Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Counterfactual learning to rank (CLTR) relies on exposure-based inverse propensity scoring (IPS), a LTR-specific adaptation of IPS to correct for position bias. While IPS can provide unbiased and consistent estimates, it often suffers from high variance. Especially when little click data is available, this variance can cause CLTR to learn sub-optimal ranking behavior. Consequently, existing CLTR methods bring significant risks with them, as naively deploying their models can result in very negative user experiences.
Gupta et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: