Learning Multi-Objective Rewards and User Utility Function in Contextual Bandits for Personalized Ranking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper tackles the problem of providing users with ranked lists of relevant search results, by incorporating contextual features of the users and search results, and learning how a user values multiple objectives. For example, to recommend a ranked list of hotels, an algorithm must learn which hotels are the right price for users, as well as how users vary in their weighting of price against the location. In our paper, we formulate the context-aware, multi-objective, ranking problem as a Multi-Objective Contextual Ranked Bandit (MOCR-B). To solve the MOCR-B problem, we present a novel algorithm, named Multi-Objective Utility-Upper Confidence Bound (MOU-UCB). The goal of MOU-UCB is to learn how to generate a ranked list of resources that maximizes the rewards in multiple objectives to give relevant search results. Our algorithm learns to predict rewards in multiple objectives based on contextual information (combining the Upper Confidence Bound algorithm for multi-armed contextual bandits with neural network embeddings), as well as learns how a user weights the multiple objectives. Our empirical results reveal that the ranked lists generated by MOU-UCB lead to better click-through rates, compared to approaches that do not learn the utility function over multiple reward objectives.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it