pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10053 · v1 · pith:IAV6G7LWnew · submitted 2026-06-08 · 💻 cs.GT · cs.IR

Stability in Competitive Search with Results Diversification

Itamar Reinman , Omer Madmon , Moshe Tennenholtz , Oren Kurland This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 14:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.GT cs.IR
keywords competitive searchresults diversificationcorpus stabilitygame theoryNash equilibriumranking functionsstrategic publishersdocument modification
0
0 comments X

The pith

Diversification-based ranking functions can be designed to guarantee stability in competitive search where publishers strategically modify documents.

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

The paper models publishers as players in a game who alter their documents to gain better positions when search engines apply diversification to results. It demonstrates that typical diversification methods create an unstable corpus because publishers keep changing content in response to rankings. The authors introduce a method to construct ranking functions using diversification principles that force the game to reach an equilibrium where no publisher gains from further modifications. This addresses a tradeoff between maintaining diverse results and preventing constant flux in the corpus. If the approach works, search systems could support diversity goals without perpetual document revisions driven by ranking incentives.

Core claim

In a competitive search setting, publishers strategically modify their documents in response to induced rankings so as to improve their future ranking. Our analysis reveals an inherent tradeoff between corpus diversity and corpus stability, where the latter corresponds to an equilibrium in a game. We analyze two representative diversification methods and show that stability need not necessarily be reached, leaving the corpus to rapid changes due to ranking incentivized modifications of publishers. We then present a novel approach to devise diversification-based ranking functions that are guaranteed to lead to corpus stability.

What carries the argument

A novel construction of diversification-based ranking functions that force the publishers' modification game to a Nash equilibrium, defined as corpus stability.

Load-bearing premise

Publishers modify documents solely to improve their ranking position under the given diversification method, with no costs or quality constraints on those changes.

What would settle it

Apply the constructed ranking functions in a simulation of the publisher game and observe whether document modifications cease after finite rounds, with no publisher able to improve its position through further edits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10053 by Itamar Reinman, Moshe Tennenholtz, Omer Madmon, Oren Kurland.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The score function for the second-place comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In a competitive search setting, publishers strategically modify their documents in response to induced rankings so as to improve their future ranking. We present a novel game-theoretic analysis of a competitive search setting where search-results diversification is applied. Our analysis reveals an inherent tradeoff between corpus diversity and corpus stability, where the latter corresponds to an equilibrium in a game. We analyze two representative diversification methods and show that stability need not necessarily be reached, leaving the corpus to rapid changes due to ranking incentivized modifications of publishers. We then present a novel approach to devise diversification-based ranking functions that are guaranteed to lead to corpus stability.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes a competitive search game in which publishers strategically modify documents to improve their rankings under diversification-based functions. It identifies an inherent tradeoff between corpus diversity and stability (defined as Nash equilibrium in the modification game), shows that two representative diversification methods fail to guarantee stability, and proposes a novel construction of ranking functions that are guaranteed to induce stable corpora.

Significance. If the novel construction and its equilibrium guarantee are correct, the work supplies a concrete method for achieving both diversification and stability in competitive search, addressing a practical concern in information retrieval. The game-theoretic framing is appropriate, and the explicit contrast with existing methods strengthens the contribution.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief, self-contained statement of the precise stability notion (e.g., pure Nash equilibrium of the one-shot modification game) before the tradeoff is discussed.
  2. Ensure that the novel construction is accompanied by at least one fully worked example (with explicit ranking function, publisher utilities, and equilibrium verification) so readers can check the guarantee without reconstructing the general proof.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and positive assessment of our manuscript on the diversity-stability tradeoff in competitive search. The recommendation of minor revision is noted. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on independent game-theoretic construction

full rationale

The abstract and description present a game-theoretic model of publisher incentives under diversification, an analysis showing instability for two existing methods, and a novel construction of ranking functions that guarantee equilibrium (stability). No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes are supplied that reduce the claimed guarantee to a definition or prior result by the same authors. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit parameters or invented entities; relies on standard game-theoretic assumptions about strategic publisher behavior.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Publishers act as rational agents modifying documents to maximize their ranking position in response to the search engine's function.
    Foundational to the competitive search game model described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5626 in / 927 out tokens · 12885 ms · 2026-06-27T14:31:14.162012+00:00 · methodology

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

35 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ran Ben Basat, Moshe Tennenholtz, and Oren Kurland. 2017. A game theoretic analysis of the adversarial retrieval setting.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research60 (2017), 1127–1164. doi:10.1613/jair.5547

    work page doi:10.1613/jair.5547 2017

  2. [2]

    Omer Ben-Porat, Itay Rosenberg, and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2019. Convergence of learning dynamics in information retrieval games.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence33, 01 (July 2019), 1780–1787. doi:10.1609/ aaai.v33i01.33011780

    2019

  3. [3]

