User interactions with rankings are affected by both items' relevances and display positions. Accordingly, click probabilities are often modeled as a product of relevance and position factors; and for improving recommendation and search, one needs to disentangle relevance from position bias. However, existing click models only provide frequentist point-estimates that do not capture any measure of epistemic uncertainty. Consequently, there is no indication of how much confidence one should have in their predictions. In this work, we introduce the first evidential deep-learning approach to form an epistemic alternative to the important position-based click model. Our learned model takes as input item and position features and outputs a beta-distribution for every relevance and position-bias variable of the position-based model. These distributions capture epistemic uncertainty about click probabilities and the underlying effects of attraction and position bias. The main challenge of our approach is its optimization for which we propose approximation and conditioning techniques to provide numerical stability and variance reduction. Our experiments indicate that our approach captures epistemic uncertainty in predictions on previously-unseen data, whereas standard policy gradients fail to learn meaningful distributions. We believe our contribution of the first contextual epistemic click model constitutes an important step in incorporating Bayesian uncertainty into click modeling.

Choice models predict which items users choose from presented options. In recommendation settings, they can infer user preferences while countering exposure bias. In contrast with traditional univariate recommendation models, choice models consider which competitors appeared with the chosen item. This ability allows them to distinguish whether a user chose an item due to preference, i.e., they liked it; or competition, i.e., it was the best available option. Each choice model assumes specific user behavior, e.g., the multinomial logit model. However, it is currently unclear how accurately these assumptions capture actual user behavior, how wrong assumptions impact inference, and whether better models exist. In this work, we propose the learned choice model for recommendation (LCM4Rec), a non-parametric method for estimating the choice model. By applying kernel density estimation, LCM4Rec infers the most likely error distribution that describes the effect of inter-item cannibalization and thereby characterizes the users' choice model. Thus, it simultaneously infers what users prefer and how they make choices. Our experimental results indicate that our method (i) can accurately recover the choice model underlying a dataset; (ii) provides robust user preference inference, in contrast with existing choice models that are only effective when their assumptions match user behavior; and (iii) is more resistant against exposure bias than existing choice models. Thereby, we show that learning choice models, instead of assuming them, can produce more robust predictions. We believe this work provides an important step towards better understanding users' choice behavior.

Recommender systems are inherently decision-making systems, taking actions that have consequences for the world around them.Some consequences might be desirable (for example, growing the user base for an online platform), others might be unintended (for example, amplifying inequality among item providers).In order to reason about these consequences, we need to resort to methods from the literature on causal inference.Whilst this research area has seen a growing interest in recent years, there is an abundance of open research questions from how we should model large-scale recommender systems in such causal frameworks, to what the limitations are for causal identifiability in general settings, and how we can properly handle confounding variables.The CONSEQUENCES workshop series aims to bring together researchers and practitioners who are interested in this research topic, and wish to help shape its future.

Advancements in large language models (LLMs) have driven the emergence of complex new systems to provide access to information, that we will collectively refer to as modular generative information access (GenIA) systems. They integrate a broad and evolving range of specialized components, including LLMs, retrieval models, and a heterogeneous set of sources and tools. While modularity offers flexibility, it also raises critical challenges: How can we systematically characterize the space of possible modules and their interactions? How can we automate and optimize interactions among these heterogeneous components? And, how do we enable this modular system to dynamically adapt to varying user query requirements and evolving module capabilities? In this perspective paper, we argue that the architecture of future modular generative information access systems will not just assemble powerful components, but enable a self-organizing system through real-time adaptive orchestration - where components' interactions are dynamically configured for each user input, maximizing information relevance while minimizing computational overhead. We give provisional answers to the questions raised above with a roadmap that depicts the key principles and methods for designing such an adaptive modular system. We identify pressing challenges, and propose avenues for addressing them in the years ahead. This perspective urges the IR community to rethink modular system designs for developing adaptive, self-optimizing, and future-ready architectures that evolve alongside their rapidly advancing underlying technologies.

