Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

The paper claims that training rankers with a denoising diffusion objective over the joint distribution of features and relevance labels yields more accurate and robust ranking models than discriminative training.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

DiffusionRank, a diffusion-based generative model over feature-label tuples, improves learning-to-rank over discriminative baselines on MQ2007 and MSLR-WEB10K, but not consistently on MQ2008.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A legitimate TabDiff-for-LTR extension with modest, partly overstated gains; the central mechanism is untested because the ablation never isolates the joint-distribution loss from the label-loss term. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.11453 v4 pith:DBCVT26P submitted 2026-02-12 cs.IR cs.AIcs.LG

From Noise to Order: Learning to Rank via Denoising Diffusion

Sajad Ebrahimi , Bhaskar Mitra , Negar Arabzadeh , Ye Yuan , Haolun Wu , Fattane Zarrinkalam , Ebrahim Bagheri This is my paper
classification cs.IR cs.AIcs.LG
keywords learning-to-rankdenoising diffusiongenerative rankingpointwise objectivespairwise objectivesjoint distributionrelevance estimationDiffusionRank
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that learning-to-rank can be improved by training with a denoising diffusion objective over the joint distribution of query-document feature vectors and relevance labels, rather than discriminatively predicting labels from features. It introduces DiffusionRank, which creates generative counterparts of pointwise and pairwise LTR losses, and reports consistent, statistically significant gains on two of three standard datasets when training on full data. The authors argue that candidate solutions explaining the full data distribution are better equipped to estimate relevance, and they observe more stable training and less overfitting than discriminative baselines. The benefit is attributed to the generative objective acting as an inductive bias, not merely to the presence of noisy inputs.

Core claim

DiffusionRank models the joint distribution over feature vectors and relevance labels using a mixed continuous/discrete diffusion process. During training, the model is asked both to predict the noise added to the numeric features and to unmask a (possibly masked) categorical relevance label, conditioned on the noisy features, the masked label, and a diffusion time step. At inference, the model takes clean features, time zero, and a masked label, and predicts relevance in a single forward pass—same computational cost as a discriminative model. The paper claims this generative objective produces better ranking effectiveness and robustness to overfitting than discriminative training with the s

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the joint denoising objective: a Gaussian diffusion loss on the numeric feature vector (predicting the added noise) combined with a masked-diffusion categorical loss on the relevance label (predicting the masked label), with the denoising network conditioned on diffusion time and the masked label. This forces the model to explain the feature-label joint distribution rather than just the label mapping, which the paper hypothesizes yields more robust relevance estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that jointly predicting feature noise and unmasking the masked label—the two diffusion losses combined—teaches the model something about the data distribution that improves label estimation, rather than simply adding capacity or regularization; the paper's own ablation only rules out injecting random noise into discriminative training.

