Ranking is at the core of many artificial intelligence (AI) applications, including search engines, recommender systems, etc. Modern ranking systems are often constructed with learning-to-rank (LTR) models built from user behavior signals. While previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of using user behavior signals (e.g., clicks) as both features and labels of LTR algorithms, we argue that existing LTR algorithms that indiscriminately treat behavior and non-behavior signals in input features could lead to suboptimal performance in practice. Because user behavior signals often have strong correlations with the ranking objective and can only be collected on items that have already been shown to users, directly using behavior signals in LTR could create an exploitation bias that hurts the system performance in the long run.

Ranking systems are the key components of modern Information Retrieval (IR) applications, such as search engines and recommender systems. Besides the ranking relevance to users, the exposure fairness to item providers has also been considered an important factor in ranking optimization. Many fair ranking algorithms have been proposed to jointly optimize both ranking relevance and fairness. However, we find that most existing fair ranking methods adopt greedy algorithms that only optimize rankings for the next immediate session or request. As shown in this paper, such a myopic paradigm could limit the upper bound of ranking optimization and lead to suboptimal performance in the long term.

Ranking systems are ubiquitous in modern Internet services, including online marketplaces, social media, and search engines. Traditionally, ranking systems only focus on how to get better relevance estimation. When relevance estimation is available, they usually adopt a user-centric optimization strategy where ranked lists are generated by sorting items according to their estimated relevance. However, such user-centric optimization ignores the fact that item providers also draw utility from ranking systems. It has been shown in existing research that such user-centric optimization will cause much unfairness to item providers, followed by unfair opportunities and unfair economic gains for item providers.

Using implicit feedback collected from user clicks as training labels for learning-to-rank algorithms is a well-developed paradigm that has been extensively studied and used in modern IR systems. Using user clicks as ranking features, on the other hand, has not been fully explored in existing literature. Despite its potential in improving short-term system performance, whether the incorporation of user clicks as ranking features is beneficial for learning-to-rank systems in the long term is still questionable. Two of the most important problems are (1) the explicit bias introduced by noisy user behavior, and (2) the implicit bias, which we refer to as the exploitation bias, introduced by the dynamic training and serving of learning-to-rank systems with behavior features. In this paper, we explore the possibility of incorporating user clicks as both training labels and ranking features for learning to rank. We formally investigate the problems in feature collection and model training, and propose a counterfactual feature projection function and a novel uncertainty-aware learning to rank framework. Experiments on public datasets show that ranking models learned with the proposed framework can significantly outperform models built with raw click features and algorithms that rank items without considering model uncertainty.

Learning to rank system has become an important aspect of our daily life. However, the implicit user feedback that is used to train many learning to rank models is usually noisy and suffers from user bias (i.e., position bias). Thus, obtaining unbiased model using biased feedback has become an important research field for IR. Existing studies on unbiased learning to rank (ULTR) can be generalized into two families-algorithms that attain unbiasness with logged data, offline learning, and algorithms that achieve unbiasness by estimating unbiased parameters with real-time user interactions, namely online learning. While there exist many algorithms from both families, there lacks a unified way to compare and benchmark them. As a result, it can be challenging for researchers to choose the right technique for their problems or for people who are new to the field to learn and understand existing algorithms. To solve this problem, we introduced ULTRA, which is a flexible, extensible, and easily configure ULTR toolbox. Its key features include support for multiple ULTR algorithms with configurable hyper parameters, a variety of built-in click models that can be used separately to simulate clicks, different ranking model architectures and evaluation metrics, and simple learning to rank pipeline creation. In this paper, we discuss the general framework of ULTR, briefly describe the algorithms in ULTRA, detail the structure, and pipeline of the toolbox. We experimented on all the algorithms supported by ULTRA and showed that the toolbox performance is reasonable. Our toolbox is an important resource for researchers to conduct experiments on ULTR algorithms with different configurations as well as testing their own algorithms with the supported features.

Rankings, especially those in search and recommendation systems, often determine how people access information and how information is exposed to people. Therefore, how to balance the relevance and fairness of information exposure is considered as one of the key problems for modern IR systems. As conventional ranking frameworks that myopically sorts documents with their relevance will inevitably introduce unfair result exposure, recent studies on ranking fairness mostly focus on dynamic ranking paradigms where result rankings can be adapted in real-time to support fairness in groups (i.e., races, genders, etc.). Existing studies on fairness in dynamic learning to rank, however, often achieve the overall fairness of document exposure in ranked lists by significantly sacrificing the performance of result relevance and fairness on the top results. To address this problem, we propose a fair and unbiased ranking method named Maximal Marginal Fairness (MMF). The algorithm integrates unbiased estimators for both relevance and merit-based fairness while providing an explicit controller that balances the selection of documents to maximize the marginal relevance and fairness in top-k results. Theoretical and empirical analysis shows that, with small compromises on long list fairness, our method achieves superior efficiency and effectiveness comparing to the state-of-the-art algorithms in both relevance and fairness for top-k rankings.

How to obtain an unbiased ranking model by learning to rank with biased user feedback is an important research question for IR. Existing work on unbiased learning to rank (ULTR) can be broadly categorized into two groups—the studies on unbiased learning algorithms with logged data, namely, the offline unbiased learning, and the studies on unbiased parameters estimation with real-time user interactions, namely, the online learning to rank. While their definitions of unbiasness are different, these two types of ULTR algorithms share the same goal—to find the best models that rank documents based on their intrinsic relevance or utility. However, most studies on offline and online unbiased learning to rank are carried in parallel without detailed comparisons on their background theories and empirical performance. In this article, we formalize the task of unbiased learning to rank and show that existing algorithms for offline unbiased learning and online learning to rank are just the two sides of the same coin. We evaluate eight state-of-the-art ULTR algorithms and find that many of them can be used in both offline settings and online environments with or without minor modifications. Further, we analyze how different offline and online learning paradigms would affect the theoretical foundation and empirical effectiveness of each algorithm on both synthetic and real search data. Our findings provide important insights and guidelines for choosing and deploying ULTR algorithms in practice.

Leveraging biased click data for optimizing learning to rank systems has been a popular approach in information retrieval. Because click data is often noisy and biased, a variety of methods have been proposed to construct unbiased learning to rank (ULTR) algorithms for the learning of unbiased ranking models. Among them, automatic unbiased learning to rank (AutoULTR) algorithms that jointly learn user bias models (i.e., propensity models) with unbiased rankers have received a lot of attention due to their superior performance and low deployment cost in practice. Despite their differences in theories and algorithm design, existing studies on ULTR usually use uni-variate ranking functions to score each document or result independently. On the other hand, recent advances in context-aware learning-to-rank models have shown that multivariate scoring functions, which read multiple documents together and predict their ranking scores jointly, are more powerful than uni-variate ranking functions in ranking tasks with human-annotated relevance labels. Whether such superior performance would hold in ULTR with noisy data, however, is mostly unknown. In this paper, we investigate existing multivariate scoring functions and AutoULTR algorithms in theory and prove that permutation invariance is a crucial factor that determines whether a context-aware learning-to-rank model could be applied to existing AutoULTR framework. Our experiments with synthetic clicks on two large-scale benchmark datasets show that AutoULTR models with permutation-invariant multivariate scoring functions significantly outperform those with uni-variate scoring functions and permutation-variant multivariate scoring functions.