Predicting preference flips in commerce search

Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2012

Volumn 2, Issue , 2012, Pages 1767-1774

  Ieong, Samuel ^a   Mishra, Nina ^a   Sheffet, Or ^b  

^a MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS; EFFICIENT LEARNING; EMPIRICAL RISK MINIMIZATION; SEARCH LOGS; WEB SEARCHES;

COMMERCE; LEARNING SYSTEMS; MARKOV PROCESSES;

LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

EID: 84867125727     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Agrawal, R., Rantzau, R., and Terzi, E. Context-sensitive ranking. In SIGMOD, pp. 383-394, 2006.
2. Ariely, D. Predictably Irrational. HarperCollins, 2008.
3. Arrow, K. A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 58(4):328-346, 1950.
4. Backstrom, L. and Leskovec, J. Supervised random walks: Predicting and recommending links in social networks. In WSDM, 2011.
5. Brin, S. and Page, L. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN ,Systems, 30(1-7):107-117, 1998.
6. Burges, C., Shaked, T., Renshaw, E., Lazier, A., Deeds, M., Hamilton, N., and Hullender, G. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In ICML, pp. 89-96, 2005.
7. Burges, C., Ragno, R., and Le, Q. V. Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions. In NIPS, pp. 193-200, 2006.
8. Cao, Z., Qin, T., Liu, T., Tsai, M., and Li, H. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. In ICML, pp. 129-136, 2007.
9. Cohen, W., Schapire, R., and Singer, Y. Learning to order things. JAIR, 10:243-270, 1999.
10. Crammer, K. and Singer, Y. Pranking with ranking. In NIPS, pp. 641-647, 2001.
11. Dou, Z., Song, R., Yuan, X., and Wen, J. Are click-through data adequate for learning web search rankings? In CIKM, pp. 73-82, 2008.
12. Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., and Sivakumar, D. Rank aggregation methods for the web. In WWW, pp. 613-622, 2001.
13. Freund, Y., Iyer, R., Schapire, R., and Singer, Y. An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. JMLR, 4:933-969, 2003.
14. Girolami, M. and Kaban, A. Simplicial mixtures of markov chains: Distributed modelling of dynamic user profiles. In NIPS. 2004.
15. Haviv, M. and Van Der Heyden, L. Perturbation bounds for the stationary probabilities of a finite markov chain. Advances in Applied Probability, 16(4):804-818, 1984.
16. Joachims, T. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In KDD, pp. 133-142, 2002.
17. Kemeny, J. and Snell, J. Finite Markov chains. 1969.
18. Liu, T. Y. Learning to Rank for Inforamtion Retrieval. Now Publishers, 2009.
19. Schweitzer, P. Perturbation theory and finite markov chains. J. of Applied Probability, 5(2):401-413, 1968.
20. Tversky, A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4):281-299, 1972.
21. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 1974.
22. Tversky, A. and Simonson, I. Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39(10):1179-1189, 1993.
23. Xiong, C., Wang, T., Ding, W., Shen, Y., and Liu, T.Y. Relational click prediction for sponsored search. WSDM, pp. 493-502, 2012.