    Omer Ben-Porat and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2018. A Game-Theoretic Approach to Recommendation Systems with Strategic Content Providers.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems31 (2018). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_ files/paper/2018/file/a9a1d5317a33ae8cef33961c34144f84-Paper.pdf

    2018

  4. [4]

    2024.Foundations of Vector Retrieval

    Sebastian Bruch. 2024.Foundations of Vector Retrieval. Springer

    2024

  5. [5]

    Jaime Carbonell and Jade Goldstein. 1998. The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. InProceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Develop- ment in Information Retrieval(Melbourne, Australia)(SIGIR ’98). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 335–336. d...

    work page doi:10.1145/290941.291025 1998

  6. [6]

    Olivier Chapelle, Donald Metlzer, Ya Zhang, and Pierre Grinspan. 2009. Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management(Hong Kong, China)(CIKM ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 621–630. doi:10. 1145/1645953.1646033

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Gregory Goren, Oren Kurland, Moshe Tennenholtz, and Fiana Raiber. 2018. Ranking Robustness Under Adversarial Document Manipulations. InThe 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval(Ann Arbor, MI, USA)(SIGIR ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 395–404. doi:10.1145/3209978.3210012

    work page doi:10.1145/3209978.3210012 2018

  8. [8]

    Gregory Goren, Oren Kurland, Moshe Tennenholtz, and Fiana Raiber. 2021. Driving the Herd: Search Engines as Content Influencers. InProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (Virtual Event, Queensland, Australia)(CIKM ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 586–595. doi:10.1145/3459637.3482334

    work page doi:10.1145/3459637.3482334 2021

  9. [9]

    2022.Modeling content creator incentives on algorithm-curated platforms

    Jiri Hron, Karl Krauth, Michael I Jordan, Niki Kilbertus, and Sarah Dean. 2022.Modeling content creator incentives on algorithm-curated platforms. arXiv:2206.13102 [cs.GT] https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.13102

    arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    2021.Unsupervised dense in- formation retrieval with contrastive learning

    Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bo- janowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2021.Unsupervised dense in- formation retrieval with contrastive learning. arXiv:2112.09118 [cs.IR] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2112.09118

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    2023.Supply-Side Equilibria in Recommender Systems

    Meena Jagadeesan, Nikhil Garg, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2023.Supply-Side Equilibria in Recommender Systems. arXiv:2206.13489 [cs.GT] https://arxiv.org/abs/2206. 13489

    arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Kalervo Järvelin and Jaana Kekäläinen. 2002. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.20, 4 (Oct. 2002), 422–446. doi:10.1145/ 582415.582418

    arXiv 2002

  13. [13]

    2025.Strategic Content Creation in the Age of GenAI: To Share or Not to Share?arXiv:2505.16358 [cs.GT] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2505.16358

    Gur Keinan and Omer Ben-Porat. 2025.Strategic Content Creation in the Age of GenAI: To Share or Not to Share?arXiv:2505.16358 [cs.GT] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2505.16358

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Oren Kurland and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2022. Competitive Search. InProceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Madrid, Spain)(SIGIR ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2838–2849. doi:10.1145/3477495.3532771

    work page doi:10.1145/3477495.3532771 2022

  15. [15]

    Omer Madmon, Idan Pipano, Itamar Reinman, and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2025. On the Convergence of No-Regret Dynamics in Information Retrieval Games with Proportional Ranking Functions. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=jJXZvPe5z0

    2025

  16. [16]

    Omer Madmon, Idan Pipano, Itamar Reinman, and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2025. The search for stability: Learning dynamics of strategic publishers with initial documents.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research83 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Martin Mladenov, Elliot Creager, Omer Ben-Porat, Kevin Swersky, Richard Zemel, and Craig Boutilier. 2020. Optimizing Long-term Social Welfare in Recom- mender Systems: A Constrained Matching Approach. InProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 119), Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh (...

    2020

  18. [18]

    Tommy Mordo, Itamar Reinman, Moshe Tennenholtz, and Oren Kurland. 2025. Ameliorating the Herding Effect Driven by Search Engines using Diversity- Based Ranking. InProceedings of the 2025 International ACM SIGIR Conference on Innovative Concepts and Theories in Information Retrieval (ICTIR)(Padua, Italy) (ICTIR ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    work page doi:10.1145/3731120.3744600 2025

  19. [19]

    Haya Nachimovsky and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2025. On the Power of Strategic Corpus Enrichment in Content Creation Games.Proceedings of the AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence39, 13 (Apr. 2025), 14019–14026. doi:10.1609/aaai. v39i13.33534

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai 2025

  20. [20]

    Haya Nachimovsky, Moshe Tennenholtz, Fiana Raiber, and Oren Kurland. 2024. Ranking-Incentivized Document Manipulations for Multiple Queries. InProceed- ings of the 2024 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval(Washington DC, USA)(ICTIR ’24). Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, 61–70. doi:10.1145/3664190.3672516

    work page doi:10.1145/3664190.3672516 2024

  21. [21]

