Cited by 136Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorRecommender Systems and TechniquesMachine Learning and Algorithms

The LambdaLoss Framework for Ranking Metric Optimization

Open access
Wang, Xuanhui, Li, Cheng, Golbandi, Nadav, Bendersky, Michael, Najork, Marc·2018·Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management

Abstract

How to optimize ranking metrics such as Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) is an important but challenging problem, because ranking metrics are either flat or discontinuous everywhere, which makes them hard to be optimized directly. Among existing approaches, LambdaRank is a novel algorithm that incorporates ranking metrics into its learning procedure. Though empirically effective, it still lacks theoretical justification. For example, the underlying loss that LambdaRank optimizes for remains unknown until now. Due to this, there is no principled way to advance the LambdaRank algorithm further. In this paper, we present LambdaLoss, a probabilistic framework for ranking metric optimization. We show that LambdaRank is a special configuration with a well-defined loss in the LambdaLoss framework, and thus provide theoretical justification for it. More importantly, the LambdaLoss framework allows us to define metric-driven loss functions that have clear connection to different ranking metrics. We show a few cases in this paper and evaluate them on three publicly available data sets. Experimental results show that our metric-driven loss functions can significantly improve the state-of-the-art learning-to-rank algorithms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3269206.3271784

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [5]5. Christopher J. C. Burges, Robert Ragno, and Quoc Viet Le. 2006. Learning to Rank with Nonsmooth Cost Functions. In Proc. of the 20th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). 193-200.
  2. [7]7. Olivier Chapelle and Yi Chang. 2011. Yahoo! learning to rank challenge overview. In Proceedings of the Learning to Rank Challenge. 1-24.
  3. [19]19. N.L. Johnson, S. Kotz, and N. Balakrishnan. 1995. Continuous univariate distri- butions. Number v. 2 in Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics: Applied probability and statistics. Wiley & Sons.
  4. [33]33. Michael Taylor, John Guiver, Stephen Robertson, and Tom Minka. 2008. Softrank: optimizing non-smooth rank metrics. In Proc. of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM). 77-86.
  5. [37]37. Ellen M. Voorhees and Donna K. Harman (Eds.). 1999. Proc. of The Eighth Text REtrieval Conference, TREC. Vol. Special Publication 500-246. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
  6. [40]40. Jun Xu and Hang Li. 2007. AdaRank: A Boosting Algorithm for Information Retrieval. In Proc. of the 30th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR). 391-398.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, X., Li, C., Golbandi, N., Bendersky, M., & Najork, M.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-10-17
Pages
1313-1322
ISSN
2155-0751 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2898073868
Cited by
136
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
9.03
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
Keywords
learning to rank, NDCG

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review