Ranking algorithms play a crucial role in online platforms ranging from search engines to recommender systems. In this paper, we identify a surprising consequence of popularity-based rankings: the fewer the items reporting a given signal, the higher the share of the overall traffic they collectively attract. This few-get-richer effect emerges in settings where there are few distinct classes of items (e.g., left-leaning news sources versus right-leaning news sources), and items are ranked based on their popularity. We demonstrate analytically that the few-get-richer effect emerges when people tend to click on top-ranked items and have heterogeneous preferences for the classes of items. Using simulations, we analyze how the strength of the effect changes with assumptions about the setting and human behavior. We also test our predictions experimentally in an online experiment with human participants. Our findings have important implications to understand the spread of misinformation.
An extensive literature on modeling (click) user behavior is weakly related to our work @cite_29 @cite_11 @cite_18 @cite_8 . Closer to our work, several papers have proposed models of the dynamics of interactions between individual searches and ranking algorithms, e.g., for understanding the feedback loop between ranking system and user queries @cite_12 , explaining the observed mitigation of search engines' popularity bias @cite_2 , or the competition of memes using limited attention @cite_4 . The paper closest to ours is @cite_10 , which also obtains a few-get-richer effect in a model where individuals get multiple signals and where (news) items are ranked via a probabilistic popularity-based ranking. Besides being simpler, our model works with a discrete and deterministic ranking of the websites rather than a continuous and probabilistic one. Among other things, this allows for a tighter connection with the experiment of .
@cite_18 @cite_4 @cite_8 @cite_29 @cite_2 @cite_10 @cite_12 @cite_11
2135114864 2339829457 2952852844 1992549066
Recent advances in search users' click modeling consider both users' search queries and click skip behavior on documents to infer the user's perceived relevance. Most of these models, including dynamic Bayesian networks (DBN) and user browsing models (UBM), use probabilistic models to understand user click behavior based on individual queries. The user behavior is more complex when her actions to satisfy her information needs form a search session, which may include multiple queries and subsequent click behaviors on various items on search result pages. Previous research is limited to treating each query within a search session in isolation, without paying attention to their dynamic interactions with other queries in a search session. Investigating this problem, we consider the sequence of queries and their clicks in a search session as a task and propose a task-centric click model (TCM). TCM characterizes user behavior related to a task as a collective whole. Specifically, we identify and consider two new biases in TCM as the basis for user modeling. The first indicates that users tend to express their information needs incrementally in a task, and thus perform more clicks as their needs become clearer. The other illustrates that users tend to click fresh documents that are not included in the results of previous queries. Using these biases, TCM is more accurately able to capture user search behavior. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that by considering all the task information collectively, TCM can better interpret user click behavior and achieve significant improvements in terms of ranking metrics of NDCG and perplexity. Understanding user browsing behavior in web search is key to improving web search effectiveness. Many click models have been proposed to explain or predict user clicks on search engine results. They are based on the probabilistic graphical model (PGM) framework, in which user behavior is represented as a sequence of observable and hidden events. The PGM framework provides a mathematically solid way to reason about a set of events given some information about other events. But the structure of the dependencies between the events has to be set manually. Different click models use different hand-crafted sets of dependencies. We propose an alternative based on the idea of distributed representations: to represent the user's information need and the information available to the user with a vector state. The components of the vector state are learned to represent concepts that are useful for modeling user behavior. And user behavior is modeled as a sequence of vector states associated with a query session: the vector state is initialized with a query, and then iteratively updated based on information about interactions with the search engine results. This approach allows us to directly understand user browsing behavior from click-through data, i.e., without the need for a predefined set of rules as is customary for PGM-based click models. We illustrate our approach using a set of neural click models. Our experimental results show that the neural click model that uses the same training data as traditional PGM-based click models, has better performance on the click prediction task (i.e., predicting user click on search engine results) and the relevance prediction task (i.e., ranking documents by their relevance to a query). An analysis of the best performing neural click model shows that it learns similar concepts to those used in traditional click models, and that it also learns other concepts that cannot be designed manually. The probability that a user will click a search result depends both on its relevance and its position on the results page. The position based model explains this behavior by ascribing to every item an attraction probability, and to every position an examination probability. To be clicked, a result must be both attractive and examined. The probabilities of an item-position pair being clicked thus form the entries of a rank- @math matrix. We propose the learning problem of a Bernoulli rank- @math bandit where at each step, the learning agent chooses a pair of row and column arms, and receives the product of their Bernoulli-distributed values as a reward. This is a special case of the stochastic rank- @math bandit problem considered in recent work that proposed an elimination based algorithm Rank1Elim, and showed that Rank1Elim's regret scales linearly with the number of rows and columns on "benign" instances. These are the instances where the minimum of the average row and column rewards @math is bounded away from zero. The issue with Rank1Elim is that it fails to be competitive with straightforward bandit strategies as @math . In this paper we propose Rank1ElimKL which simply replaces the (crude) confidence intervals of Rank1Elim with confidence intervals based on Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergences, and with the help of a novel result concerning the scaling of KL divergences we prove that with this change, our algorithm will be competitive no matter the value of @math . Experiments with synthetic data confirm that on benign instances the performance of Rank1ElimKL is significantly better than that of even Rank1Elim, while experiments with models derived from real data confirm that the improvements are significant across the board, regardless of whether the data is benign or not. Search engine click logs provide an invaluable source of relevance information, but this information is biased. A key source of bias is presentation order: the probability of click is influenced by a document's position in the results page. This paper focuses on explaining that bias, modelling how probability of click depends on position. We propose four simple hypotheses about how position bias might arise. We carry out a large data-gathering effort, where we perturb the ranking of a major search engine, to see how clicks are affected. We then explore which of the four hypotheses best explains the real-world position effects, and compare these to a simple logistic regression model. The data are not well explained by simple position models, where some users click indiscriminately on rank 1 or there is a simple decay of attention over ranks. A 'cascade' model, where users view results from top to bottom and leave as soon as they see a worthwhile document, is our best explanation for position bias in early ranks