AdsWorldEngine: A Self-Evolving Conversational Advertising Agent through Orchestrator and Tool Coevolution
Organizations: Microsoft Redmond, WA, USA
Abstract
Conversational advertising aims to deliver useful ads within multi-turn assistant interactions. Unlike conventional query-based advertising, where the user's intent is often expressed in a short standalone query, conversational ads must infer latent commercial intent from the current user query, the assistant response, and dialogue history while also deciding whether an ad would be helpful rather than intrusive. We propose AdsWorldEngine, an agentic framework for conversational advertising. AdsWorldEngine uses an Opportunity Gate to determine whether ads should be shown, an Orchestrator to generate commercial intents, call advertising tools, and construct a top-3 ad slate, and an Evaluator to score delivered ads for offline optimization. The central contribution is an iterative actor-tool training procedure: we first train the Orchestrator with supervised fine-tuning and agentic reinforcement learning, then use high- and low-reward rollouts to construct preference data to train tools. This creates a self-improving loop in which the system learns not only how to use advertising tools, but also how to improve them from rewarded behavior. To support subjective production decisions, we introduce label grounded judgment modeling, which trains judgment models from human labels collected under explicit guidelines. It enriches labels with thinking traces, filters inconsistent rationales through reflection, and further optimizes binary judgments with a cost sensitive GRPO variant that preserves asymmetric reward gaps. Offline, AdsWorldEngine improves diversity by 60% and relevance by 80% over the current production ad delivery system. In an online A/B test, it increases RPM by 22% and ads coverage by 74%.
Figures & tables
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Conversation | User asks for a kid-friendly camping resort near Newton, MA with cabins, AC, kitchen, and teen activities. The assistant recommends specific campgrounds and links. |
| Human label | No (information-seeking conversation) |
| Generated trace | “… directly about commercial entities … ads for camping resorts or booking platforms would be relevant and helpful … the human label of No is incorrect …” |
| Reflection result | REASONING_LABEL_MISMATCH . The trace supports the opposite label and questions the given label. |
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Conversation | User: “Which shade fits me?” Bot: “Choosing the right concealer shade depends on your skin undertone, depth, and the purpose … Step 1: Identify Your Undertone … Step 2: Match Depth … Step 3: Purpose of Use … To narrow it down, could you tell me:…” |
| Human label | No . The user is seeking personalized shade-matching information, not a retailer or purchase option. The assistant can complete the task directly, so inserting an ad would distract from the current interaction. |
| GPT-5 prompt | “The user is seeking help choosing a concealer shade, which is a beauty product they would likely need to purchase . The bot is guiding them toward identifying the right shade, which could directly lead to a buying decision . Ads for concealers or beauty products would be relevant and helpful here …” Prediction: Yes (incorrect). |
| AdsWorldEngine (SFT only) | “The user’s message is clearly about finding the right concealer shade … the conversation is directly about selecting a product variant . The user’s goal is to identify which specific shade to choose, which is a step toward a purchase decision . An ad could support their journey rather than distract …” Prediction: Yes (incorrect). |
| AdsWorldEngine | “The assistant is giving general advice based on the user’s undertone, skin depth, and existing swatches. The conversation is about matching a shade to the user’s skin, not about finding where to buy concealer . The focus is on completing a task that the assistant can handle directly , so inserting ads would distract from the user’s intent.” Prediction: No (correct). |
| Model | TPR ( ) | FPR ( ) | Balanced Acc. ( ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5 prompt | – | – | – |
| AdsWorldEngine (SFT) | |||
| AdsWorldEngine |
| Model | TPR ( ) | FPR ( ) | Balanced Acc. ( ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5 prompt | – | – | – |
| AdsWorldEngine (SFT) | |||
| AdsWorldEngine |
| Round | System state | Diversity | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| – | Production System | – | – |
| AdsWorldEngine (SFT) | |||
| Orchestrator update | |||
| Tool update | |||
| Orchestrator update | |||
| Tool update |
| Conversation | Previous user: Compare the Honda Pilot vs the Toyota Grand Hylander both 2026 Previous bot: Here is a clean, decision ready comparison … I can also break this down by family use , towing , … Current user: Yes please do Current bot: Absolutely—let’s take this comparison deeper and make it genuinely useful for a real world decision … |
|---|---|
| AdsWorldEngine (SFT) Conversation to ads relevance: lower | <think> … I think the cleanest final intent is that the user is researching and comparing the 2026 Honda Pilot and 2026 Toyota Grand Highlander to help decide which is better for their needs … the strongest queries are ones that directly target side by side comparisons and reviews … </think> <tool_call> 2026 Honda Pilot vs Toyota Grand Highlander comparison, 2026 Honda Pilot vs Toyota Grand Highlander family review </tool_call> |
| AdsWorldEngine Conversation to ads relevance: higher | <think> I think the cleanest final intent is that the user wants detailed, scenario based information to help decide between the 2026 Honda Pilot and the 2026 Toyota Grand Highlander … The only hard constraints are the two named vehicles and model year; everything else is open for exploration … For ads queries, the strongest grounded targets are the two specific SUV models for 2026. Each is a distinct product family, so having one query for each covers the full scope without redundancy … </think> <tool_call> 2026 Honda Pilot, 2026 Toyota Grand Highlander </tool_call> |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Benchmark | vs. Triggering Model |
|---|---|
| DROP EM | +2.09 pp |
| HaluEval Accuracy | +1.95 pp |
| HellaSwag | +2.64 pp |
| MMLU | +1.46 pp |
| MuSR | +4.36 pp |
| TruthfulQA | +5.02 pp |
| Benchmark | vs. Relevance Model |
|---|---|
| DROP EM | +4.06 pp |
| HaluEval Accuracy | +4.40 pp |
| HellaSwag | +4.25 pp |
| MMLU | +1.51 pp |
| MuSR | +0.53 pp |
| TruthfulQA | +0.98 pp |
| Model | TPR ( ) | FPR ( ) | ACC ( ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triggering Model | – | – | – |
| Triggering + General OPD | pp | pp | pp |
| Model | TPR ( ) | TNR ( ) | ACC ( ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance Model | – | – | – |
| Relevance + General OPD | pp | pp | pp |