What would settle it

Train DiffusionRank without the feature-noise prediction loss (keeping only masked-label unmasking) on MSLR-WEB10K at K=1; if NDCG@10 does not drop by the reported margin (roughly 0.008 for pointwise), the joint-distribution explanation is not supported. Alternatively, give a discriminative baseline the same extra inputs (masked label and time step) and an auxiliary feature-reconstruction head; if it matches DiffusionRank, the gains are architectural or regularization effects, not generative modeling.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, generative training is a viable alternative to discriminative learning-to-rank, with identical inference-time cost.
  • The benefits appear to grow with data scale: on the largest dataset, DiffusionRank retains its advantage across a wide range of training-data fractions, suggesting improved robustness in moderate-to-large data regimes.
  • The gains cannot be explained solely by regularization from noisy inputs, since discriminative models trained with perturbed features do not match DiffusionRank's effectiveness.
  • The framework is general enough to be extended to listwise objectives, such as a diffusion counterpart to LambdaRank, which the paper sketches but does not evaluate.
  • The approach opens the door to semi-supervised learning-to-rank, where unlabeled feature vectors could be incorporated into the Gaussian diffusion loss.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the proposed mechanism: if the gains come from modeling the joint distribution, then removing the feature-noise prediction term while keeping masked-label prediction should degrade performance on MSLR-WEB10K; the paper does not report this ablation, so the contribution of each loss component remains untested.
  • The improvement may partly reflect an auxiliary-task regularization effect rather than genuine generative modeling; comparing DiffusionRank against a discriminative model with an equivalent auxiliary feature-reconstruction head would clarify whether the generative framing itself is what matters.
  • The sketched listwise adaptation is a natural next step; if it works, diffusion training could extend to LambdaRank-style objectives without architectural changes, potentially carrying the same stability benefits into listwise ranking.
  • Because the inference-time noise-prediction head is ignored, the framework could be applied to feature-only unlabeled data as a semi-supervised signal, which the paper mentions as future work but does not test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DiffusionRank, a denoising-diffusion generative model for learning-to-rank built on TabDiff. It models the joint distribution of query-document feature vectors and relevance labels: Gaussian diffusion for numeric features and masked diffusion for categorical labels, with pointwise and pairwise variants. The authors evaluate on MQ2007, MQ2008, and MSLR-WEB10K under several training-data fractions, comparing against discriminative FFN baselines and XGBoost. They claim that on full data DiffusionRank consistently outperforms its discriminative counterparts, that gains are attributable to joint-distribution modeling rather than noisy-input regularization, and that generative training stabilizes validation trajectories. Code is released.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, this is a potentially valuable new direction: it adapts likelihood-based generative modeling to a core IR task and does so with a controlled architecture comparison, standard public benchmarks, and released code. The manuscript is also honest about some dataset-dependence. However, the current evidence does not fully support the headline claim: results on MQ2008 are consistently worse at K=1, and the mechanism is not isolated. The key intellectual contribution—that modeling the full joint distribution is what drives the gains—remains untested because no ablation separates the two loss components.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Table 2] The statement that with K=1 DiffusionRank "consistently outperforms its discriminative counterparts in both pointwise and pairwise formulations on MQ2007 and MSLR-WEB10K" is contradicted by the table on MQ2007: pointwise MAP is lower for DiffusionRank (0.5377 vs 0.5403). More importantly, the abstract and introduction claim unqualified significant improvements, but on MQ2008 all four full-data cells favor the discriminative baselines (pointwise NDCG 0.4626 vs 0.4794, MAP 0.4438 vs 0.4549; pairwise NDCG 0.4615 vs 0.4660, MAP 0.4392 vs 0.4441). The paper acknowledges mixed MQ2008 results only in §5.1. Please qualify the central claim, report per-cell significance, and avoid dataset-excluding wording in the abstract.
  2. [§5.3 and Eq. (13)] The attribution of gains to joint-distribution modeling is not tested. The noisy-feature ablation rules out one alternative (input perturbation as a regularizer) but does not isolate Lnum from Lcat, nor does it separate the effects of the masked-label input, the time-step input, or the added capacity/inputs of the denoising architecture. Since Lcat in Eq. (17) already supervises label prediction from corrupted features and a masked label, it is possible that Lcat alone, or even the architectural changes alone, reproduce the observed improvements without any contribution from Lnum. To support the central claim, please add ablations with λnum=0, with Lnum alone (label head trained on clean unmasked labels), and with a non-generative label head receiving the same masked-label and time-step inputs.
  3. [§5.1, §4.4] The paper claims statistically significant improvements based on paired t-tests at p<0.05, but Table 2 contains no significance markers, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or number of repetitions. The reader cannot verify which pairwise comparisons are significant or how stable the reported differences are. Given the mixed results in Table 2, the significance claim is load-bearing. Please report standard deviations/confidence intervals over seeds, mark significant cells, and indicate the number of runs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (16)] The masked-diffusion equation uses x_t and x_0 for what should be the categorical variables y_t and y_0; this conflicts with the notation established in §2.2.2.
  2. [§3.2] The pairwise preference label prediction is described as ψ = [s_{q,d_i}, s_{q,d_j}], but ψ in Eq. (17) is a categorical probability vector. Please clarify how the pairwise score vector is used in the categorical loss, or define a separate output head.
  3. [Table 3] The perturbed-features setting is described only as "controlled random noise" without specifying the noise distribution, magnitude, or schedule. Add these details for reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 4] The x-axis spans up to 10^6 training samples, which is appropriate for MSLR-WEB10K but not for MQ2007/MQ2008. Consider separate panels or truncated axes so the reader can read the MQ curves.
  5. [§4.3 and abstract] The code URL appears as both an anonymous.4open.science link and a github.com/sadjadeb/DiffusionRank URL. Please ensure the published version points to the final public repository consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claim is an external empirical comparison; self-citations are peripheral.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: DiffusionRank is constructed from TabDiff's published equations (Eqs. 13-17), which are prior external work, and is evaluated against external discriminative baselines on public datasets (MQ2007, MQ2008, MSLR-WEB10K) using NDCG@10 and MAP@10. The inference procedure (unmasked features, t=0, masked label) is not a fitted constant, and the reported ranking metrics are not training targets or derived from the same fitted values. The overlapping-author citations (e.g., DiSK [28], synthetic data [48,49], LLM judges [57], sociotechnical implications [42]) appear in future-work or discussion contexts and are not load-bearing for the effectiveness claim. The paper's own caveats about data-scale dependence and mixed results on MQ2008 are validity/attribution limitations, not circularity; similarly, the absence of an ablation isolating Lnum from Lcat weakens the mechanistic interpretation but does not make any prediction equivalent to an input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The central load-bearing choices are the loss-weight balance, the noise schedules, and the untested causal attribution of gains to joint-distribution modeling.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss-weight schedules lambda_num and lambda_cat = lambda_cat=1; lambda_num annealed (exact schedule not specified)
    Chosen by random search over loss-weight schedules for generative models; controls balance between feature-noise and label-unmasking objectives (§4.3). Central to the claimed benefit from joint modeling.
  • Noise schedulers = power_mean (numeric), log_linear (categorical)
    Selected diffusion schedules for TabDiff; not derived for LTR; affect training dynamics (§4.3).
  • Diffusion steps / time sampling = 50 steps; t ~ U[0,1]
    Hyperparameter taken from TabDiff settings (§4.3).
  • Network hyperparameters = 256 hidden (LETOR), 1024 hidden (MSLR); 4 layers; dropout 0.1
    Tuned once via random search on validation NDCG@10; no repeated-seed analysis (§4.2–4.3).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption TabDiff's forward/reverse diffusion factorization (Eqs. 11–17) applies to LTR feature-label tuples.
    The paper builds entirely on Shi et al.'s mixed-type diffusion framework without re-deriving it for the LTR setting (§2.2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Modeling the full joint distribution of features and labels yields more robust ranking models.
    Stated as a hypothesis in the Introduction and used to interpret results in §5; never proven or directly isolated from alternative regularization effects.
  • domain assumption Independent Gaussian corruption of features and masked corruption of labels is an adequate generative model for LTR data.
    Eq. 11 factorizes the noise processes; LTR features are sparse, hand-designed, and have dependencies not explicitly modeled by the factorization.
  • domain assumption Pairwise preference can be encoded by two pointwise denoising passes with tied masked labels.
    §3.2 asserts this without a formal equivalence proof to RankNet or to a preference distribution.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Noise to Order: Learning to Rank via Denoising Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DBCVT26P