    Nimrod Raifer, Fiana Raiber, Moshe Tennenholtz, and Oren Kurland. 2017. In- formation Retrieval Meets Game Theory: The Ranking Competition Between Documents’ Authors. InProceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Con- ference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan)(SIGIR ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    work page doi:10.1145/3077136.3080785 2017

  22. [22]

    Stephen E Robertson. 1977. The Probability Ranking Principle in IR.Journal of Documentation33, 4 (1977), 294–304. doi:10.1108/eb026647

    work page doi:10.1108/eb026647 1977

  23. [23]

    Anahita Samadi, Debapriya Banerjee, and Shirin Nilizadeh. 2021. Attacks against Ranking Algorithms with Text Embeddings: A Case Study on Recruitment Al- gorithms. InProceedings of the Fourth BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, Jasmijn Bastings, Yonatan Belinkov, Em- manuel Dupoux, Mario Giulianelli, Dieuwke Hupkes, ...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.blackboxnlp-1.36 2021

  24. [24]

    Rodrygo LT Santos, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. 2012. On the role of novelty for search result diversification.Information retrieval15 (2012), 478–502

    2012

  25. [25]

    Rodrygo LT Santos, Craig Macdonald, Iadh Ounis, et al . 2015. Search result diversification.Foundations and Trends®in Information Retrieval9, 1 (2015), 1–90

    2015

  26. [26]

    Rodrygo L. T. Santos, Jie Peng, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. 2010. Explicit Search Result Diversification through Sub-queries. InAdvances in Information Retrieval, Cathal Gurrin, Yulan He, Gabriella Kazai, Udo Kruschwitz, Suzanne Little, Thomas Roelleke, Stefan Rüger, and Keith van Rijsbergen (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 87–99

    2010

  27. [27]

    Boaz Taitler, Omer Madmon, Moshe Tennenholtz, and Omer Ben-Porat. 2025. Data Sharing with a Generative AI Competitor. arXiv:2505.12386 [cs.GT] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.12386

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Guy Tennenholtz, Yinlam Chow, ChihWei Hsu, Jihwan Jeong, Lior Shani, Azamat Tulepbergenov, Deepak Ramachandran, Martin Mladenov, and Craig Boutilier

  29. [29]

    InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    Demystifying Embedding Spaces using Large Language Models. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview. net/forum?id=qoYogklIPz

  30. [30]

    2022.Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2022.Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training. arXiv:2212.03533 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2212. 03533

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Yihang Wu, Jiajun Tang, Jinfei Liu, Haifeng Xu, and Fan Yao. 2026. Do AI Overviews Benefit Search Engines? An Ecosystem Perspective. arXiv:2601.22493 [cs.GT] https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22493

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Fan Yao, Chuanhao Li, Denis Nekipelov, Hongning Wang, and Haifeng Xu. 2023. How Bad is Top-𝐾 Recommendation under Competing Content Creators?. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceed- ings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 202), Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and J...

    2023

  33. [33]

    Fan Yao, Chuanhao Li, Karthik Abinav Sankararaman, Yiming Liao, Yan Zhu, Qifan Wang, Hongning Wang, and Haifeng Xu. 2023. Rethinking Incentives in Recommender Systems: Are Monotone Rewards Always Beneficial?. InAd- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Glober- son, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine (Eds.), Vol. 36. Curran...

    2023

  34. [34]

    𝑠(𝑥 2 𝑖 , 𝑥𝑎) ·Π 𝑗 ′ <𝑟 2 𝑖 1−𝑠 𝑎 𝑙 𝑗 ′ # (1) ≤E 𝑃𝑎

    Fan Yao, Yiming Liao, Mingzhe Wu, Chuanhao Li, Yan Zhu, James Yang, Jingzhou Liu, Qifan Wang, Haifeng Xu, and Hongning Wang. 2024. User Welfare Optimiza- tion in Recommender Systems with Competing Content Creators. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Barcelona, Spain)(KDD ’24). Association for Computing ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3637528.3672021 2024

  35. [35]

    Therefore,𝑥 1 ≠𝑥 2.□ A.7 Lemma 5 Proof.Let𝐺be a UIR-xMMR game

    By Auxiliary Lemma 6, the aspect distribution must be symmetric, and we reached a contradiction. Therefore,𝑥 1 ≠𝑥 2.□ A.7 Lemma 5 Proof.Let𝐺be a UIR-xMMR game. Part 1 - equilibrium existence.We start by showing that 𝐺 admits at least one Nash equilibrium. In this game, the user utility function is 𝑣𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑡 𝑦 (𝑗, 𝑆 𝑎 𝑟 )=𝑠 𝑎 𝑙 𝑗 ·𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑗 ′ <𝑗 {(𝑠 𝑎 𝑙 𝑗 −𝑠 𝑎 𝑙...