey. 2014. Relevance and effort: An analysis of document utility. In CIKM.
[37]
Manzil Zaheer, Satwik Kottur, Siamak Ravanbakhsh, Barnabas Poczos, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Alexander Smola. 2017. Deep sets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.06114 (2017).
[38]
Guorui Zhou, Na Mou, Ying Fan, Qi Pi, Weijie Bian, Chang Zhou, Xiaoqiang Zhu, and Kun Gai. 2019. Deep interest evolution network for click-through rate prediction. In AAAI.
[39]
Guorui Zhou, Xiaoqiang Zhu, Chenru Song, Ying Fan, Han Zhu, Xiao Ma, Yanghui Yan, Junqi Jin, Han Li, and Kun Gai. 2018. Deep interest network for click-through rate prediction. In KDD.

Index Terms

  1. Replace Scoring with Arrangement: A Contextual Set-to-Arrangement Framework for Learning-to-Rank

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CIKM '23: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
      October 2023
      5508 pages
      ISBN:9798400701245
      DOI:10.1145/3583780
      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 the author(s) 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: 21 October 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. contextual set-to-arrangement
      2. efficient supervision generation
      3. learning-to-rank

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Funding Sources

      • National Natural Science Foundation of China
      • Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Development Fund

      Conference

      CIKM '23
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 1,861 of 8,427 submissions, 22%

      Upcoming Conference

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 74
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)74
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
      Reflects downloads up to 24 Sep 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      Get Access

      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