Microsoft Research Blog

The Microsoft Research blog provides in-depth views and perspectives from our researchers, scientists and engineers, plus information about noteworthy events and conferences, scholarships, and fellowships designed for academic and scientific communities.

RankNet: A ranking retrospective

July 7, 2015 | By Microsoft blog editor

In 2004, Microsoft Research and Microsoft’s Web Search team started a joint effort to improve the relevance of our web search results. There followed a sustained effort that, over the next several years, resulted in our shipping three generations of web search ranking algorithms, culminating in the boosted tree ensembles that Bing uses today. We called the first of these ranking algorithms RankNet. Recently the RankNet paper, which was published in the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) in 2005, won ICML’s “Test of Time” award, an award given each year to that single paper presented at the conference ten years earlier which was judged to have had the highest overall academic impact over the intervening years. This is a great honor and also an opportunity to take a look back and assess our progress over the last decade. In this article, I would like to tell this story.

Web search works by essentially taking the user’s query and assessing the relevance of every indexed document to it. Not every web page is in the index, but the index nevertheless contains hundreds of billions of documents, stored in a special data structure to make lookup fast. Since the top results must be presented to the user in a few hundred milliseconds, this requires an extremely efficient filtering and ranking process. The rankers described here work on a (still large) subset of the documents, chosen using this fast initial filtering process. Basically, a ranker works by taking a list of numbers, each of which measures the quality of a particular query/document match in one particular way (for example, a binary number representing whether or not the query contains a word in the title of the document). The ranker then maps that list of numbers to a single measure of relevance, which is then used to rank order all the documents for that query. The ordered list of numbers that the ranker maps to a single score is called a feature vector.

Thus when used at runtime, for a given query, the ranker takes the feature vector for each query/document pair and maps it to a number that captures the relevance of that document to the query. RankNet is a feedforward neural network model. Before it can be used its parameters must be learned using a large amount of labeled data, called the training set. The training set consists of a large number of query/document pairs, where for each pair, a number assessing the quality of the relevance of the document to that query is assigned by human experts. Although the labeling of the data is a slow and human-intensive task, training the net, given the labeled data, is fully automatic and quite fast. The system used by Microsoft in 2004 for training the ranker was called The Flying Dutchman. We found that, whereas The Flying Dutchman took several days and a cluster to produce a trained model, RankNet was able to produce a ranking model in only a couple of hours using just one machine. RankNet also gave significantly improved relevance over the previously used ranker, since neural nets can model a very wide range of possible mappings, whereas the previous system was limited to just linear mappings.

So far so good, but could we have done better? The answer is Yes, but to see why, I need to explain a little about how RankNet is trained. For each query in the training set, for each pair of documents to be ranked for that query, RankNet is shown the two feature vectors and it then adjusts its parameters a little, using a method called Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), so that the adjusted output scores for the two features move in the right direction – that is, the score for the more relevant document increases, and that for the less, decreases. But that means that RankNet will work hard to raise highly relevant documents that are very low in the rankings, and also to lower high scoring but less relevant documents. In spending its resources in this way, it doesn’t pay as much attention as it should to just the top few links that are shown to the user. In fact at the time, our evaluation metric was a score called NDCG, which gives a single number that assesses the overall ranking quality, with a much higher emphasis on the top few results that are shown to the user. NDCG is thus a more natural measure for web search than pairwise error. This presented us with a challenge: SGD boils down to a search in a continuous space, but NDCG is fundamentally a discrete measure, in that its value only changes when at least two documents change position in the ranked list. Sufficiently small changes in model scores give no change in NDCG, and since SGD works by exploring small changes in scores, it’s hard to see how to optimize NDCG using SGD.

We found an answer to this puzzle, which we called LambdaRank. The trick was to notice that the entire training procedure for a neural net only needs the gradients of the cost function, not the cost function itself. You can think of these gradients as little arrows attached to each document in the ranked list, indicating which direction we’d like those documents to move. LambdaRank simply took the RankNet gradients, which we knew worked well, and scaled them by the change in NDCG found by swapping each pair of documents. We found that this training generated models with significantly improved relevance (as measured by NDCG) and had an added bonus of uncovering a further trick that improved overall training speed (for both RankNet and LambdaRank). Furthermore, surprisingly, we found empirical evidence (see also this paper) that the training procedure does actually optimize NDCG, even though the method, although intuitive and sensible, has no such guarantee.

So far so good, but again, could we have done better? The answer was again Yes. We knew of a class of models called boosted tree ensembles that were known to make very strong multiclass classifiers. What happens if you just treat the ranking problem as a multiclass classification problem, with one class for each of the five levels of relevance identified in the training set? We found that this gave improved results over LambdaRank (especially a flavor called ordinal multiclass classification). Boosted trees have the further advantage that they can easily handle categorical and other kinds of discrete features, which are less well suited to neural nets. We believed that these results were due to the better suitability of this class of models to our data, and so the natural question was, can we combine boosted tree models, with the LambdaRank idea, to get the best of both worlds? Training a boosted tree model can also be viewed as a form of SGD, and so the answer was Yes, in the form of a model we called LambdaMART. LambdaMART had an added advantage: the training of tree ensemble models can be very significantly sped up over the neural net equivalent (this work, led by O. Dekel, is not yet published). This allows us to train with much larger data sets, which again gives improved ranking accuracy.

How do our rankers compare with others in the industry? In 2010, Yahoo! organized a learning to rank challenge, one track of which was designed to see who had the best web search ranking algorithm. 1,055 teams registered for the challenge. Our team won the challenge, using an ensemble of LambdaMART models.

Looking back over the last decade, perhaps the most salient technical lesson is the importance of training speed. Faster training allows for both more experimentation and the use of larger data sets. I believe that these two factors are in the end more important than the underlying algorithms used, as long as the latter are sufficiently expressive models for the task at hand. The other “life lesson” that I draw from this experience is the importance of being persistent, but most of all, of the importance of the gift of being able to work with wonderful colleagues, in the product groups, in Microsoft Research, and in academia.

Chris BurgesChris Burges is a Principal Researcher and Research Manager at Microsoft Research, where he has been since 2000. Before that he worked at AT&T Bell Labs, which he joined in 1986. Prior to that he was a postdoctoral fellow at the Theoretical Physics Department at MIT, which he joined after getting his PhD in Physics from Brandeis, following a degree with First Class Honors in Physics and Mathematics from Oxford. His interests have spanned the systems engineering of large communications networks (AT&T still uses his algorithms to route several key networks), neural networks for handwriting and machine print recognition (he worked on a system now used to read millions of checks daily, and in fact his long descent into machine learning was triggered by a particularly cool demo of a neural net recognizing handwritten digits in the early 90s), support vector machines (he was fortunate enough to work with Vladimir Vapnik, SVM’s co-creator, in the early days, and he wrote a tutorial that some people liked), audio fingerprinting (his work is currently used in Xbox and Windows Media Player to identify music), speaker verification, information retrieval, and ranking (his ranking algorithm is currently used by Bing for web search). Chris’s current passion is on developing new approaches to the scalable, actionable machine comprehension of text, which although admittedly wildly ambitious, is still likely to teach us something, unless we stop trying. Chris was Program Co-chair of Neural Information Processing Systems 2012 and General Co-chair of NIPS 2013.

For more computer science research news, visit ResearchNews.com.