MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416016912 · doi:10.1145/3746252.3761496

MOHPER: Multi-objective Hyperparameter Optimization Framework for E-commerce Retrieval System

2025· preprint· en· W4416016912 on OpenAlexaff
Heon-Seok Jang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperparameterBayesian optimizationRanking (information retrieval)Selection (genetic algorithm)Focus (optics)Multi-armed banditQuality (philosophy)Hyperparameter optimizationProbabilistic logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E-commerce retrieval and ranking optimization have expanded to incorporate broader metrics that capture user engagement and business objectives. Modern search frameworks now incorporate advanced quality features, such as sales counts and document-query relevance, to better align search results with these goals. Traditional methods typically focus on click-through rate (CTR) as a measure of engagement or relevance, but this can miss true purchase intent, creating a gap between user interest and actual conversions. Joint training with the click-through conversion rate (CTCVR) has become essential for understanding buying behavior, although its sparsity poses challenges for reliable optimization. This study presents MOHPER, a Multi-Objective HyperParameter optimization framework for E-commerce Retrieval systems. Using Bayesian optimization and sampling, it jointly optimizes CTR, CTCVR, and other relevant objectives, with a focus on user engagement and conversion. To enhance configuration selection in multi-objective optimization, we propose advanced hyperparameter selection methods, including a meta-configuration voting strategy and a cumulative training approach that leverages prior optima to improve training efficiency and performance. Currently deployed in a live setting, our proposed framework substantiates its practical efficacy in achieving a balanced optimization that aligns with both user satisfaction and revenue goals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207