No Arabic abstract
New ranking algorithms are continually being developed and refined, necessitating the development of efficient methods for evaluating these rankers. Online ranker evaluation focuses on the challenge of efficiently determining, from implicit user feedback, which ranker out of a finite set of rankers is the best. Online ranker evaluation can be modeled by dueling ban- dits, a mathematical model for online learning under limited feedback from pairwise comparisons. Comparisons of pairs of rankers is performed by interleaving their result sets and examining which documents users click on. The dueling bandits model addresses the key issue of which pair of rankers to compare at each iteration, thereby providing a solution to the exploration-exploitation trade-off. Recently, methods for simultaneously comparing more than two rankers have been developed. However, the question of which rankers to compare at each iteration was left open. We address this question by proposing a generalization of the dueling bandits model that uses simultaneous comparisons of an unrestricted number of rankers. We evaluate our algorithm on synthetic data and several standard large-scale online ranker evaluation datasets. Our experimental results show that the algorithm yields orders of magnitude improvement in performance compared to stateof- the-art dueling bandit algorithms.
Online ranker evaluation is a key challenge in information retrieval. An important task in the online evaluation of rankers is using implicit user feedback for inferring preferences between rankers. Interleaving methods have been found to be efficient and sensitive, i.e. they can quickly detect even small differences in quality. It has recently been shown that multileaving methods exhibit similar sensitivity but can be more efficient than interleaving methods. This paper presents empirical results demonstrating that existing multileaving methods either do not scale well with the number of rankers, or, more problematically, can produce results which substantially differ from evaluation measures like NDCG. The latter problem is caused by the fact that they do not correctly account for the similarities that can occur between rankers being multileaved. We propose a new multileaving method for handling this problem and demonstrate that it substantially outperforms existing methods, in some cases reducing errors by as much as 50%.
We propose and study Collpasing Bandits, a new restless multi-armed bandit (RMAB) setting in which each arm follows a binary-state Markovian process with a special structure: when an arm is played, the state is fully observed, thus collapsing any uncertainty, but when an arm is passive, no observation is made, thus allowing uncertainty to evolve. The goal is to keep as many arms in the good state as possible by planning a limited budget of actions per round. Such Collapsing Bandits are natural models for many healthcare domains in which workers must simultaneously monitor patients and deliver interventions in a way that maximizes the health of their patient cohort. Our main contributions are as follows: (i) Building on the Whittle index technique for RMABs, we derive conditions under which the Collapsing Bandits problem is indexable. Our derivation hinges on novel conditions that characterize when the optimal policies may take the form of either forward or reverse threshold policies. (ii) We exploit the optimality of threshold policies to build fast algorithms for computing the Whittle index, including a closed-form. (iii) We evaluate our algorithm on several data distributions including data from a real-world healthcare task in which a worker must monitor and deliver interventions to maximize their patients adherence to tuberculosis medication. Our algorithm achieves a 3-order-of-magnitude speedup compared to state-of-the-art RMAB techniques while achieving similar performance.
We formulate and study a novel multi-armed bandit problem called the qualitative dueling bandit (QDB) problem, where an agent observes not numeric but qualitative feedback by pulling each arm. We employ the same regret as the dueling bandit (DB) problem where the duel is carried out by comparing the qualitative feedback. Although we can naively use classic DB algorithms for solving the QDB problem, this reduction significantly worsens the performance---actually, in the QDB problem, the probability that one arm wins the duel over another arm can be directly estimated without carrying out actual duels. In this paper, we propose such direct algorithms for the QDB problem. Our theoretical analysis shows that the proposed algorithms significantly outperform DB algorithms by incorporating the qualitative feedback, and experimental results also demonstrate vast improvement over the existing DB algorithms.
We introduce the dueling teams problem, a new online-learning setting in which the learner observes noisy comparisons of disjoint pairs of $k$-sized teams from a universe of $n$ players. The goal of the learner is to minimize the number of duels required to identify, with high probability, a Condorcet winning team, i.e., a team which wins against any other disjoint team (with probability at least $1/2$). Noisy comparisons are linked to a total order on the teams. We formalize our model by building upon the dueling bandits setting (Yue et al.2012) and provide several algorithms, both for stochastic and deterministic settings. For the stochastic setting, we provide a reduction to the classical dueling bandits setting, yielding an algorithm that identifies a Condorcet winning team within $mathcal{O}((n + k log (k)) frac{max(loglog n, log k)}{Delta^2})$ duels, where $Delta$ is a gap parameter. For deterministic feedback, we additionally present a gap-independent algorithm that identifies a Condorcet winning team within $mathcal{O}(nklog(k)+k^5)$ duels.
A version of the dueling bandit problem is addressed in which a Condorcet winner may not exist. Two algorithms are proposed that instead seek to minimize regret with respect to the Copeland winner, which, unlike the Condorcet winner, is guaranteed to exist. The first, Copeland Confidence Bound (CCB), is designed for small numbers of arms, while the second, Scalable Copeland Bandits (SCB), works better for large-scale problems. We provide theoretical results bounding the regret accumulated by CCB and SCB, both substantially improving existing results. Such existing results either offer bounds of the form $O(K log T)$ but require restrictive assumptions, or offer bounds of the form $O(K^2 log T)$ without requiring such assumptions. Our results offer the best of both worlds: $O(K log T)$ bounds without restrictive assumptions.