Learning to rank (LTR) is one of the core tasks in Machine Learning. Traditional LTR models have made great progress, but nearly all of them are implemented from discriminative perspective. In this paper, we aim at addressing LTR from a novel perspective, i.e., by a deep generative model. Specifically, we propose a novel denoise rank model, DenoiseRank, which noises the relevant labels in the diffusion process and denoises them on the query documents in the reverse process to accurately predict their distribution. Our model is the first to address traditional LTR from generative perspective and is a diffusion method for LTR. Our extensive experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrated the effectiveness of DenoiseRank, and we believe it provides a benchmark for generative LTR task.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The left panel illustrates the diffusion and reverse processes in DenoiseRank, while the right panel shows the architecture of its denoising neural network. The FeedForward Layer is a linear layer, softplus is the activation function, and dropout is applied as a regularization layer. Feature transformation is applied when document features are input into the transformer block.
Method
Microsoft Web30K
Yahoo!
Istella
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
λMARTRL
45.35
44.59
46.46
68.52
70.27
74.58
65.71
61.18
65.91
λMARTGBM
50.73
49.67
51.46
71.90
74.20
78.01
74.95
71.20
76.05
DLCM
46.31
45.01
46.90
67.71
69.91
74.29
65.57
61.95
66.80
SetRank re
45.91
45.15
46.96
68.22
70.29
74.53
67.60
63.45
68.34
NeuralNDCG
–
51.45
53.49
–
66.02
71.02
–
–
–
Table 1: NDCG@K performance comparison on benchmark datasets. Best performance is bolded. * and † denote statistically significant improvements over best tree-based and neural models respectively. Last row shows relative difference of DenoiseRank over best comparison models.
Design
Web30K
Yahoo
Istella
Noise Schedule
TruncL
TruncL
TruncL
Max Diffusion Steps
1000
1000
600
Denoising Layers
2
4
8
Self-Attention
✓
✓
✓
Loss Function
ListNet
MSE
MSE
Table 2: Recommended configurations of DenoiseRank from ablation study.
Appendix figures & tables22 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
LR
Web30K
Yahoo!
Istella
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
0.1
47.32
48.27
50.42
39.17
49.34
57.84
5.70
7.38
9.87
0.01
46.48
46.15
47.89
41.31
51.24
59.34
43.39
43.80
48.89
0.001
51.87
52.52
54.60
69.51
72.18
76.65
68.42
68.20
74.85
0.0001
51.01
51.86
54.10
71.27
73.96
78.40
69.14
69.09
75.63
Appendix
Table 3: NDCG@K performance of DenoiseRank with different learning rates on Microsoft Web30K, Yahoo!, and Istella datasets. Best performance per column in bold.
Figure 2: NDCG@K of DenoiseRank with different learning rates on Miscrosoft Web30k, Yahoo! and Istella datasets.
Figure 3: Curve of training loss of DenoiseRank(Left) and Rankformer(Right) on MS Web30K and Yahoo! datasets among 300 epocs.
Subset
Web30K
Yahoo!
Istella
Queries
Docs
NOEF
Queries
Docs
NOEF
Queries
Docs
NOEF
train
18919
2.27M
85.2
19944
0.47M
222.7
19245
2.04M
115.6
vali
6306
0.75M
85.4
2994
0.07M
223.2
7211
0.68M
114.8
test
6306
0.75M
85.3
6983
0.17M
222.5
6562
0.68M
115.5
total
31531
3.77M
85.2
29921
0.71M
222.8
33018
3.41M
115.4
Appendix
Table 4: Statistics of different dataset, including queries number, docments number and the average number of effective feature(NOEF).
Dataset
Low
High
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
Web30K
76.33
76.35
76.66
94.17
94.18
94.02
YAHOO
191.38
191.10
190.61
255.36
254.31
254.52
ISTELLA
109.63
109.65
109.63
121.53
121.51
121.44
Appendix
Table 5: Split result of the train.txt files of the three benchmark( Microsoft Web30K, Yahoo!, and Istella). Low means lower effective feature training resources, High means higher effective feature training resources. The numerical representation average number of effective features(NOEF)
Figure 4: Control group experimental results for effective feature counts, NDCG@K performance produce by different models on Miscrosoft Web30k, Yahoo! and Istella datasets. Low means lower effective feature training resources, High means higher effective feature training resources.
Figure 5: Statistical and Experimental Results of Query-Document Length analysis. First row of figure: Query-Documents length distributions. Subsequent row of figure: NDCG@K of models(DenoiseRank, LightGBM, DASALC) under different length on Miscrosoft Web30k, Yahoo! and Istella datasets.
Timesteps
Web30K
Yahoo!
