skip to main content
10.1145/3209978.3209992acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Ranking for Relevance and Display Preferences in Complex Presentation Layouts

Published:27 June 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

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.

References

  1. Peter Bailey, Nick Craswell, Ryen W. White, Liwei Chen, Ashwin Satyanarayana, and S.M.M. Tahaghoghi . 2010. Evaluating whole-page relevance. In SIGIR. ACM, 767--768. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Georg Buscher, Susan Dumais, and Edward Cutrell . 2010. The good, the bad, and the random: an eye-tracking study of ad quality in web search SIGIR. ACM, 42--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Matthew Campion . 2013. Amazon.com product search and navigation eye tracking study. https://www.looktracker.com/blog/eye-tracking-case-study/amazon-com-product-search-and-navigation-eye-tracking-study/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Olivier Chapelle and Yi Chang . 2011. Yahoo! Learning to Rank Challenge Overview. Journal of Machine Learning Research Vol. 14 (2011), 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merriënboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio . 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Aleksandr Chuklin and Maarten de Rijke . 2016. Incorporating clicks, attention and satisfaction into a search engine result page evaluation model. In CIKM. ACM, 175--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Domenico Dato, Claudio Lucchese, Franco Maria Nardini, Salvatore Orlando, Raffaele Perego, Nicola Tonellotto, and Rossano Venturini . 2016. Fast ranking with additive ensembles of oblivious and non-oblivious regression trees. ACM Transactions on Information Systems Vol. 35, 2 (2016), Article 15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Nikhil R. Devanur, Zhiyi Huang, Nitish Korula, and Vahab S. Mirrokni . 2016. Whole-page optimization and submodular welfare maximization with online bidders. ACM Transactions on Economics and Comput. Vol. 4, 3 (2016), Article 14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber . 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation Vol. 9, 8 (1997), 1735--1780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gord Hotchkiss, Steve Alston, and Greg Edwards . 2005. Eye tracking study. Research white paper, Enquiro Search Solutions Inc..Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernard J. Jansen, Anna Brown, and Marc Resnick . 2007. Factors relating to the decision to click on a sponsored link. Decision Support Systems Vol. 44, 1 (2007), 46--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Thorsten Joachims, Laura Granka, Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, Filip Radlinski, and Geri Gay . 2007. Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in web search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems Vol. 25, 2 (2007), Article 7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, and Yue Shi . 2013. Learning to rank for recommender systems. In RecSys. ACM, 493--494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Shubhra Kanti Karmaker Santu, Parikshit Sondhi, and ChengXiang Zhai . 2017. On application of learning to rank for e-commerce search SIGIR. ACM, 475--484. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Damien Lefortier, Adith Swaminathan, Xiaotiao Gu, Thorsten Joachims, and Maarten de Rijke . 2016. Large-scale validation of counterfactual learning methods: A test-bed NIPS Workshop on Inference and Learning of Hypothetical and Counterfactual Interventions in Complex Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Long-H Lin . 1992. Self-improving reactive agents based on reinforcement learning, planning and teaching. Machine learning Vol. 8, 3/4 (1992), 69--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Tie-Yan Liu . 2009. Learning to rank for information retrieval. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval Vol. 3, 3 (2009), 225--331. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Wanxuan Lu and Yunde Jia . 2014. An eye-tracking study of user behavior in web image search PRICAI 2014: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Cheng Luo, Yiqun Liu, Tetsuya Sakai, Fan Zhang, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma . 2017. Evaluating mobile search with height-biased gain. In SIGIR. ACM, 435--444. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Pavel Metrikov, Fernando Diaz, Sebastien Lahaie, and Justin Rao . 2014. Whole page optimization: How page elements interact with the position auction EC. ACM, 583--600. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Eleni Michailidou, Christoforos Christoforou, and Panayiotis Zaphiris . 2014. Towards predicting ad effectiveness via an eye tracking study International Conference on HCI in Business. Springer, 670--680.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Volodymyr Mnih and et al. . 2015. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature Vol. 518 (25 02 . 2015), 529 EP --.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Tao Qin and Tie-Yan Liu . 2013. Introducing LETOR 4.0 Datasets. CoRR Vol. abs/1306.2597 (2013). deftempurl%http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2597 tempurlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Guy Redwood . 2009. Eye tracking analysis. Internet Retailing Vol. 3, 3 (2009), 17. http://www.simpleusability.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/amazon-eye-tracking-review.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Richard S. Sutton and Andrew G. Barto . 1998. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Yukihiro Tagami, Shingo Ono, Koji Yamamoto, Koji Tsukamoto, and Akira Tajima . 2013. CTR prediction for contextual advertising: Learning-to-rank approach Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Data Mining for Online Advertising. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Hado Van Hasselt, Arthur Guez, and David Silver . 2016. Deep reinforcement learning with double Q-learning AAAI. 2094--2100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Yue Wang, Dawei Yin, Luo Jie, Pengyuan Wang, Makoto Yamada, Yi Chang, and Qiaozhu Mei . 2016. Beyond ranking: Optimizing whole-page presentation WSDM. ACM, 103--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Zeng Wei, Jun Xu, Yanyan Lan, Jiafeng Guo, and Xueqi Cheng . 2017. Reinforcement learning to rank with Markov decision process SIGIR. ACM, 945--948. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Long Xia, Jun Xu, Yanyan Lan, Jiafeng Guo, Wei Zeng, and Xueqi Cheng . 2017. Adapting Markov decision process for search result diversification SIGIR. ACM, 535--544. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Xiaohui Xie, Yiqun Liu, Maarten de Rijke, Jiyin He, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma . 2018. Why people search for images using web search engines WSDM. ACM, 655--663. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Xiaohui Xie, Yiqun Liu, Xiaochuan Wang, Meng Wang, Zhijing Wu, Yingying Wu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma . 2017. Investigating examination behavior of image search users SIGIR. ACM, 275--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Ranking for Relevance and Display Preferences in Complex Presentation Layouts

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGIR '18: The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval
      June 2018
      1509 pages
      ISBN:9781450356572
      DOI:10.1145/3209978

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      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].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 June 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGIR '18 Paper Acceptance Rate86of409submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader