PreprintCited by 1Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorRecommender Systems and TechniquesTopic Modeling

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Reinforcement Learning to Rank Using Coarse-grained Rewards

Open access
Tu, Yiteng, Xu, Zhichao, Yang, Tao, Su, Weihang, Zhou, Yujia, Liu, Yiqun, Lin, Fen, Liu, Qin, Ai, Qingyao·2022·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2208.07563

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

  • Foundations of GenIR

    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)
OpenAlex
W4292218840
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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