Learning to Rank (LTR) methods generally assume that each document in a top-K ranking is presented in an equal format. However, previous work has shown that users' perceptions of relevance can be changed by varying presentations, i.e., allocating more vertical space to some documents to provide additional textual or image information. Furthermore, presentation length can also redirect attention, as users are more likely to notice longer presentations when scrolling through results. Deciding on the document presentation lengths in a fixed vertical space ranking is an important problem that has not been addressed by existing LTR methods.

Carousel interfaces are widely used in e-commerce and streaming services, but little research has been devoted to them. Previous studies of interfaces for presenting search and recommendation results have focused on single ranked lists, but it appears their results cannot be extrapolated to carousels due to the added complexity. Eye tracking is a highly informative approach to understanding how users click, yet there are no eye tracking studies concerning carousels. There are very few interaction datasets on recommenders with carousel interfaces and none that contain gaze data. We introduce the RecGaze dataset: the first comprehensive feedback dataset on carousels that includes eye tracking results, clicks, cursor movements, and selection explanations. The dataset comprises of interactions from 3 movie selection tasks with 40 different carousel interfaces per user. In total, 87 users and 3,477 interactions are logged. In addition to the dataset, its description and possible use cases, we provide results of a survey on carousel design and the first analysis of gaze data on carousels, which reveals a golden triangle or F-pattern browsing behavior. Our work seeks to advance the field of carousel interfaces by providing the first dataset with eye tracking results on carousels. In this manner, we provide and encourage an empirical understanding of interactions with carousel interfaces, for building better recommender systems through gaze information, and also encourage the development of gaze-based recommenders.

Modern retrieval systems do not rely on a single ranking model to construct their rankings. Instead, they generally take a cascading approach where a sequence of ranking models are applied in multiple re-ranking stages. Thereby, they balance the quality of the top-K ranking with computational costs by limiting the number of documents each model re-ranks. However, the cascading approach is not the only way models can interact to form a retrieval system.

Counterfactual learning to rank (CLTR) can be risky and, in various circumstances, can produce sub-optimal models that hurt performance when deployed. Safe CLTR was introduced to mitigate these risks when using inverse propensity scoring to correct for position bias. However, the existing safety measure for CLTR is not applicable to state-of-the-art CLTR methods, cannot handle trust bias, and relies on specific assumptions about user behavior.

The powerful generative abilities of large language models (LLMs) show potential in generating relevance labels for search applications.Previous work has found that directly asking about relevancy, such as "How relevant is document A to query Q?", results in sub-optimal ranking.Instead, the pairwise-ranking prompting (PRP) approach produces promising ranking performance through asking about pairwise comparisons, e.g., "Is document A more relevant than document B to query Q?".Thus, while LLMs are effective at their ranking ability, this is not reflected in their relevance label generation.In this work, we propose a post-processing method to consolidate the relevance labels generated by an LLM with its powerful ranking abilities.Our method takes both LLM generated relevance labels and pairwise preferences.The labels are then altered to satisfy the pairwise preferences of the LLM, while staying as close to the original values as possible.Our experimental results indicate that our approach effectively balances label accuracy and ranking performance.Thereby, our work shows it is possible to combine both the ranking and labeling abilities of LLMs through post-processing.

Local feature selection in machine learning provides instance-specific explanations by focusing on the most relevant features for each prediction, enhancing the interpretability of complex models. However, such methods tend to produce misleading explanations by encoding additional information in their selections. In this work, we attribute the problem of misleading selections by formalizing the concepts of label and feature leakage. We rigorously derive the necessary and sufficient conditions under which we can guarantee no leakage, and show existing methods do not meet these conditions. Furthermore, we propose the first local feature selection method that is proven to have no leakage called SUWR. Our experimental results indicate that SUWR is less prone to overfitting and combines state-of-the-art predictive performance with high feature-selection sparsity. Our generic and easily extendable formal approach provides a strong theoretical basis for future work on interpretability with reliable explanations.

The traditional evaluation of information retrieval (IR) systems is generally very costly as it requires manual relevance annotation from human experts. Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence -specifically large language models (LLMs)- can generate relevance annotations at an enormous scale with relatively small computational costs. Potentially, this could alleviate the costs traditionally associated with IR evaluation and make it applicable to numerous low-resource applications. However, generated relevance annotations are not immune to (systematic) errors, and as a result, directly using them for evaluation produces unreliable results.

The off-policy learning paradigm allows for recommender systems and general ranking applications to be framed as decision-making problems, where we aim to learn decision policies that optimize an unbiased offline estimate of an online reward metric. With unbiasedness comes potentially high variance, and prevalent methods exist to reduce estimation variance. These methods typically make use of control variates, either additive (i.e., baseline corrections or doubly robust methods) or multiplicative (i.e., self-normalisation).

Recommender systems are inherently decision-making systems, taking actions that have consequences for the world around them. Some consequences might be desirable (for example, growing the user base for an online platform), others might be unintended (for example, amplifying inequality among item providers). In order to reason about these consequences, we need to resort to methods from the literature on causal inference. Whilst this research area has seen a growing interest in recent years, there is an abundance of open research questions from how we should model large-scale recommender systems in such causal frameworks, to what the limitations are for causal identifiability in general settings, and how we can properly handle confounding variables. The CONSEQUENCES workshop series aims to bring together researchers and practitioners who are interested in this research topic, and wish to help shape its future.

Two typical forms of bias in user interaction data with recommender systems (RSs) are popularity bias and positivity bias, which manifest themselves as the over-representation of interactions with popular items or items that users prefer, respectively. Debiasing methods aim to mitigate the effect of selection bias on the evaluation and optimization of RSs. However, existing debiasing methods only consider single-factor forms of bias, e.g., only the item (popularity) or only the rating value (positivity). This is in stark contrast with the real world where user selections are generally affected by multiple factors at once. In this work, we consider multifactorial selection bias in RSs. Our focus is on selection bias affected by both item and rating value factors, which is a generalization and combination of popularity and positivity bias. While the concept of multifactorial bias is intuitive, it brings a severe practical challenge as it requires substantially more data for accurate bias estimation. As a solution, we propose smoothing and alternating gradient descent techniques to reduce variance and improve the robustness of its optimization. Our experimental results reveal that, with our proposed techniques, multifactorial bias corrections are more effective and robust than single-factor counterparts on real-world and synthetic datasets.

Stochastic learning to rank (LTR) is a recent branch in the LTR field that concerns the optimization of probabilistic ranking models. Their probabilistic behavior enables certain ranking qualities that are impossible with deterministic models. For example, they can increase the diversity of displayed documents, increase fairness of exposure over documents, and better balance exploitation and exploration through randomization. A core difficulty in LTR is gradient estimation, for this reason, existing stochastic LTR methods have been limited to differentiable ranking models (e.g., neural networks). This is in stark contrast with the general field of LTR where Gradient Boosted Decision Trees (GBDTs) have long been considered the state-of-the-art. In this work, we address this gap by introducing the first stochastic LTR method for GBDTs. Our main contribution is a novel estimator for the second-order derivatives, i.e., the Hessian matrix, which is a requirement for effective GBDTs. To efficiently compute both the first and second-order derivatives simultaneously, we incorporate our estimator into the existing PL-Rank framework, which was originally designed for first-order derivatives only. Our experimental results indicate that stochastic LTR without the Hessian has extremely poor performance, whilst the performance is competitive with the current state-of-the-art with our estimated Hessian. Thus, through the contribution of our novel Hessian estimation method, we have successfully introduced GBDTs to stochastic LTR.

Since its inception, the field of unbiased learning to rank (ULTR) has remained very active and has seen several impactful advancements in recent years. This tutorial provides both an introduction to the core concepts of the field and an overview of recent advancements in its foundations, along with several applications of its methods.

Recommender systems make algorithmic decisions about what will be shown to whom, billions of times every day across the web. These decisions have consequences that can often be far-reaching. Indeed, users that are exposed to certain items, might be convinced to explore interests that are novel to them. At the same time, exposure is often linked to economic incentives for the item producer, which platform-level metrics will be impacted by as well. Feedback loops in existing systems also imply that algorithmic decisions made by the model itself, have an impact on the data future model iterations will be trained and evaluated on.

Most recommender systems (RecSys) do not provide an indication of confidence in their decisions. Therefore, they do not distinguish between recommendations of which they are certain, and those where they are not. Existing confidence methods for RecSys are either inaccurate heuristics, conceptually complex or computationally very expensive. Consequently, real-world RecSys applications rarely adopt these methods, and thus, provide no confidence insights in their behavior.

Since its inception, the field of unbiased learning to rank (ULTR) has remained very active and has seen several impactful advancements in recent years. This tutorial provides both an introduction to the core concepts of the field and an overview of recent advancements in its foundations along with several applications of its methods.

Counterfactual learning to rank (CLTR) relies on exposure-based inverse propensity scoring (IPS), a LTR-specific adaptation of IPS to correct for position bias. While IPS can provide unbiased and consistent estimates, it often suffers from high variance. Especially when little click data is available, this variance can cause CLTR to learn sub-optimal ranking behavior. Consequently, existing CLTR methods bring significant risks with them, as naively deploying their models can result in very negative user experiences.

Clicks on rankings suffer from position bias: generally items on lower ranks are less likely to be examined—and thus clicked—by users, in spite of their actual preferences between items. The prevalent approach to unbiased click-based learning-to-rank (LTR) is based on counterfactual inverse-propensity-scoring (IPS) estimation. In contrast with general reinforcement learning, counterfactual doubly robust (DR) estimation has not been applied to click-based LTR in previous literature. In this article, we introduce a novel DR estimator that is the first DR approach specifically designed for position bias. The difficulty with position bias is that the treatment—user examination—is not directly observable in click data. As a solution, our estimator uses the expected treatment per rank, instead of the actual treatment that existing DR estimators use. Our novel DR estimator has more robust unbiasedness conditions than the existing IPS approach, and in addition, provides enormous decreases in variance: our experimental results indicate it requires several orders of magnitude fewer datapoints to converge at optimal performance. For the unbiased LTR field, our DR estimator contributes both increases in state-of-the-art performance and the most robust theoretical guarantees of all known LTR estimators.

Model interpretability has become an important problem in machine learning (ML) due to the increased effect algorithmic decisions have on humans. Counterfactual explanations can help users understand not only why ML models make certain decisions, but also how these decisions can be changed. We frame the problem of finding counterfactual explanations as an optimization task and extend previous work that could only be applied to differentiable models. In order to accommodate non-differentiable models such as tree ensembles, we use probabilistic model approximations in the optimization framework. We introduce an approximation technique that is effective for finding counterfactual explanations for predictions of the original model and show that our counterfactual examples are significantly closer to the original instances than those produced by other methods specifically designed for tree ensembles.

Computing the gradient of stochastic Plackett-Luce (PL) ranking models for relevance and fairness metrics can be infeasible because it requires iterating over all possible permutations of items. In this paper, we introduce a novel algorithm: PL-Rank, that estimates the gradient of a PL ranking model through sampling. Unlike existing approaches, PL-Rank makes use of the specific structure of PL models and ranking metrics. Our experimental analysis shows that PL-Rank has a greater sample-efficiency and is computationally less costly than existing policy gradients, resulting in faster convergence at higher performance.

Recommender systems are more and more often modelled as repeated decision making processes – deciding which (ranking of) items to recommend to a given user. Each decision to recommend or rank an item has a significant impact on immediate and future user responses, long-term satisfaction or engagement with the system, and possibly valuable exposure for the item provider. This interactive and interventionist view of the recommender uncovers a plethora of unanswered research questions, as it complicates the typically adopted offline evaluation or learning procedures in the field. We need an understanding of causal inference to reason about (possibly unintended) consequences of the recommender, and a notion of counterfactuals to answer common “what if”-type questions in learning and evaluation. Advances at the intersection of these fields can foster progress in effective, efficient and fair learning and evaluation from logged data. These topics have been emerging in the Recommender Systems community for a while, but we firmly believe in the value of a dedicated forum and place to learn and exchange ideas. We welcome contributions from both academia and industry and bring together a growing community of researchers and practitioners interested in sequential decision making, offline evaluation, batch policy learning, fairness in online platforms, as well as other related tasks, such as A/B testing.

Methods for reinforcement learning for recommendation are increasingly receiving attention as they can quickly adapt to user feedback. A typical RL4Rec framework consists of (1) a state encoder to encode the state that stores the users' historical interactions, and (2) an RL method to take actions and observe rewards. Prior work compared four state encoders in an environment where user feedback is simulated based on real-world logged user data. An attention-based state encoder was found to be the optimal choice as it reached the highest performance. However, this finding is limited to the actor-critic method, four state encoders, and evaluation-simulators that do not debias logged user data. In response to these shortcomings, we reproduce and expand on the existing comparison of attention-based state encoders (1) in the publicly available debiased RL4Rec SOFA simulator with (2) a different RL method, (3) more state encoders, and (4) a different dataset. Importantly, our experimental results indicate that existing findings do not generalize to the debiased SOFA simulator generated from a different dataset and a DQN-based method when compared with more state encoders.

Plackett-Luce gradient estimation enables the optimization of stochastic ranking models within feasible time constraints through sampling techniques. Unfortunately, the computational complexity of existing methods does not scale well with the length of the rankings, i.e. the ranking cutoff, nor with the item collection size. In this paper, we introduce the novel PL-Rank-3 algorithm that performs unbiased gradient estimation with a computational complexity comparable to the best sorting algorithms. As a result, our novel learning-to-rank method is applicable in any scenario where standard sorting is feasible in reasonable time. Our experimental results indicate large gains in the time required for optimization, without any loss in performance. For the field, our contribution could potentially allow state-of-the-art learning-to-rank methods to be applied to much larger scales than previously feasible.

User interactions with recommender systems (RSs) are affected by user selection bias, e.g., users are more likely to rate popular items (popularity bias) or items that they expect to enjoy beforehand (positivity bias). Methods exist for mitigating the effects of selection bias in user ratings on the evaluation and optimization of RSs. However, these methods treat selection bias as static, despite the fact that the popularity of an item may change drastically over time and the fact that user preferences may also change over time.

State-of-the-art Learning to Rank (LTR) methods for optimizing ranking systems based on user interactions are divided into online approaches – that learn by direct interaction – and counterfactual approaches – that learn from historical interactions. We propose a novel intervention-aware estimator to bridge this online/counterfactual division. The estimator corrects for the effect of position bias, trust bias, and item-selection bias by using corrections based on the behavior of the logging policy and on online interventions: changes to the logging policy made during the gathering of click data. Our experimental results show that, unlike existing counterfactual LTR methods, the intervention-aware estimator can greatly benefit from online interventions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first method that is shown to be highly effective in both online and counterfactual scenarios.

Recent work has proposed stochastic Plackett-Luce (PL) ranking models as a robust choice for optimizing relevance and fairness metrics. Unlike their deterministic counterparts that require heuristic optimization algorithms, PL models are fully differentiable. Theoretically, they can be used to optimize ranking metrics via stochastic gradient descent. However, in practice, the computation of the gradient is infeasible because it requires one to iterate over all possible permutations of items. Consequently, actual applications rely on approximating the gradient via sampling techniques. In this paper, we introduce a novel algorithm: PL-Rank, that estimates the gradient of a PL ranking model w.r.t. both relevance and fairness metrics. Unlike existing approaches that are based on policy gradients, PL-Rank makes use of the specific structure of PL models and ranking metrics. Our experimental analysis shows that PL-Rank has a greater sample-efficiency and is computationally less costly than existing policy gradients, resulting in faster convergence at higher performance. PL-Rank further enables the industry to apply PL models for more relevant and fairer real-world ranking systems.

Optimizing ranking systems based on user interactions is a well-studied problem. State-of-the-art methods for optimizing ranking systems based on user interactions are divided into online approaches - that learn by directly interacting with users - and counterfactual approaches - that learn from historical interactions. Existing online methods are hindered without online interventions and thus should not be applied counterfactually. Conversely, counterfactual methods cannot directly benefit from online interventions.

Existing work in counterfactual Learning to Rank (LTR) has focussed on optimizing feature-based models that predict the optimal ranking based on document features. LTR methods based on bandit algorithms often optimize tabular models that memorize the optimal ranking per query. These types of model have their own advantages and disadvantages. Feature-based models provide very robust performance across many queries, including those previously unseen, however, the available features often limit the rankings the model can predict. In contrast, tabular models can converge on any possible ranking through memorization. However, memorization is extremely prone to noise, which makes tabular models reliable only when large numbers of user interactions are available. Can we develop a robust counterfactual LTR method that pursues memorization-based optimization whenever it is safe to do?

Besides position bias, which has been well-studied, trust bias is another type of bias prevalent in user interactions with rankings: users are more likely to click incorrectly w.r.t. their preferences on highly ranked items because they trust the ranking system. While previous work has observed this behavior in users, we prove that existing Counterfactual Learning to Rank (CLTR) methods do not remove this bias, including methods specifically designed to mitigate this type of bias. Moreover, we prove that Inverse Propensity Scoring (IPS) is principally unable to correct for trust bias under non-trivial circumstances. Our main contribution is a new estimator based on affine corrections: it both reweights clicks and penalizes items displayed on ranks with high trust bias. Our estimator is the first estimator that is proven to remove the effect of both trust bias and position bias. Furthermore, we show that our estimator is a generalization of the existing (CLTR) framework: if no trust bias is present, it reduces to the original (IPS) estimator. Our semi-synthetic experiments indicate that by removing the effect of trust bias in addition to position bias, (CLTR) can approximate the optimal ranking system even closer than previously possible.

Reinforcement learning for recommendation (RL4Rec) methods are increasingly receiving attention as an effective way to improve long-term user engagement. However, applying RL4Rec online comes with risks: exploration may lead to periods of detrimental user experience. Moreover, few researchers have access to real-world recommender systems. Simulations have been put forward as a solution where user feedback is simulated based on logged historical user data, thus enabling optimization and evaluation without being run online. While simulators do not risk the user experience and are widely accessible, we identify an important limitation of existing simulation methods. They ignore the interaction biases present in logged user data, and consequently, these biases affect the resulting simulation. As a solution to this issue, we introduce a debiasing step in the simulation pipeline, which corrects for the biases present in the logged data before it is used to simulate user behavior. To evaluate the effects of bias on RL4Rec simulations, we propose a novel evaluation approach for simulators that considers the performance of policies optimized with the simulator. Our results reveal that the biases from logged data negatively impact the resulting policies, unless corrected for with our debiasing method. While our debiasing methods can be applied to any simulator, we make our complete pipeline publicly available as the Simulator for OFfline leArning and evaluation (SOFA): the first simulator that accounts for interaction biases prior to optimization and evaluation.