@misc{pith2026260211453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Noise to Order: Learning to Rank via Denoising Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DBCVT26P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.11453}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In information retrieval (IR), learning-to-rank (LTR) methods have traditionally limited themselves to discriminative machine learning approaches that model the probability of the document being relevant to the query given some feature representation of the query-document pair. In this work, we propose an alternative denoising diffusion-based deep generative approach to LTR that instead models the full joint distribution over feature vectors and relevance labels. While in the discriminative setting, an over-parameterized ranking model may find different ways to fit the training data, we hypothesize that candidate solutions that can explain the full data distribution under the generative setting are better equipped to estimate relevance. With this motivation, we propose DiffusionRank that extends TabDiff, an existing denoising diffusion-based generative model for tabular datasets, to create generative equivalents of classical discriminative pointwise and pairwise LTR objectives. We conduct thorough empirical evaluation on four standard LTR datasets to demonstrate improvements from DiffusionRank models over their discriminative counterparts. Our work points to a rich space for future research exploration on how we can leverage ongoing advancements in deep generative modeling approaches, such as diffusion, for LTR. We made our code publicly available at https://github.com/sadjadeb/DiffusionRank.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11453 by Bhaskar Mitra, Ebrahim Bagheri, Fattane Zarrinkalam, Haolun Wu, Negar Arabzadeh, Sajad Ebrahimi, Ye Yuan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of DiffusionRank (pointwise). We model learning-to-rank as denoising diffusion process over tabular feature-label tuples: a forward process progressively corrupts the input (Gaussian noise for numerical features and mask￾ing/noising for categorical variables, including relevance labels), and a learned reverse process denoises to recover clean samples. Where, 𝜎num and 𝜎cat are the diffusion schedul… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Architectural differences between discriminative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Training dynamics on validation data (NDCG@10) for discriminative vs. DiffusionRank models. We plot validation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of training set size on ranking effectiveness in terms of NDCG@10. Colors indicate datasets; solid lines denote [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Samuel A Assefa, Danial Dervovic, Mahmoud Mahfouz, Robert E Tillman, Prashant Reddy, and Manuela Veloso. 2020. Generating synthetic data in fi- nance: opportunities, challenges and pitfalls. InProceedings of the First ACM International Conference on AI in Finance. 1–8

