在对抗性检索设置中,概率排序原则不是最优的

R. Ben-Basat, Moshe Tennenholtz, Oren Kurland
{"title":"在对抗性检索设置中,概率排序原则不是最优的","authors":"R. Ben-Basat, Moshe Tennenholtz, Oren Kurland","doi":"10.1145/2808194.2809456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The probability ranking principle (PRP) - ranking documents in response to a query by their relevance probabilities - is the theoretical foundation of most ad hoc document retrieval methods. A key observation that motivates our work is that the PRP does not account for potential post-ranking effects, specifically, changes to documents that result from a given ranking. Yet, in adversarial retrieval settings such as the Web, authors may consistently try to promote their documents in rankings by changing them. We prove that, indeed, the PRP can be sub-optimal in adversarial retrieval settings. We do so by presenting a novel game theoretic analysis of the adversarial setting. The analysis is performed for different types of documents (single topic and multi topic) and is based on different assumptions about the writing qualities of documents' authors. We show that in some cases, introducing randomization into the document ranking function yields overall user utility that transcends that of applying the PRP.","PeriodicalId":440325,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on The Theory of Information Retrieval","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Probability Ranking Principle is Not Optimal in Adversarial Retrieval Settings\",\"authors\":\"R. Ben-Basat, Moshe Tennenholtz, Oren Kurland\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2808194.2809456\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The probability ranking principle (PRP) - ranking documents in response to a query by their relevance probabilities - is the theoretical foundation of most ad hoc document retrieval methods. A key observation that motivates our work is that the PRP does not account for potential post-ranking effects, specifically, changes to documents that result from a given ranking. Yet, in adversarial retrieval settings such as the Web, authors may consistently try to promote their documents in rankings by changing them. We prove that, indeed, the PRP can be sub-optimal in adversarial retrieval settings. We do so by presenting a novel game theoretic analysis of the adversarial setting. The analysis is performed for different types of documents (single topic and multi topic) and is based on different assumptions about the writing qualities of documents' authors. We show that in some cases, introducing randomization into the document ranking function yields overall user utility that transcends that of applying the PRP.\",\"PeriodicalId\":440325,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on The Theory of Information Retrieval\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on The Theory of Information Retrieval\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2808194.2809456\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on The Theory of Information Retrieval","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2808194.2809456","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

概率排序原则(PRP)——根据查询的相关概率对文档进行排序——是大多数特殊文档检索方法的理论基础。激励我们工作的一个关键观察结果是,PRP没有考虑到潜在的排名后影响,特别是由于给定排名而导致的文档更改。然而,在像Web这样的对抗性检索设置中,作者可能一直试图通过更改文档来提高其排名。我们证明,确实,PRP可能是次优的对抗性检索设置。我们通过提出一种新的对抗性设置的博弈论分析来做到这一点。对不同类型的文档(单主题和多主题)进行分析,并基于对文档作者写作质量的不同假设。我们表明,在某些情况下,将随机化引入文档排序函数会产生比应用PRP更实用的总体用户效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Probability Ranking Principle is Not Optimal in Adversarial Retrieval Settings
The probability ranking principle (PRP) - ranking documents in response to a query by their relevance probabilities - is the theoretical foundation of most ad hoc document retrieval methods. A key observation that motivates our work is that the PRP does not account for potential post-ranking effects, specifically, changes to documents that result from a given ranking. Yet, in adversarial retrieval settings such as the Web, authors may consistently try to promote their documents in rankings by changing them. We prove that, indeed, the PRP can be sub-optimal in adversarial retrieval settings. We do so by presenting a novel game theoretic analysis of the adversarial setting. The analysis is performed for different types of documents (single topic and multi topic) and is based on different assumptions about the writing qualities of documents' authors. We show that in some cases, introducing randomization into the document ranking function yields overall user utility that transcends that of applying the PRP.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Entity Linking in Queries: Tasks and Evaluation Using Part-of-Speech N-grams for Sensitive-Text Classification Query Expansion with Freebase Partially Labeled Supervised Topic Models for RetrievingSimilar Questions in CQA Forums Two Operators to Define and Manipulate Themes of a Document Collection
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1