Time-Aware Click Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Click-through information is considered as a valuable source of users’ implicit relevance feedback for commercial search engines. As existing studies have shown that the search result position in a search engine result page (SERP) has a very strong influence on users’ examination behavior, most existing click models are position based, assuming that users examine results from top to bottom in a linear fashion. Although these click models have been successful, most do not take temporal information into account. As many existing studies have shown, click dwell time and click sequence information are strongly correlated with users’ perceived relevance and search satisfaction. Incorporating temporal information may be important to improve performance of user click models for Web searches. In this article, we investigate the problem of properly incorporating temporal information into click models. We first carry out a laboratory eye-tracking study to analyze users’ examination behavior in different click sequences and find that the user common examination path among adjacent clicks is linear. Next, we analyze the user dwell time distribution in different search logs and find that we cannot simply use a click dwell time threshold (e.g., 30 seconds) to distinguish relevant/irrelevant results. Finally, we propose a novel time-aware click model (TACM), which captures the temporal information of user behavior. We compare the TACM to several existing click models using two real-world search engine logs. Experimental results show that the TACM outperforms other click models in terms of both predicting click behavior (perplexity) and estimating result relevance (NDCG).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".