    2020

  2. [2]

    Vadim Borisov, Kathrin Seßler, Tobias Leemann, Martin Pawelczyk, and Gjergji Kasneci. 2022. Language models are realistic tabular data generators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06280(2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page. 1998. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine.Computer networks and ISDN systems30, 1-7 (1998), 107–117

    1998

  4. [4]

    Sebastian Bruch, Shuguang Han, Michael Bendersky, and Marc Najork. 2020. A stochastic treatment of learning to rank scoring functions. InProc. WSDM. 61–69

    2020

  5. [5]

    Christopher Burges, Robert Ragno, and Quoc Le. 2006. Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions.neurips19 (2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    Chris Burges, Tal Shaked, Erin Renshaw, Ari Lazier, Matt Deeds, Nicole Hamilton, and Greg Hullender. 2005. Learning to rank using gradient descent. InProceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning. 89–96

    2005

  7. [7]

    Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. Inicml. 129–136

    2007

  8. [8]

    Tianqi Chen. 2016. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System.Cornell University (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    Wei Chen, Tie-Yan Liu, Yanyan Lan, Zhi-Ming Ma, and Hang Li. 2009. Ranking measures and loss functions in learning to rank.neurips22 (2009)

    2009

  10. [10]

    Daniel Cohen, Bhaskar Mitra, Oleg Lesota, Navid Rekabsaz, and Carsten Eickhoff

  11. [11]

    David Cossock and Tong Zhang. 2006. Subset ranking using regression. In International conference on computational learning theory. Springer, 605–619

    2006

  12. [12]

    Wenqian Cui, Dianzhi Yu, Xiaoqi Jiao, Ziqiao Meng, Guangyan Zhang, Qichao Wang, Steven Y Guo, and Irwin King. 2025. Recent advances in speech language models: A survey. Inacl. 13943–13970

    2025

  13. [13]

    Ameet Deshpande and Mitesh M Khapra. 2020. Evaluating a generative ad- versarial framework for information retrieval.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.00722 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Fernando Diaz, Bhaskar Mitra, Michael D Ekstrand, Asia J Biega, and Ben Carterette. 2020. Evaluating stochastic rankings with expected exposure. In Proc. CIKM. 275–284

    2020

  15. [15]

    Joao Fonseca and Fernando Bacao. 2023. Tabular and latent space synthetic data generation: a literature review.Journal of Big Data10, 1 (2023), 115

    2023

  16. [16]

    Yoav Freund, Raj Iyer, Robert E Schapire, and Yoram Singer. 2003. An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences.Journal of machine learning research4, Nov (2003), 933–969

    2003

  17. [17]

    Norbert Fuhr. 1989. Optimum polynomial retrieval functions based on the proba- bility ranking principle.ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS)7, 3 (1989), 183–204

    1989

  18. [18]

    Jingtong Gao, Bo Chen, Xiangyu Zhao, Weiwen Liu, Xiangyang Li, Yichao Wang, Wanyu Wang, Huifeng Guo, and Ruiming Tang. 2025. Llm4rerank: Llm-based auto-reranking framework for recommendations. InWWW. 228–239

    2025

  19. [19]

    Ian J Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets.neurips27 (2014)

    2014

  20. [20]

    Ralf Herbrich, Thore Graepel, and Klaus Obermayer. 2000. Large margin rank boundaries for ordinal regression.Advances in Large Margin Classifiers(2000)

    2000

  21. [21]

    Mikel Hernandez, Gorka Epelde, Ane Alberdi, Rodrigo Cilla, and Debbie Rankin

  22. [22]

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 6840–6851

    2020

  23. [23]

    2013.Fast and reliable online learning to rank for information retrieval

    Katja Hofmann. 2013.Fast and reliable online learning to rank for information retrieval. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Amsterdam

    2013

  24. [24]

    Moksh Jain and S Sowmya Kamath. 2020. Improving Convergence in IRGAN with PPO. InProceedings of the 7th ACM IKDD CoDS and 25th COMAD. 328–329

    2020

  25. [25]

    Kalervo Järvelin and Jaana Kekäläinen. 2002. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques.ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS)20, 4 (2002), 422–446

    2002

  26. [26]

    Thorsten Joachims, Adith Swaminathan, and Tobias Schnabel. 2017. Unbiased learning-to-rank with biased feedback. InProc. WSDM. 781–789

    2017

  27. [27]

    Jayoung Kim, Chaejeong Lee, Yehjin Shin, Sewon Park, Minjung Kim, Noseong Park, and Jihoon Cho. 2022. Sos: Score-based oversampling for tabular data. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 762–772

    2022

  28. [28]

    Ouail Kitouni, Niklas Nolte, James Hensman, and Bhaskar Mitra. 2023. Disk: A diffusion model for structured knowledge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05253 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Akim Kotelnikov, Dmitry Baranchuk, Ivan Rubachev, and Artem Babenko. 2023. Tabddpm: Modelling tabular data with diffusion models. InInternational confer- ence on machine learning. PMLR, 17564–17579

    2023

  30. [30]

    Chaejeong Lee, Jayoung Kim, and Noseong Park. 2023. Codi: Co-evolving con- trastive diffusion models for mixed-type tabular synthesis. InInternational Con- ference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 18940–18956

    2023

  31. [31]

    Jinzhong Li, Huan Zeng, Lei Peng, Jingwen Zhu, and Zhihong Liu. 2022. Learning to rank method combining multi-head self-attention with conditional generative adversarial nets.Array15 (2022), 100205

    2022

  32. [32]

    Jinzhong Li, Huan Zeng, Cunwei Xiao, Chunjuan Ouyang, and Hua Liu. 2024. Listwise learning to rank method combining approximate NDCG ranking indi- cator with Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks.Pattern Recognition Letters179 (2024), 31–37

    2024

  33. [33]

    Jun Li, Chenyang Zhang, Wei Zhu, and Yawei Ren. 2025. A comprehensive survey of image generation models based on deep learning.Annals of Data Science12, 1 (2025), 141–170

    2025

  34. [34]

    Ping Li, Qiang Wu, and Christopher Burges. 2007. Mcrank: Learning to rank using multiple classification and gradient boosting.neurips20 (2007)

    2007

  35. [35]

    Jianghao Lin, Yang Cao, Yong Yu, and Weinan Zhang. 2025. Diffusion Models for Recommender Systems: From Content Distribution To Content Creation. Inkdd. 6074–6085

    2025

  36. [36]

    Jianghao Lin, Jiaqi Liu, Jiachen Zhu, Yunjia Xi, Chengkai Liu, Yangtian Zhang, Yong Yu, and Weinan Zhang. 2024. A Survey on Diffusion Models for Recom- mender Systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05033(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Tennison Liu, Zhaozhi Qian, Jeroen Berrevoets, and Mihaela van der Schaar. 2023. Goggle: Generative modelling for tabular data by learning relational structure. InProc. ICLR

    2023

  38. [38]

    Tie-Yan Liu et al. 2009. Learning to rank for information retrieval.Foundations and Trends®in Information Retrieval3, 3 (2009), 225–331

    2009

  39. [39]

    Shuqi Lu, Zhicheng Dou, Xu Jun, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2019. Psgan: A minimax game for personalized search with limited and noisy click data. Insigir. From Noise to Order: Learning to Rank via Denoising Diffusion Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA 555–564

    2019

  40. [40]

    Matt McGee. 2012. Yes, Bing Has Human Search Quality Raters and Here’s How They Judge Web Pages.Search Engine Land(2012). http://searchengineland. com/bing-search-quality-rating-guidelines-130592

    2012

  41. [41]

    Shervin Minaee, Tomas Mikolov, Narjes Nikzad, Meysam Chenaghlu, Richard Socher, Xavier Amatriain, and Jianfeng Gao. 2024. Large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06196(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Bhaskar Mitra, Henriette Cramer, and Olya Gurevich. 2024. Sociotechnical Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Information Access. In Information Access in the Era of Generative AI. Springer, 161–200

    2024

  43. [43]

    Bhaskar Mitra and Nick Craswell. 2018. An introduction to neural information retrieval.Foundations and Trends®in Information Retrieval(2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    Dae Hoon Park and Yi Chang. 2019. Adversarial sampling and training for semi-supervised information retrieval. Inwww. 1443–1453

    2019

  45. [45]

    Tao Qin and Tie-Yan Liu. 2013. Introducing LETOR 4.0 datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.2597(2013)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Zhen Qin, Rolf Jagerman, Kai Hui, Honglei Zhuang, Junru Wu, Le Yan, Jiaming Shen, Tianqi Liu, Jialu Liu, Donald Metzler, et al. 2024. Large language models are effective text rankers with pairwise ranking prompting. Innaacl. 1504–1518

    2024

  47. [47]

    Filip Radlinski, Robert Kleinberg, and Thorsten Joachims. 2008. Learning diverse rankings with multi-armed bandits. InProc. ICML. 784–791

    2008

  48. [48]

    Hossein A Rahmani, Nick Craswell, Emine Yilmaz, Bhaskar Mitra, and Daniel Campos. 2024. Synthetic test collections for retrieval evaluation. Insigir. 2647– 2651

    2024

  49. [49]

    Hossein A Rahmani, Xi Wang, Emine Yilmaz, Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, and Paul Thomas. 2025. Syndl: A large-scale synthetic test collection for passage retrieval. Inwww. 781–784

    2025

  50. [50]

    Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al . 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond.Foundations and Trends®in Information Retrieval 3, 4 (2009), 333–389

    2009

  51. [51]

    Juntong Shi, Minkai Xu, Harper Hua, Hengrui Zhang, Stefano Ermon, and Jure Leskovec. 2025. TabDiff: a Mixed-type Diffusion Model for Tabular Data Genera- tion. InProc. ICLR

    2025

  52. [52]

    Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2019. Policy Learning for Fairness in Ranking. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 5427–5437

    2019

  53. [53]

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

  54. [54]

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. 2019. Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution.Advances in neural information processing systems32 (2019)

    2019

  55. [55]

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. 2021. Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochas- tic Differential Equations. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=PxTIG12RRHS

    2021

  56. [56]

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Shuaiqiang Wang, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investi- gating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agents. Inemnlp. 14918–14937

    2023

  57. [57]

    Paul Thomas, Seth Spielman, Nick Craswell, and Bhaskar Mitra. 2024. Large language models can accurately predict searcher preferences. InProc. SIGIR

    2024

  58. [58]

    Alex X Wang, Stefanka S Chukova, Colin R Simpson, and Binh P Nguyen. 2024. Challenges and opportunities of generative models on tabular data.Applied Soft Computing166 (2024), 112223

    2024

  59. [59]

    Jun Wang, Lantao Yu, Weinan Zhang, Yu Gong, Yinghui Xu, Benyou Wang, Peng Zhang, and Dell Zhang. 2017. IRGAN: A minimax game for unifying generative and discriminative information retrieval models. Insigir. 515–524

    2017

  60. [60]

