Learning to Rank an Assortment of Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the product-ranking challenge that online retailers face when their customers typically behave as “window shoppers.” They form an impression of the assortment after browsing products ranked in the initial positions and then decide whether to continue browsing. We design online learning algorithms for product ranking that maximize the number of customers who engage with the site. Customers’ product preferences and attention spans are correlated and unknown to the retailer; furthermore, the retailer cannot exploit similarities across products, owing to the fact that the products are not necessarily characterized by a set of attributes. We develop a class of online learning-then-earning algorithms that prescribe a ranking to offer each customer, learning from preceding customers’ clickstream data to offer better rankings to subsequent customers. Our algorithms balance product popularity with diversity, the notion of appealing to a large variety of heterogeneous customers. We prove that our learning algorithms converge to a ranking that matches the best-known approximation factors for the offline, complete information setting. Finally, we partner with Wayfair — a multibillion-dollar home goods online retailer — to estimate the impact of our algorithms in practice via simulations using actual clickstream data, and we find that our algorithms yield a significant increase (5–30%) in the number of customers that engage with the site. This paper was accepted by J. George Shanthikumar, Management Science Special Section on Data-Driven Prescriptive Analytics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".