Bernoulli Rank-1 Bandits for Click Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The probability that a user will click a search result depends both on its relevance and its position on the results page. The position based model explains this behavior by ascribing to every item an attraction probability, and to every position an examination probability. To be clicked, a result must be both attractive and examined. The probabilities of an item-position pair being clicked thus form the entries of a rank-1 matrix. We propose the learning problem of a Bernoulli rank-1 bandit where at each step, the learning agent chooses a pair of row and column arms, and receives the product of their Bernoulli-distributed values as a reward. This is a special case of the stochastic rank-1 bandit problem considered in recent work that proposed an elimination based algorithm Rank1Elim, and showed that Rank1Elim's regret scales linearly with the number of rows and columns on "benign" instances. These are the instances where the minimum of the average row and column rewards mu is bounded away from zero. The issue with Rank1Elim is that it fails to be competitive with straightforward bandit strategies as mu tends to 0. In this paper we propose Rank1ElimKL, which replaces the crude confidence intervals of Rank1Elim with confidence intervals based on Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergences. With the help of a novel result concerning the scaling of KL divergences we prove that with this change, our algorithm will be competitive no matter the value of mu. Experiments with synthetic data confirm that on benign instances the performance of Rank1ElimKL is significantly better than that of even Rank1Elim. Similarly, experiments with models derived from real-data confirm that the improvements are significant across the board, regardless of whether the data is benign or not.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".