    Pinhuan Wang, Zhiqiu Xia, Chunhua Liao, Feiyi Wang, and Hang Liu. 2025. REALM: Recursive Relevance Modeling for LLM-based Document Re-Ranking. Inemnlp. 23875–23889

    2025

  61. [61]

    Ryen W White and Chirag Shah. 2025. Information Access in the Era of Generative AI

    2025

  62. [62]

    Mingrui Wu, Yi Chang, Zhaohui Zheng, and Hongyuan Zha. 2009. Smoothing DCG for learning to rank: A novel approach using smoothed hinge functions. In cikm. 1923–1926

    2009

  63. [63]

    Qiang Wu, Christopher JC Burges, Krysta M Svore, and Jianfeng Gao. 2010. Adapting boosting for information retrieval measures.Information Retrieval13, 3 (2010), 254–270

    2010

  64. [64]

    Fen Xia, Tie-Yan Liu, Jue Wang, Wensheng Zhang, and Hang Li. 2008. Listwise approach to learning to rank: theory and algorithm. Inicml. 1192–1199

    2008

  65. [65]

    Zhen Xing, Qijun Feng, Haoran Chen, Qi Dai, Han Hu, Hang Xu, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2024. A survey on video diffusion models.Comput. Surveys 57, 2 (2024), 1–42

    2024

  66. [66]

    Lei Xu, Maria Skoularidou, Alfredo Cuesta-Infante, and Kalyan Veeramachaneni

  67. [67]

    Ling Yang, Zhilong Zhang, Yang Song, Shenda Hong, Runsheng Xu, Yue Zhao, Wentao Zhang, Bin Cui, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. 2023. Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications.Comput. Surveys56, 4 (2023), 1–39

    2023

  68. [68]

    Hai-Tao Yu, Degen Huang, Fuji Ren, and Lishuang Li. 2021. Diagnostic evaluation of policy-gradient-based ranking.Electronics11, 1 (2021), 37

    2021

  69. [69]

    Hai-Tao Yu, Rajesh Piryani, Adam Jatowt, Ryo Inagaki, Hideo Joho, and Kyoung- Sook Kim. 2023. An in-depth study on adversarial learning-to-rank.Information Retrieval Journal26, 1 (2023), 1

    2023

  70. [70]

    Yisong Yue, Thomas Finley, Filip Radlinski, and Thorsten Joachims. 2007. A support vector method for optimizing average precision. InProceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. 271–278

    2007

  71. [71]

    Hengrui Zhang, Jiani Zhang, Balasubramaniam Srinivasan, Zhengyuan Shen, Xiao Qin, Christos Faloutso, Huzefa Rangwala, and George Karypis. 2024. Mixed- type tabular data synthesis with score-based diffusion in latent space. InProc. ICLR

    2024

  72. [72]

    Shuhan Zheng and Nontawat Charoenphakdee. 2022. Diffusion models for missing value imputation in tabular data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17128(2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    Mu Zhu. 2004. Recall, precision and average precision.Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo2, 30 (2004), 6

    2004

  74. [74]

    Honglei Zhuang, Zhen Qin, Kai Hui, Junru Wu, Le Yan, Xuanhui Wang, and Michael Bendersky. 2024. Beyond yes and no: Improving zero-shot llm rankers via scoring fine-grained relevance labels. Innaacl. 358–370

    2024

  75. [75]

    Honglei Zhuang, Xuanhui Wang, Michael Bendersky, Alexander Grushetsky, Yonghui Wu, Petr Mitrichev, Ethan Sterling, Nathan Bell, Walker Ravina, and Hai Qian. 2021. Interpretable ranking with generalized additive models. Inwsdm. 499–507

    2021

  76. [2015]

    In International conference on machine learning

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International conference on machine learning. pmlr, 2256–2265

  77. [2019]

    Modeling tabular data using conditional gan.Advances in neural information processing systems32 (2019)

    2019

  78. [2021]

    Not All Relevance Scores are Equal: Efficient Uncertainty and Calibration Modeling for Deep Retrieval Models. InProc. SIGIR. ACM

  79. [2022]

    Neurocomputing493 (2022), 28–45

    Synthetic data generation for tabular health records: A systematic review. Neurocomputing493 (2022), 28–45

    2022

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.