Orbit: A Framework for Designing and Evaluating Multi-objective Rankers
Authors
Machine learning in production needs to balance multiple objectives: This is particularly evident in ranking or recommendation models, where conflicting objectives such as user engagement, satisfaction, diversity, and novelty must be considered at the same time. However, designing multi-objective rankers is inherently a dynamic wicked problem -- there is no single optimal solution, and the needs evolve over time. Effective design requires collaboration between cross-functional teams and careful analysis of a wide range of information. In this work, we introduce Orbit, a conceptual framework for Objective-centric Ranker Building and Iteration. The framework places objectives at the center of the design process, to serve as boundary objects for communication and guide practitioners for design and evaluation. We implement Orbit as an interactive system, which enables stakeholders to interact with objective space directly and supports real-time exploration and evaluation of design trade-offs. We evaluate Orbit through a user study involving twelve industry practitioners, showing that it supports efficient design space exploration, leads to more informed decision-making, and enhances awareness of the inherent trade-offs of multiple objectives. Orbit (1) opens up new opportunities of an objective-centric design process for any multi-objective ML models, as well as (2) sheds light on future designs that push practitioners to go beyond a narrow metric-centric or example-centric mindset.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
Research Questions
3- How can multi-objective recommendation ranking systems be designed and evaluated to optimize multiple goals while meeting the needs of different stakeholders?Category: Recommendation Algorithms, Ranking, and Social RecommendationSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- How can cross-functional team collaboration efficiency improve the design and evaluation of multi-objective rankers?Category: Recommendation Algorithms, Ranking, and Social RecommendationSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- Can comprehensive information analysis tools help users balance trade-offs among different objectives under design changes?Category: Recommendation Algorithms, Ranking, and Social RecommendationSimilar questionsarrow_forward
Practical Problems
1- Multi-objective optimization design in recommender systems is complex, and team collaboration efficiency is low.Category: Recommendation Algorithms, Ranking, and Social RecommendationSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- 100%
Improving understandability of feature contributions in model-agnostic explainable AI tools
CHI '22· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 83%
Evaluating the Utility of Conformal Prediction Sets for AI-Advised Image Labeling
CHI '24· Explainable AI (XAI) +2
- 83%
A decision-theoretic representation of assistive interfaces
CHI '26· AI-Assisted Decision-Making & Automation +2
- 83%
🌳-generAItor: Tree-in-the-loop Text Generation for Language Model Explainability and Adaptation
IUI '25· Explainable AI (XAI) +2
- 80%
Identifying Breakdowns in Conversational Recommender Systems using User Simulation
CUI '24· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 71%
Decision Making Strategies Differ in the Presence of Collaborative Explanations: Two Conjoint Studies
IUI '19· Eye Tracking & Gaze Interaction +2
- 67%
Let Me Explain: Impact of Personal and Impersonal Explanations on Trust in Recommender Systems
CHI '19· Explainable AI (XAI) +2
- 67%
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
CHI '20· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 67%
How can Explainability Methods be Used to Support Bug Identification in Computer Vision Models?
CHI '22· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 67%
XAIR: A Framework of Explainable AI in Augmented Reality
CHI '23· AR Navigation & Context Awareness +1
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)