Identifiability Matters: Revealing the Hidden Recoverable Condition in Unbiased Learning to Rank
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Unbiased Learning to Rank (ULTR) aims to train unbiased ranking models from biased click logs, by explicitly modeling a generation process for user behavior and fitting click data based on examination hypothesis. Previous research found empirically that the true latent relevance is mostly recoverable through click fitting. However, we demonstrate that this is not always achievable, resulting in a significant reduction in ranking performance. This research investigates the conditions under which relevance can be recovered from click data in the first principle. We initially characterize a ranking model as identifiable if it can recover the true relevance up to a scaling transformation, a criterion sufficient for the pairwise ranking objective. Subsequently, we investigate an equivalent condition for identifiability, articulated as a graph connectivity test problem: the recovery of relevance is feasible if and only if the identifiability graph (IG), derived from the underlying structure of the dataset, is connected. The presence of a disconnected IG may lead to degenerate cases and suboptimal ranking performance. To tackle this challenge, we introduce two methods, namely node intervention and node merging, designed to modify the dataset and restore the connectivity of the IG. Empirical results derived from a simulated dataset and two real-world LTR benchmark datasets not only validate our proposed theory but also demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods in alleviating data bias when the relevance model is unidentifiable.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2023.
Builds on
20 of 57 references.
References · 20
- 2019Variational Autoencoders and Nonlinear ICA: A Unifying Frameworkcited by 503
- 2018Nonlinear ICA Using Auxiliary Variables and Generalized Contrastive Learningcited by 282
- 2016Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedbackcited by 157
- 2018Unbiased Learning to Rank with Unbiased Propensity Estimationcited by 61
- 2018Estimating Position Bias without Intrusive Interventionscited by 32
- 2021Identifiable Generative Models for Missing Not at Random Data Imputationcited by 30
- 2020Improving Deep Learning For Airbnb Searchcited by 19
- 2022Doubly-Robust Estimation for Correcting Position-Bias in Click Feedback for Unbiased Learning to Rankcited by 18
- 2020Cascade Model-based Propensity Estimation for Counterfactual Learning to Rankcited by 15
- 2018Intervention Harvesting for Context-Dependent Examination-Bias Estimationcited by 14
- 2022A Large Scale Search Dataset for Unbiased Learning to Rankcited by 13
- 2022Reaching the End of Unbiasedness: Uncovering Implicit Limitations of Click-Based Learning to Rankcited by 10
8 more
- 2022Towards Disentangling Relevance and Bias in Unbiased Learning to Rankcited by 9
- 2020A Deep Recurrent Survival Model for Unbiased Rankingcited by 7
- 2020Intervention Efficient Algorithms for Approximate Learning of Causal Graphscited by 7
- 2023Multi-Feature Integration for Perception-Dependent Examination-Bias Estimationcited by 5
- 2020Counterfactual Learning to Rank using Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimationcited by 4
- 2023On the Impact of Outlier Bias on User Clickscited by 3
- 2020Eliminating Search Intent Bias in Learning to Rankcited by 2
- 2022Scalar is Not Enough: Vectorization-based Unbiased Learning to Rankcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 1.
3 papers.