mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Unidentified and Confounded? Understanding Two-Tower Models for Unbiased Learning to Rank

arXiv 2506.20501 ↗First posted 25 Jun 2025cs.IR cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Additive two-tower models are popular learning-to-rank methods for handling biased user feedback in industry settings. Recent studies, however, report a concerning phenomenon: training two-tower models on clicks collected by well-performing production systems leads to decreased ranking performance. This paper investigates two recent explanations for this observation: confounding effects from logging policies and model identifiability issues. We theoretically analyze the identifiability conditions of two-tower models, showing that either document swaps across positions or overlapping feature distributions are required to recover model parameters from clicks. We also investigate the effect of logging policies on two-tower models, finding that they introduce no bias when models perfectly capture user behavior. However, logging policies can amplify biases when models imperfectly capture user behavior, particularly when prediction errors correlate with document placement across positions. We propose a sample weighting technique to mitigate these effects and provide actionable insights for researchers and practitioners using two-tower models.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jun 2025.

Builds on

17 of 59 references.

References · 17

  1. 2016Revisiting Classifier Two-Sample Testscited by 258
  2. 2019Generalized Sliced Wasserstein Distancescited by 205
  3. 2016Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedbackcited by 155
  4. 2013Introducing LETOR 4.0 Datasetscited by 120
  5. 2018Unbiased Learning to Rank with Unbiased Propensity Estimationcited by 61
  6. 2018Beyond the Selected Completely At Random Assumption for Learning from Positive and Unlabeled Datacited by 36
  7. 2018Offline Evaluation of Ranking Policies with Click Modelscited by 32
  8. 2018Estimating Position Bias without Intrusive Interventionscited by 31
  9. 2018Intervention Harvesting for Context-Dependent Examination-Bias Estimationcited by 14
  10. 2019To Model or to Intervene: A Comparison of Counterfactual and Online Learning to Rank from User Interactionscited by 13
  11. 2022A Large Scale Search Dataset for Unbiased Learning to Rankcited by 13
  12. 2022Reaching the End of Unbiasedness: Uncovering Implicit Limitations of Click-Based Learning to Rankcited by 10
5 more
  1. 2022Towards Disentangling Relevance and Bias in Unbiased Learning to Rankcited by 9
  2. 2023An Offline Metric for the Debiasedness of Click Modelscited by 6
  3. 2023Multi-Feature Integration for Perception-Dependent Examination-Bias Estimationcited by 5
  4. 2023Identifiability Matters: Revealing the Hidden Recoverable Condition in Unbiased Learning to Rankcited by 3
  5. 2023Personalized Transformer-based Ranking for e-Commerce at Yandexcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.