Counterfactual Learning to Rank (LTR) methods optimize ranking systems using logged user interactions that contain interaction biases. Existing methods are only unbiased if users are presented with all relevant items in every ranking. There is currently no existing counterfactual unbiased LTR method for top-k rankings. We introduce a novel policy-aware counterfactual estimator for LTR metrics that can account for the effect of a stochastic logging policy. We prove that the policy-aware estimator is unbiased if every relevant item has a non-zero probability to appear in the top-k ranking. Our experimental results show that the performance of our estimator is not affected by the size of k: for any k, the policy-aware estimator reaches the same retrieval performance while learning from top-k feedback as when learning from feedback on the full ranking. Lastly, we introduce novel extensions of traditional LTR methods to perform counterfactual LTR and to optimize top-k metrics. Together, our contributions introduce the first policy-aware unbiased LTR approach that learns from top-k feedback and optimizes top-k metrics. As a result, counterfactual LTR is now applicable to the very prevalent top-k ranking setting in search and recommendation.

Learning to Rank (LTR) from user interactions is challenging as user feedback often contains high levels of bias and noise. At the moment, two methodologies for dealing with bias prevail in the field of LTR: counterfactual methods that learn from historical data and model user behavior to deal with biases; and online methods that perform interventions to deal with bias but use no explicit user models. For practitioners the decision between either methodology is very important because of its direct impact on end users. Nevertheless, there has never been a direct comparison between these two approaches to unbiased LTR. In this study we provide the first benchmarking of both counterfactual and online LTR methods under different experimental conditions. Our results show that the choice between the methodologies is consequential and depends on the presence of selection bias, and the degree of position bias and interaction noise. In settings with little bias or noise counterfactual methods can obtain the highest ranking performance; however, in other circumstances their optimization can be detrimental to the user experience. Conversely, online methods are very robust to bias and noise but require control over the displayed rankings. Our findings confirm and contradict existing expectations on the impact of model-based and intervention-based methods in LTR, and allow practitioners to make an informed decision between the two methodologies.

This tutorial aims to weave together diverse strands of modern Learning to Rank (LtR) research, and present them in a unified full-day tutorial. First, we will introduce the fundamentals of LtR, and an overview of its various sub-fields. Then, we will discuss some recent advances in gradient boosting methods such as LambdaMART by focusing on their efficiency/effectiveness trade-offs and optimizations. Subsequently, we will then present TF-Ranking, a new open source TensorFlow package for neural LtR models, and how it can be used for modeling sparse textual features. Finally, we will conclude the tutorial by covering unbiased LtR -- a new research field aiming at learning from biased implicit user feedback. The tutorial will consist of three two-hour sessions, each focusing on one of the topics described above. It will provide a mix of theoretical and hands-on sessions, and should benefit both academics interested in learning more about the current state-of-the-art in LtR, as well as practitioners who want to use LtR techniques in their applications.

Online Learning to Rank (OLTR) methods optimize rankers based on user interactions. State-of-the-art OLTR methods are built specifically for linear models. Their approaches do not extend well to non-linear models such as neural networks. We introduce an entirely novel approach to OLTR that constructs a weighted differentiable pairwise loss after each interaction: Pairwise Differentiable Gradient Descent (PDGD). PDGD breaks away from the traditional approach that relies on interleaving or multileaving and extensive sampling of models to estimate gradients. Instead, its gradient is based on inferring preferences between document pairs from user clicks and can optimize any differentiable model. We prove that the gradient of PDGD is unbiased w.r.t. user document pair preferences. Our experiments on the largest publicly available Learning to Rank (LTR) datasets show considerable and significant improvements under all levels of interaction noise. PDGD outperforms existing OLTR methods both in terms of learning speed as well as final convergence. Furthermore, unlike previous OLTR methods, PDGD also allows for non-linear models to be optimized effectively. Our results show that using a neural network leads to even better performance at convergence than a linear model. In summary, PDGD is an efficient and unbiased OLTR approach that provides a better user experience than previously possible.

Learning to Rank has traditionally considered settings where given the relevance information of objects, the desired order in which to rank the objects is clear. However, with today's large variety of users and layouts this is not always the case. In this paper, we consider so-called complex ranking settings where it is not clear what should be displayed, that is, what the relevant items are, and how they should be displayed, that is, where the most relevant items should be placed. These ranking settings are complex as they involve both traditional ranking and inferring the best display order. Existing learning to rank methods cannot handle such complex ranking settings as they assume that the display order is known beforehand. To address this gap we introduce a novel Deep Reinforcement Learning method that is capable of learning complex rankings, both the layout and the best ranking given the layout, from weak reward signals. Our proposed method does so by selecting documents and positions sequentially, hence it ranks both the documents and positions, which is why we call it the Double Rank Model (DRM). Our experiments show that DRM outperforms all existing methods in complex ranking settings, thus it leads to substantial ranking improvements in cases where the display order is not known a priori.

Multileaved comparison methods generalize interleaved comparison methods to provide a scalable approach for comparing ranking systems based on regular user interactions. Such methods enable the increasingly rapid research and development of search engines. However, existing multileaved comparison methods that provide reliable outcomes do so by degrading the user experience during evaluation. Conversely, current multileaved comparison methods that maintain the user experience cannot guarantee correctness. Our contribution is two-fold. First, we propose a theoretical framework for systematically comparing multileaved comparison methods using the notions of considerateness, which concerns maintaining the user experience, and fidelity, which concerns reliable correct outcomes. Second, we introduce a novel multileaved comparison method, Pairwise Preference Multileaving (PPM), that performs comparisons based on document-pair preferences, and prove that it is considerate and has fidelity. We show empirically that, compared to previous multileaved comparison methods, PPM is more sensitive to user preferences and scalable with the number of rankers being compared.

In Online Learning to Rank (OLTR) the aim is to find an optimal ranking model by interacting with users. When learning from user behavior, systems must interact with users while simultaneously learning from those interactions. Unlike other Learning to Rank (LTR) settings, existing research in this field has been limited to linear models. This is due to the speed-quality tradeoff that arises when selecting models: complex models are more expressive and can find the best rankings but need more user interactions to do so, a requirement that risks frustrating users during training. Conversely, simpler models can be optimized on fewer interactions and thus provide a better user experience, but they will converge towards suboptimal rankings. This tradeoff creates a deadlock, since novel models will not be able to improve either the user experience or the final convergence point, without sacrificing the other.

Modern search systems are based on dozens or even hundreds of ranking features. The dueling bandit gradient descent (DBGD) algorithm has been shown to effectively learn combinations of these features solely from user interactions. DBGD explores the search space by comparing a possibly improved ranker to the current production ranker. To this end, it uses interleaved comparison methods, which can infer with high sensitivity a preference between two rankings based only on interaction data. A limiting factor is that it can compare only to a single exploratory ranker. We propose an online learning to rank algorithm called multileave gradient descent (MGD) that extends DBGD to learn from so-called multileaved comparison methods that can compare a set of rankings instead of merely a pair. We show experimentally that MGD allows for better selection of candidates than DBGD without the need for more comparisons involving users. An important implication of our results is that orders of magnitude less user interaction data is required to find good rankers when multileaved comparisons are used within online learning to rank. Hence, fewer users need to be exposed to possibly inferior rankers and our method allows search engines to adapt more quickly to changes in user preferences.

Online evaluation methods for information retrieval use implicit signals such as clicks from users to infer preferences between rankers. A highly sensitive way of inferring these preferences is through interleaved comparisons. Recently, interleaved comparisons methods that allow for simultaneous evaluation of more than two rankers have been introduced. These so-called multileaving methods are even more sensitive than their interleaving counterparts. Probabilistic interleaving--whose main selling point is the potential for reuse of historical data--has no multileaving counterpart yet. We propose probabilistic multileave and empirically show that it is highly sensitive and unbiased. An important implication of this result is that historical interactions with multileaved comparisons can be reused, allowing for ranker comparisons that need much less user interaction data. Furthermore, we show that our method, as opposed to earlier sensitive multileaving methods, scales well when the number of rankers increases.