Estimating Ad Clickthrough Rate through Query Intent Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clickthrough rate, bid, and cost-per-click are known to be among the factors that impact the rank of an ad shown on a search result page. Search engines can benefit from estimating ad clickthrough in order to determine the quality of ads and maximize their revenue. In this paper, a methodology is developed to estimate ad clickthrough rate by exploring user queries and clickthrough logs. As we demonstrate, the average ad clickthrough rate depends to a substantial extent on the rank position of ads and on the total number of ads displayed on the page. This observation is utilized by a baseline model to calculate the expected clickthrough rate for various ads. We further study the impact of query intent on the clickthrough rate, where query intent is predicted using a combination of query features and the content of search engine result pages. The baseline model and the query intent model are compared for the purpose of calculating the expected ad clickthrough rate. Our findings suggest that such factors as the rank of an ad, the number of ads displayed on the result page, and query intent are effective in estimating ad clickthrough rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".