scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Tie-Yan Liu

Bio: Tie-Yan Liu is an academic researcher from Microsoft. The author has contributed to research in topics: Machine translation & Learning to rank. The author has an hindex of 71, co-authored 569 publications receiving 26266 citations. Previous affiliations of Tie-Yan Liu include IEEE Computer Society & Peking University.


Papers
More filters
Proceedings Article
04 Dec 2017
TL;DR: It is proved that, since the data instances with larger gradients play a more important role in the computation of information gain, GOSS can obtain quite accurate estimation of the information gain with a much smaller data size, and is called LightGBM.
Abstract: Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT) is a popular machine learning algorithm, and has quite a few effective implementations such as XGBoost and pGBRT. Although many engineering optimizations have been adopted in these implementations, the efficiency and scalability are still unsatisfactory when the feature dimension is high and data size is large. A major reason is that for each feature, they need to scan all the data instances to estimate the information gain of all possible split points, which is very time consuming. To tackle this problem, we propose two novel techniques: Gradient-based One-Side Sampling (GOSS) and Exclusive Feature Bundling (EFB). With GOSS, we exclude a significant proportion of data instances with small gradients, and only use the rest to estimate the information gain. We prove that, since the data instances with larger gradients play a more important role in the computation of information gain, GOSS can obtain quite accurate estimation of the information gain with a much smaller data size. With EFB, we bundle mutually exclusive features (i.e., they rarely take nonzero values simultaneously), to reduce the number of features. We prove that finding the optimal bundling of exclusive features is NP-hard, but a greedy algorithm can achieve quite good approximation ratio (and thus can effectively reduce the number of features without hurting the accuracy of split point determination by much). We call our new GBDT implementation with GOSS and EFB LightGBM. Our experiments on multiple public datasets show that, LightGBM speeds up the training process of conventional GBDT by up to over 20 times while achieving almost the same accuracy.

4,977 citations

Book
Tie-Yan Liu1
27 Jun 2009
TL;DR: Three major approaches to learning to rank are introduced, i.e., the pointwise, pairwise, and listwise approaches, the relationship between the loss functions used in these approaches and the widely-used IR evaluation measures are analyzed, and the performance of these approaches on the LETOR benchmark datasets is evaluated.
Abstract: This tutorial is concerned with a comprehensive introduction to the research area of learning to rank for information retrieval. In the first part of the tutorial, we will introduce three major approaches to learning to rank, i.e., the pointwise, pairwise, and listwise approaches, analyze the relationship between the loss functions used in these approaches and the widely-used IR evaluation measures, evaluate the performance of these approaches on the LETOR benchmark datasets, and demonstrate how to use these approaches to solve real ranking applications. In the second part of the tutorial, we will discuss some advanced topics regarding learning to rank, such as relational ranking, diverse ranking, semi-supervised ranking, transfer ranking, query-dependent ranking, and training data preprocessing. In the third part, we will briefly mention the recent advances on statistical learning theory for ranking, which explain the generalization ability and statistical consistency of different ranking methods. In the last part, we will conclude the tutorial and show several future research directions.

2,515 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
20 Jun 2007
TL;DR: It is proposed that learning to rank should adopt the listwise approach in which lists of objects are used as 'instances' in learning, and introduces two probability models, respectively referred to as permutation probability and top k probability, to define a listwise loss function for learning.
Abstract: The paper is concerned with learning to rank, which is to construct a model or a function for ranking objects. Learning to rank is useful for document retrieval, collaborative filtering, and many other applications. Several methods for learning to rank have been proposed, which take object pairs as 'instances' in learning. We refer to them as the pairwise approach in this paper. Although the pairwise approach offers advantages, it ignores the fact that ranking is a prediction task on list of objects. The paper postulates that learning to rank should adopt the listwise approach in which lists of objects are used as 'instances' in learning. The paper proposes a new probabilistic method for the approach. Specifically it introduces two probability models, respectively referred to as permutation probability and top k probability, to define a listwise loss function for learning. Neural Network and Gradient Descent are then employed as model and algorithm in the learning method. Experimental results on information retrieval show that the proposed listwise approach performs better than the pairwise approach.

