The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Reinforcement Learning to Rank Using Coarse-grained Rewards
Open accessAbstract
Learning to rank (LTR) plays a crucial role in various Information Retrieval (IR) tasks. Although supervised LTR methods based on fine-grained relevance labels (e.g., document-level annotations) have achieved significant success, their reliance on costly and potentially biased annotations limits scalability and alignment with realistic goals. In contrast, coarse-grained feedback signals, such as duration time and session-level engagement, are more accessible and affordable. Reinforcement Learning (RL) offers a promising framework to directly optimize these objectives using reward signals, but most existing Reinforcement Learning to Rank (RLTR) approaches suffer from high variance and low sample efficiency. Motivated by recent advances in large language models (LLMs), we re-examine the problem of RLTR with coarse-grained rewards and propose new RLTR methods based on widely used RL algorithms for LLMs. We systematically compare supervised learning and RL-based methods across various model architectures and coarse-grained reward functions on large-scale LTR benchmarks. Experimental results demonstrate that advanced RL methods can directly learn from coarse-grained rewards and outperform strong supervised learning baselines even with fine-grained labels. This shows the great potential of RLTR for metric-agnostic ranking optimization.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Reinforcement learning's empirical performance as the solo optimization algorithm for ranking systems is still not satisfying.
“its empirical performance when being used as the solo optimization algorithms for ranking systems is still not satisfying at this point [127]”
From Foundations of GenIR (2025) · cites this paper as [127]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ai, Q., Zhan, J., & Liu, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.02842
“While reinforcement learning could solve the problem in theory, its empirical performance when being used as the solo optimization algorithms for ranking systems is still not satisfying at this point [127].”
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tu, Y., Xu, Z., Yang, T., Su, W., Zhou, Y., Liu, Y., Lin, F., Liu, Q., & Ai, Q.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2208.07563
- OpenAlex
- W4292218840
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- 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 › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- learning to rank, large language models, information retrieval, sample efficiency, reward variance
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