Istella
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
1000
51.87
52.52
54.60
71.27
73.96
78.40
69.14
69.09
75.63
800
51.49
52.03
54.10
70.84
73.70
78.22
69.25
69.13
75.67
600
50.90
51.58
53.53
70.82
73.74
78.25
69.09
69.21
75.68
400
50.52
49.82
51.66
70.87
73.99
78.35
69.47
68.97
75.52
200
49.87
49.33
51.11
70.71
73.82
78.23
69.41
68.77
75.35
Appendix
Table 6: NDCG@K performance with different diffusion timesteps on Microsoft Web30K, Yahoo!, and Istella datasets. Best performance per column in bold.
Figure 6: NDCG@K of DenoiseRank at different noise schedule on Miscrosoft Web30k, Yahoo! and Istella datasets.
Figure 7: NDCG@K of DenoiseRank at different noise schedule on Miscrosoft Web30k, Yahoo! and Istella datasets.
Scheduler
Web30K
Yahoo!
Istella
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
TruncatedLinear
51.87
52.52
54.60
71.27
73.96
78.40
69.14
69.09
75.63
Linear
50.40
50.25
52.10
71.20
73.89
78.33
69.04
68.91
75.48
Cosine
46.83
46.16
48.04
71.31
73.91
78.36
68.59
68.38
74.89
Sqrt
50.40
50.15
52.08
71.58
74.00
78.39
68.97
68.93
75.40
Appendix
Table 7: NDCG@K performance with different noise schedulers on Microsoft Web30K, Yahoo!, and Istella datasets. Best performance per column in bold.
Figure 8: NDCG@K of DenoiseRank at different denoise-net design on Miscrosoft Web30k, Yahoo! and Istella datasets.
Layers
Web30K
Yahoo!
Istella
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
2
51.87
52.52
54.60
71.37
74.06
78.42
69.00
69.10
75.69
4
51.45
52.08
54.03
71.37
74.06
78.42
69.54
69.14
75.65
6
50.45
51.36
53.32
69.03
72.09
76.51
69.41
69.01
75.65
8
50.08
51.73
53.82
69.73
72.13
76.58
69.46
69.17
75.80
Appendix
Table 8: NDCG@K Performance with different denoise network depths on Microsoft Web30K, Yahoo!, and Istella datasets. Best performance per column in bold.
Figure 9: NDCG@K of DenoiseRank without and with self attention on Miscrosoft Web30k, Yahoo! and Istella datasets.
Self-Attention
Web30K
Yahoo!
Istella
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
Without
48.25
47.08
49.00
71.37
73.35
77.70
63.91
63.91
70.65
With
51.87 ↑
52.52 ↑
54.60 ↑
71.37 ↑
74.06 ↑
78.42 ↑
69.46 ↑
69.17 ↑
75.80 ↑
Appendix
Table 9: NDCG@K performance with/without self-attention on Microsoft Web30K, Yahoo!, and Istella datasets. Best performance per column in bold. ↑ denotes significant improvements.
Figure 10: A t-SNE plot shows the diverse ranking sequences on the top 20 predicted in the inference stage of a single query randomly selected. The blue points denote the ranking sequences inferred by DenoiseRank using 100 different YT values from Gaussian noise. The orange yellow represents the other sequences predicted by Rankformer in 100 attempts. Testing was conducted on the MS Web30K dataset.
Model
M
RSD@(K,M)
NDCG@K
1
5
10
20
1
5
10
20
Rankformer
1
–
–
–
–
49.62
49.30
51.42
54.29
10
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
49.62
49.30
51.42
54.29
DenoiseRank
1
–
–
–
–
51.48
52.46
54.47
57.49
10
0.11
0.16
0.28
0.64
51.73
52.52
54.47
57.45
Appendix
Table 10: NDCG@K and RSD@(K,M) performance of DenoiseRank and Rankformer on Microsoft Web30K datasets.
Loss
Web30K
Yahoo!
Istella
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
RMSE
50.48
51.41
53.43
70.64
73.30
77.84
69.26
69.32
75.80
RankNet
43.66
45.84
48.56
56.65
66.96
73.18
51.11
57.25
65.83
NDCGLoss 2++
43.01
47.68
50.57
66.48
72.18
76.98
56.00
59.96
67.55
ApproxNDCG
24.46
29.21
33.72
60.24
64.67
70.64
33.01
42.21
52.48
ListNet
51.87
52.52
54.60
70.81
73.82
78.35
68.75
69.05
75.58
Appendix
Table 11: NDCG@K performance of DenoiseRank with different loss functions on Microsoft Web30K, Yahoo!, and Istella datasets. Best performance per column in bold.
Metric
K
Dataset
Metric
K
Dataset
Web30K
Yahoo!
Istella
Web30K
Yahoo!
Istella
ERR
1
26.53
34.41
61.53
MAP
1
78.07
87.13
94.64
5
36.77
43.90
73.79
5
81.55
89.16
95.19
10
38.55
45.34
74.34
10
78.76
87.91
93.14
20
39.28
45.72
74.40
20
74.89
86.72
90.27
ALL
39.57
45.78
74.40
ALL
63.91
85.75
88.36
Appendix
Table 12: ERR, MRR, MAP and precision of DenoiseRank on Microsoft Web30K, Yahoo!, and Istella datasets.
