Unbiased Learning to Rank in Feeds Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In feeds recommendation, users are able to constantly browse items generated by never-ending feeds using mobile phones. The implicit feedback from users is an important resource for learning to rank, however, building ranking functions from such observed data is recognized to be biased. The presentation of the items will influence the user's judgements and therefore introduces biases. Most previous works in the unbiased learning to rank literature focus on position bias (i.e., an item ranked higher has more chances of being examined and interacted with). By analyzing user behaviors in product feeds recommendation, in this paper, we identify and introduce context bias, which refers to the probability that a user interacting with an item is biased by its surroundings, to unbiased learning to rank. We propose an Unbiased Learning to Rank with Combinational Propensity (ULTR-CP) framework to remove the inherent biases jointly caused by multiple factors. Under this framework, a context-aware position bias model is instantiated to estimate the unified bias considering both position and context biases. In addition to evaluating propensity score estimation approaches by the ranking metrics, we also discuss the evaluation of the propensities directly by checking their balancing properties. Extensive experiments performed on a real e-commerce data set collected from JD.com verify the effectiveness of context bias and illustrate the superiority of ULTR-CP against the state-of-the-art methods.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".