2,003 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
Fen Xia1, Tie-Yan Liu2, Jue Wang1, Wensheng Zhang1, Hang Li 
05 Jul 2008
TL;DR: A sufficient condition on consistency for ranking is given, which seems to be the first such result obtained in related research, and analysis on three loss functions: likelihood loss, cosine loss, and cross entropy loss are conducted.
Abstract: This paper aims to conduct a study on the listwise approach to learning to rank. The listwise approach learns a ranking function by taking individual lists as instances and minimizing a loss function defined on the predicted list and the ground-truth list. Existing work on the approach mainly focused on the development of new algorithms; methods such as RankCosine and ListNet have been proposed and good performances by them have been observed. Unfortunately, the underlying theory was not sufficiently studied so far. To amend the problem, this paper proposes conducting theoretical analysis of learning to rank algorithms through investigations on the properties of the loss functions, including consistency, soundness, continuity, differentiability, convexity, and efficiency. A sufficient condition on consistency for ranking is given, which seems to be the first such result obtained in related research. The paper then conducts analysis on three loss functions: likelihood loss, cosine loss, and cross entropy loss. The latter two were used in RankCosine and ListNet. The use of the likelihood loss leads to the development of a new listwise method called ListMLE, whose loss function offers better properties, and also leads to better experimental results.

699 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
Yunbo Cao1, Jun Xu2, Tie-Yan Liu1, Hang Li1, Yalou Huang2, Hsiao-Wuen Hon1 
06 Aug 2006
TL;DR: Experimental results show that the modifications made in conventional Ranking SVM can outperform the conventional ranking SVM and other existing methods for document retrieval on two datasets and employ two methods to conduct optimization on the loss function: gradient descent and quadratic programming.
Abstract: The paper is concerned with applying learning to rank to document retrieval. Ranking SVM is a typical method of learning to rank. We point out that there are two factors one must consider when applying Ranking SVM, in general a "learning to rank" method, to document retrieval. First, correctly ranking documents on the top of the result list is crucial for an Information Retrieval system. One must conduct training in a way that such ranked results are accurate. Second, the number of relevant documents can vary from query to query. One must avoid training a model biased toward queries with a large number of relevant documents. Previously, when existing methods that include Ranking SVM were applied to document retrieval, none of the two factors was taken into consideration. We show it is possible to make modifications in conventional Ranking SVM, so it can be better used for document retrieval. Specifically, we modify the "Hinge Loss" function in Ranking SVM to deal with the problems described above. We employ two methods to conduct optimization on the loss function: gradient descent and quadratic programming. Experimental results show that our method, referred to as Ranking SVM for IR, can outperform the conventional Ranking SVM and other existing methods for document retrieval on two datasets.

648 citations


Cited by
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: It is found that BERT was significantly undertrained, and can match or exceed the performance of every model published after it, and the best model achieves state-of-the-art results on GLUE, RACE and SQuAD.
Abstract: Language model pretraining has led to significant performance gains but careful comparison between different approaches is challenging. Training is computationally expensive, often done on private datasets of different sizes, and, as we will show, hyperparameter choices have significant impact on the final results. We present a replication study of BERT pretraining (Devlin et al., 2019) that carefully measures the impact of many key hyperparameters and training data size. We find that BERT was significantly undertrained, and can match or exceed the performance of every model published after it. Our best model achieves state-of-the-art results on GLUE, RACE and SQuAD. These results highlight the importance of previously overlooked design choices, and raise questions about the source of recently reported improvements. We release our models and code.

13,994 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis.
Abstract: Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

13,246 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
01 Oct 2017
TL;DR: CycleGAN as discussed by the authors learns a mapping G : X → Y such that the distribution of images from G(X) is indistinguishable from the distribution Y using an adversarial loss.
Abstract: Image-to-image translation is a class of vision and graphics problems where the goal is to learn the mapping between an input image and an output image using a training set of aligned image pairs. However, for many tasks, paired training data will not be available. We present an approach for learning to translate an image from a source domain X to a target domain Y in the absence of paired examples. Our goal is to learn a mapping G : X → Y such that the distribution of images from G(X) is indistinguishable from the distribution Y using an adversarial loss. Because this mapping is highly under-constrained, we couple it with an inverse mapping F : Y → X and introduce a cycle consistency loss to push F(G(X)) ≈ X (and vice versa). Qualitative results are presented on several tasks where paired training data does not exist, including collection style transfer, object transfiguration, season transfer, photo enhancement, etc. Quantitative comparisons against several prior methods demonstrate the superiority of our approach.

11,682 citations

Christopher M. Bishop1
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: Probability distributions of linear models for regression and classification are given in this article, along with a discussion of combining models and combining models in the context of machine learning and classification.
Abstract: Probability Distributions.- Linear Models for Regression.- Linear Models for Classification.- Neural Networks.- Kernel Methods.- Sparse Kernel Machines.- Graphical Models.- Mixture Models and EM.- Approximate Inference.- Sampling Methods.- Continuous Latent Variables.- Sequential Data.- Combining Models.

10,141 citations