Step
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
Times(s)
4.75
5.28
6.42
8.76
13.44
23.57
44.11
85.04
166.73
Appendix
Table 13: Total inference time(s) at different reverse steps of DenoiseRank on Yahoo datasets.
Step
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
MS Web30K
54.59
54.60
54.62
54.61
54.57
54.61
54.58
54.61
54.59
Yahoo!
78.41
78.40
78.42
78.38
78.37
78.36
78.38
78.39
78.38
Istella
75.80
75.81
75.82
75.79
75.80
75.79
75.80
75.84
75.82
Appendix
Table 14: NDCG@10 of DenoiseRank at different reverse steps.
Stage
DenoiseRank
Rankformer
NeuralNDCG
λMARTRankLib
λMARTGBM
Inference(ms)
0.92
3.35
0.68
1.34
0.04
Training(s)
13.88
15.46
11.23
1.38
0.20
Appendix
Table 15: Inference and training times of baselines on Yahoo datasets.
Learning-to-Rank (LTR) is a supervised machine learning approach that constructs models specifically designed to order a set of items or documents based on their relevance or importance to a given query or context. Despite significant success in real-world information retrieval systems, current LTR methods rely on one prefix ranking metric (e.g., such as Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) or Mean Average Precision (MAP)) for optimizing the ranking objective function. Such metric-dependent setting limits LTR methods from two perspectives: (1) non-differentiable problem: directly optimizing ranking functions over a given ranking metric is inherently non-smooth, making the training process unstable and inefficient; (2) limited ranking utility: optimizing over one single metric makes it difficult to generalize well to other ranking metrics of interest. To address the above issues, we propose a novel listwise LTR framework for efficient and generalizable ranking purpose. Specifically, we propose a new differentiable ranking loss that combines a smooth approximation to the ranking operator with the average mean square loss per query. Then, we adapt gradient-boosting machines to minimize our proposed loss with respect to each list, a novel contribution. Finally, extensive experimental results confirm that our method outperforms the current state-of-the-art in information retrieval measures with similar efficiency.
Camilo Gomez, Pengyang Wang, Yanjie Fu
Dept. of Statistics & Data Science University of Central Florida Orlando, USA · Department of CIS, SKL-IOTSC University of Macau Macao, China · School of Computing and AI Arizona State University Tempe, USA
Pairwise Ranking Prompting (PRP) elicits pairwise preference judgments from an LLM, which are then aggregated into a ranking, usually via classical sorting algorithms. However, judgments are noisy, order-sensitive, and sometimes intransitive, so sorting assumptions do not match the setting. Because sorting aims to recover a full permutation, truncating it to meet a call budget does not produce a dependable top-K. We thus reframe PRP reranking as active learning from noisy pairwise comparisons and show that active rankers are drop-in replacements that improve NDCG@10 per call in the call-constrained regime. Our noise-robust framework also introduces a randomized-direction oracle that uses a single LLM call per pair. This approach converts systematic position bias into zero-mean noise, enabling unbiased aggregate ranking without the cost of bidirectional calls.
Jeremías Figueiredo Paschmann, Juan Kaplan, Francisco Nattero +3
ELIAS Lab, Departamento de Ingeniería, Universidad de San Andrés
Generative reasoning re-rankers achieve strong recommendation accuracy by emitting a chain-of-thought before re-ordering a candidate list, but they are slow at inference: an autoregressive (AR) decoder spends one sequential forward pass per reasoning token, and the reasoning trace far exceeds the ranking it produces. To reduce this cost, block-diffusion language models decode many positions in parallel over a few denoising steps and are substantially faster, yet naively converting an AR re-ranker into one opens two accuracy gaps: (1) a structural gap: answer positions are denoised in parallel and scored independently, so the decoder emits invalid rankings (duplicated, dropped, or out-of-set identifiers) that AR avoids through left-to-right masking; and (2) a distributional gap: fine-tuning the converted model on fixed teacher trajectories is off-policy relative to its own decoding at inference, leaving a residual accuracy gap. To close both gaps while keeping the speedup, we propose Diffusion-GR2, a recipe that converts our AR reasoning re-ranker (GR2) into a block-diffusion re-ranker. First, conversion fine-tuning (CFT) adapts the AR-initialized diffusion model to denoise the answer into a valid permutation on its own, without an external constrained decoder. Next, on-policy distillation (OPD) then supervises the model on its own decoded trajectories with dense per-token targets from the AR teacher. Finally, we apply a reinforcement-learning (RL) stage against a re-ranking reward on top of OPD's on-policy policy. Experiments on Amazon Beauty demonstrate that Diffusion-GR2 recovers to near-parity with the AR re-ranker, while block-parallel decoding raises decode throughput by 2.4--3.5× at the model's reasoning output length. Ablations show that CFT recovers most of the conversion gap, and that on-policy distillation further closes it to the AR reference.