Unidentified and Confounded? Understanding Two-Tower Models for Unbiased Learning to Rank

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20501v1
• Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 14:47:43 GMT
• Title: Unidentified and Confounded? Understanding Two-Tower Models for Unbiased Learning to Rank
• Authors: Philipp Hager, Onno Zoeter, Maarten de Rijke,
• Abstract summary: Training two-tower models on clicks collected by well-performing production systems leads to decreased ranking performance.<n>We theoretically analyze the identifiability conditions of two-tower models, showing that either document swaps across positions or overlapping feature distributions are required to recover model parameters from clicks.<n>We also investigate the effect of logging policies on two-tower models, finding that they introduce no bias when models perfectly capture user behavior.
• Score: 50.9530591265324
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Additive two-tower models are popular learning-to-rank methods for handling biased user feedback in industry settings. Recent studies, however, report a concerning phenomenon: training two-tower models on clicks collected by well-performing production systems leads to decreased ranking performance. This paper investigates two recent explanations for this observation: confounding effects from logging policies and model identifiability issues. We theoretically analyze the identifiability conditions of two-tower models, showing that either document swaps across positions or overlapping feature distributions are required to recover model parameters from clicks. We also investigate the effect of logging policies on two-tower models, finding that they introduce no bias when models perfectly capture user behavior. However, logging policies can amplify biases when models imperfectly capture user behavior, particularly when prediction errors correlate with document placement across positions. We propose a sample weighting technique to mitigate these effects and provide actionable insights for researchers and practitioners using two-tower models.

Related papers

• Generative Click-through Rate Prediction with Applications to Search Advertising [6.555660969349762]
  We introduce a novel model that leverages generative models to enhance the precision of CTR predictions in discriminative models.<n>Our method's efficacy is substantiated through extensive experiments on a new dataset.<n>The model is deployed on one of the world's largest e-commerce platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-15T12:21:30Z)
• Exploring Query Efficient Data Generation towards Data-free Model Stealing in Hard Label Setting [38.755154033324374]
  Data-free model stealing involves replicating the functionality of a target model into a substitute model without accessing the target model's structure, parameters, or training data.<n>This paper presents a new data-free model stealing approach called Query Efficient Data Generation (textbfQEDG)<n>We introduce two distinct loss functions to ensure the generation of sufficient samples that closely and uniformly align with the target model's decision boundary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T03:03:15Z)
• Reinforcing Pre-trained Models Using Counterfactual Images [54.26310919385808]
  This paper proposes a novel framework to reinforce classification models using language-guided generated counterfactual images. We identify model weaknesses by testing the model using the counterfactual image dataset. We employ the counterfactual images as an augmented dataset to fine-tune and reinforce the classification model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T08:07:14Z)
• MisGUIDE : Defense Against Data-Free Deep Learning Model Extraction [0.8437187555622164]
  "MisGUIDE" is a two-step defense framework for Deep Learning models that disrupts the adversarial sample generation process. The aim of the proposed defense method is to reduce the accuracy of the cloned model while maintaining accuracy on authentic queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T13:59:21Z)
• Secrets of RLHF in Large Language Models Part II: Reward Modeling [134.97964938009588]
  We introduce a series of novel methods to mitigate the influence of incorrect and ambiguous preferences in the dataset. We also introduce contrastive learning to enhance the ability of reward models to distinguish between chosen and rejected responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T17:56:59Z)
• Dual Student Networks for Data-Free Model Stealing [79.67498803845059]
  Two main challenges are estimating gradients of the target model without access to its parameters, and generating a diverse set of training samples. We propose a Dual Student method where two students are symmetrically trained in order to provide the generator a criterion to generate samples that the two students disagree on. We show that our new optimization framework provides more accurate gradient estimation of the target model and better accuracies on benchmark classification datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T18:11:31Z)
• Earning Extra Performance from Restrictive Feedbacks [41.05874087063763]
  We set up a challenge named emphEarning eXtra PerformancE from restriCTive feEDdbacks (EXPECTED) to describe this form of model tuning problems. The goal of the model provider is to eventually deliver a satisfactory model to the local user(s) by utilizing the feedbacks. We propose to characterize the geometry of the model performance with regard to model parameters through exploring the parameters' distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-28T13:16:54Z)
• Discover, Explanation, Improvement: An Automatic Slice Detection Framework for Natural Language Processing [72.14557106085284]
  slice detection models (SDM) automatically identify underperforming groups of datapoints. This paper proposes a benchmark named "Discover, Explain, improve (DEIM)" for classification NLP tasks. Our evaluation shows that Edisa can accurately select error-prone datapoints with informative semantic features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-08T19:00:00Z)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)
• Influence Tuning: Demoting Spurious Correlations via Instance Attribution and Instance-Driven Updates [26.527311287924995]
  influence tuning can help deconfounding the model from spurious patterns in data. We show that in a controlled setup, influence tuning can help deconfounding the model from spurious patterns in data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-07T06:59:46Z)
• Learning from others' mistakes: Avoiding dataset biases without modeling them [111.17078939377313]
  State-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models often learn to model dataset biases and surface form correlations instead of features that target the intended task. Previous work has demonstrated effective methods to circumvent these issues when knowledge of the bias is available. We show a method for training models that learn to ignore these problematic correlations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T16:10:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.