Conversational search has seen increased recent attention in both the IR and NLP communities. It seeks to clarify and solve users' search needs through multi-turn natural language interactions. However, most existing systems are trained and demonstrated with recorded or artificial conversation logs. Eventually, conversational search systems should be trained, evaluated, and deployed in an open-ended setting with unseen conversation trajectories. A key challenge is that training and evaluating such systems both require a human-in-the-loop, which is expensive and does not scale. One strategy is to simulate users, thereby reducing the scaling costs. However, current user simulators are either limited to only responding to yes-no questions from the conversational search system or unable to produce high-quality responses in general.

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.

A long-standing challenge for search and conversational assistants is query intention detection in ambiguous queries. Asking clarifying questions in conversational search has been widely studied and considered an effective solution to resolve query ambiguity. Existing work have explored various approaches for clarifying question ranking and generation. However, due to the lack of real conversational search data, they have to use artificial datasets for training, which limits their generalizability to real-world search scenarios. As a result, the industry has shown reluctance to implement them in reality, further suspending the availability of real conversational search interaction data. The above dilemma can be formulated as a cold start problem of clarifying question generation and conversational search in general. Furthermore, even if we do have large-scale conversational logs, it is not realistic to gather training data that can comprehensively cover all possible queries and topics in open-domain search scenarios. The risk of fitting bias when training a clarifying question retrieval/generation model on incomprehensive dataset is thus another important challenge.

In conversational search, agents can interact with users by asking clarifying questions to increase their chance of finding better results. Many recent works and shared tasks in both natural language processing and information retrieval communities have focused on identifying the need to ask clarifying questions and methodologies of generating them. These works assume that asking a clarifying question is a safe alternative to retrieving results. As existing conversational search models are far from perfect, it is possible and common that they could retrieve/generate bad clarifying questions. Asking too many clarifying questions can also drain a user’s patience when the user prefers searching efficiency over correctness. Hence, these models can backfire and harm a user’s search experience due to these risks from asking clarifying questions. In this work, we propose a simulation framework to simulate the risk of asking questions in conversational search and further revise a risk-aware conversational search model to control the risk. We show the model’s robustness and effectiveness through extensive experiments on three conversational datasets — MSDialog, Ubuntu Dialog Corpus, and Opendialkg — in which we compare it with multiple baselines. We show that the risk-control module can work with two different re-ranker models and outperform all of the baselines in most of our experiments.

Users often formulate their search queries and questions with immature language without well-developed keywords and complete structures. Such queries are likely to fail to express their true information needs and raise ambiguity as fragmental language often yield various interpretations and aspects. This gives search engines a hard time processing and understanding the query, and eventually leads to unsatisfactory retrieval results. An alternative approach to direct answer while facing an ambiguous query is to proactively ask clarifying questions to the user. Recent years have seen many works and shared tasks from both NLP and IR community about identifying the need for asking clarifying question and methodology to generate them. An often neglected fact by these works is that although sometimes the need for clarifying questions is correctly recognized, the clarifying questions these system generate are still off-topic and dissatisfaction provoking to users and may just cause users to leave the conversation.