Papers › Listwise Learning to Rank by Exploring Unique Ratings

Listwise Learning to Rank by Exploring Unique Ratings

7 Jan 2020arXiv:2001.01828archive 2025-07-28

Xiaofeng Zhu, Diego Klabjan

In this paper, we propose new listwise learning-to-rank models that mitigate the shortcomings of existing ones. Existing listwise learning-to-rank models are generally derived from the classical Plackett-Luce model, which has three major limitations. (1) Its permutation probabilities overlook ties, i.e., a situation when more than one document has the same rating with respect to a query. This can lead to imprecise permutation probabilities and inefficient training because of selecting documents one by one. (2) It does not favor documents having high relevance. (3) It has a loose assumption that sampling documents at different steps is independent. To overcome the first two limitations, we model ranking as selecting documents from a candidate set based on unique rating levels in decreasing order. The number of steps in training is determined by the number of unique rating levels. We propose a new loss function and associated four models for the entire sequence of weighted classification tasks by assigning high weights to the selected documents with high ratings for optimizing Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG). To overcome the final limitation, we further propose a novel and efficient way of refining prediction scores by combining an adapted Vanilla Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) model with pooling given selected documents at previous steps. We encode all of the documents already selected by an RNN model. In a single step, we rank all of the documents with the same ratings using the last cell of the RNN multiple times. We have implemented our models using three settings: neural networks, neural networks with gradient boosting, and regression trees with gradient boosting. We have conducted experiments on four public datasets. The experiments demonstrate that the models notably outperform state-of-the-art learning-to-rank models.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

9 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 9 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 9 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from XiaofengZhu/uRank_uMart. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections