1 / 24

Learning to Rank with Ties

Learning to Rank with Ties. Authors: Ke Zhou, Gui-Rong Xue, Hongyuan Zha, and Yong Yu Presenter: Davidson Date: 2009/12/29 Published in SIGIR 2008. Contents. Introduction Pairwise learning to rank Models for paired comparisons with ties General linear models Bradley-Terry model

jmartone
Télécharger la présentation

Learning to Rank with Ties

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Learning to Rank with Ties Authors: Ke Zhou, Gui-Rong Xue, Hongyuan Zha, and Yong Yu Presenter: Davidson Date: 2009/12/29 Published in SIGIR 2008

  2. Contents • Introduction • Pairwise learning to rank • Models for paired comparisons with ties • General linear models • Bradley-Terry model • Thurstone-Mosteller model • Loss functions • Learning by functional gradient boosting • Experiments • Conclusions and future work

  3. Introduction • Learning to rank: • Ranking objects for some queries • Document retrieval, expert finding, anti web spam, and product ratings, etc. • Learning to rank methods: • Pointwise approach • Pairwise approach • Listwise approach

  4. Existing approaches (1/2) • Vector space model methods • Represent query and documents as vectors of features • Compute the distance as similarity measure • Language modeling based methods • Use a probabilistic framework for the relevance of a document with respect to a query • Estimate the parameters in probability models

  5. Existing approaches (2/2) • Supervised machine learning framework • Learn a ranking function from pairwise preference data • Minimize the number of contradicting pairs in training data • Direct optimization of loss function designed from performance measure • Obtain a ranking function that is optimal with respect to some performance measure • Require absolute judgment data

  6. Pairwise learning to rank • Use pairs of preference data • = is preferred to • How to obtain preference judgments? • Clickthroughs • User click count on search results • Use heuristic rules such as clichthrough rates • Absolute relevant judgments • Human labels • E.g. (4-level judgments) perfect, excellent, good, and bad • Need to convert preference judgments to preference data

  7. Conversion from preference judgments to preference data • E.g. 4 samples with 2-level judgment Preference judgment Preference data • (A, C) • (A, D) • (B, C) • (B, D) • Tie cases (A, B) and (C, D) are ignored!

  8. Models for paired comparisons with ties • Notations: • => is preferred to • => and are preferred equally • Proposed framework • General linear models for paired comparisons (in Oxford University Press, 1988) • Statistical models for paired comparisons • Bradley-Terry model (in Biometrika, 1952) • Thurstone-Mosteller model (in Psychological Review, 1927)

  9. General linear models (1/4) • For a non-decreasing function • The probability that document is preferred to document is: = scoring/ranking function

  10. General linear models (2/4) • With ties, the function becomes: • = a threshold that controls the tie probability • , this model is identical to the original general linear models.

  11. General linear models (3/4)

  12. General linear models (4/4)

  13. Bradley-Terry model • The function is set to be so that • With ties: where

  14. Thurstone-Mosteller model • The function is set to be the Gaussian cumulative distribution • With ties:

  15. Loss functions • Training data • preference data, tie data • Minimize the empirical risk: • Loss function:

  16. Learning by functional gradient boosting • Obtain a function from a function space that minimizes the empirical loss: • Apply gradient boosting algorithm • Approximate by iteratively constructing a sequence of base learners • Base learners are regression trees • The number of iteration and shrinkage factor in boosting algorithm are found by using cross validation

  17. Experiments • Learning to rank methods: • BT (Bradley-Terry model) and TM (Thurstone-Mosteller model) • BT-noties and TM-noties (BT and TM without ties) • RankSVM, RankBoost, AdaRank, Frank • Datasets (Letor data collection) • OHSUMED (16,140 pairs, 3-level judgment) • TREC2003 (49,171 pairs, binary judgment) • TREC2004 (74,170 pairs, binary judgment)

  18. Performance measures • Precision • Binary judgment only • Mean Average Precision (MAP) • Binary judgment only • Sensitive to the entire ranking order • Normalized Discount Cumulative Gain (NDCG) • Multi-level judgment

  19. Performance comparisons over OHSUMED

  20. Performance comparisons over TREC2003

  21. Performance comparisons over TREC2004

  22. Performance comparison: ties from different relevance levels

  23. Learning curves of Bradley-Terry model

  24. Conclusions and future work • Conclusions • Tie data improve the performance • Common features of relevant documents are extracted • Irrelevant documents have more diverse tie features and are less effective • BT and TM are comparable in most cases • Future work • Theoretical analysis of ties • New methods/algorithms/loss functions of incorporating ties

More Related