Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
skip to main content
10.1145/1458082.1458095acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Are click-through data adequate for learning web search rankings?

Published: 26 October 2008 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Learning-to-rank algorithms, which can automatically adapt ranking functions in web search, require a large volume of training data. A traditional way of generating training examples is to employ human experts to judge the relevance of documents. Unfortunately, it is difficult, time-consuming and costly. In this paper, we study the problem of exploiting click-through data for learning web search rankings that can be collected at much lower cost. We extract pairwise relevance preferences from a large-scale aggregated click-through dataset, compare these preferences with explicit human judgments, and use them as training examples to learn ranking functions. We find click-through data are useful and effective in learning ranking functions. A straightforward use of aggregated click-through data can outperform human judgments. We demonstrate that the strategies are only slightly affected by fraudulent clicks. We also reveal that the pairs which are very reliable, e.g., the pairs consisting of documents with large click frequency differences, are not sufficient for learning.

    References

    [1]
    E. Agichtein, E. Brill, and S. Dumais. Improving web search ranking by incorporating user behavior information. In SIGIR '06: Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 19--26, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press.
    [2]
    E. Agichtein, E. Brill, S. Dumais, and R. Ragno. Learning user interaction models for predicting web search result preferences. In SIGIR '06: Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 3--10, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press.
    [3]
    A. Broder. A taxonomy of web search. SIGIR Forum, 36(2):3--10, 2002.
    [4]
    {4} C. Burges, T. Shaked, E. Renshaw, A. Lazier, M. Deeds, N. Hamilton, and G. Hullender. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In ICML '05: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, pages 89--96, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
    [5]
    C.J.C. Burges, R. Ragno, and Q.V. Le. Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18, pages 395--402, Cambridge, MA, 2006. MIT Press.
    [6]
    Y. Cao, J. Xu, T.-Y. Liu, H. Li, Y. Huang, and H.-W. Hon. Adapting ranking svm to document retrieval. In SIGIR '06: Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 186--193, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press.
    [7]
    Z. Dou, R. Song, and J.-R. Wen. A large-scale evaluation and analysis of personalized search strategies. In WWW '07: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 581--590, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM Press.
    [8]
    S. Fox, K. Karnawat, M. Mydland, S. Dumais, and T. White. Evaluating implicit measures to improve web search. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 23(2):147--168, 2005.
    [9]
    Y. Freund, R. Iyer, R. E. Schapire, and Y. Singer. An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 4:933--969, 2003.
    [10]
    {10} K. Järvelin and J. Kekäläinen. Ir evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In SIGIR '00: Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 41--48, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM Press.
    [11]
    T. Joachims. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In KDD '02: Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 133--142, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press.
    [12]
    T. Joachims, L. Granka, B. Pan, H. Hembrooke, and G. Gay. Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. In SIGIR '05: Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 154--161, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
    [13]
    T. Joachims, L. Granka, B. Pan, H. Hembrooke, F. Radlinski, and G. Gay. Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in web search. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 25(2):7, 2007.
    [14]
    D. Kelly and J. Teevan. Implicit feedback for inferring user preference: a bibliography. SIGIR Forum, 37(2):18--28, 2003.
    [15]
    M. Kendall and B.B. Smith. Randomness and random sampling numbers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 101(1):147--166, 1938.
    [16]
    T.-Y. Liu, T. Qin, J. Xu, W. Xiong, and H. Li. Letor: Benchmark dataset for research on learning to rank for information retrieval. In LR4IR 2007 in conjunction with SIGIR 2007, 2007.
    [17]
    {17} F. Radlinski and T. Joachims. Evaluating the robustness of learning from implicit feedback. In Proceedings of the 22nd ICML Workshop on Learning in Web Search, 2005.
    [18]
    F. Radlinski and T. Joachims. Query chains: learning to rank from implicit feedback. In KDD '05: Proceeding of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining, pages 239--248, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
    [19]
    F. Radlinski and T. Joachims. Minimally invasive randomization for collecting unbiased preferences from clickthrough logs. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2006.
    [20]
    Z. Zheng, K. Chen, G. Sun, and H. Zha. A regression framework for learning ranking functions using relative relevance judgments. In SIGIR '07: Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 287--294, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM Press.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)A Preference Judgment Tool for Authoritative AssessmentProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3539618.3591801(3100-3104)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
    • (2022)Web Spam Detection based on Single Page Semantic Features2022 4th International Academic Exchange Conference on Science and Technology Innovation (IAECST)10.1109/IAECST57965.2022.10061916(1083-1087)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2022
    • (2022)Ideal kernel tuningNeurocomputing10.1016/j.neucom.2022.03.034489:C(1-8)Online publication date: 22-Jun-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    CIKM '08: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management
    October 2008
    1562 pages
    ISBN:9781595939913
    DOI:10.1145/1458082
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 26 October 2008

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. click-through data
    2. implicit feedback
    3. learning to rank
    4. relevance judgments
    5. web search rankings

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CIKM08
    CIKM08: Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
    October 26 - 30, 2008
    California, Napa Valley, USA

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,861 of 8,427 submissions, 22%

    Upcoming Conference

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)A Preference Judgment Tool for Authoritative AssessmentProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3539618.3591801(3100-3104)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
    • (2022)Web Spam Detection based on Single Page Semantic Features2022 4th International Academic Exchange Conference on Science and Technology Innovation (IAECST)10.1109/IAECST57965.2022.10061916(1083-1087)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2022
    • (2022)Ideal kernel tuningNeurocomputing10.1016/j.neucom.2022.03.034489:C(1-8)Online publication date: 22-Jun-2022
    • (2021)Are Topics Interesting or Not? An LDA-based Topic-graph Probabilistic Model for Web Search PersonalizationACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/347610640:3(1-24)Online publication date: 30-Dec-2021
    • (2021)Explicit diversification of search results across multiple dimensions for educational searchJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2440372:3(315-330)Online publication date: 15-Feb-2021
    • (2020)Good Evaluation Measures based on Document PreferencesProceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3397271.3401115(359-368)Online publication date: 25-Jul-2020
    • (2020)A Survey of Fake NewsACM Computing Surveys10.1145/339504653:5(1-40)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2020
    • (2020)Language-Agnostic Representation Learning for Product Search on E-Commerce PlatformsProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining10.1145/3336191.3371852(7-15)Online publication date: 20-Jan-2020
    • (2019)Classification for EEG report generation and epilepsy detectionNeurocomputing10.1016/j.neucom.2019.01.053335:C(81-95)Online publication date: 28-Mar-2019
    • (2019)Data stream classification using active learned neural networksNeurocomputing10.1016/j.neucom.2018.05.130353:C(74-82)Online publication date: 11-Aug-2019
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media