Organizations: College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China · McGill University, Montreal, Canada · Shenzhen Technology University, Shenzhen, China
Deep click-through rate (CTR) prediction has achieved substantial success through increasingly expressive feature interaction architectures. However, predictive performance also depends on how input-side information is configured before interaction modeling. Existing studies have shown that selecting informative samples, features, or embedding units can improve prediction accuracy. Nevertheless, they primarily optimize these selection mechanisms independently along a single input-side dimension, overlooking their shared basic form and the inherent dependencies across input levels, thereby limiting the effectiveness of input-side dimensional configuration. To address this issue, we propose OptIDC, a unified framework for Optimal Input-side Dimensional Configuration in deep CTR prediction. OptIDC jointly learns sample, feature, and embedding-unit level configurations within a unified framework by integrating their corresponding selection mechanisms. To explicitly coordinate selection decisions across different levels, OptIDC further introduces a selection-weighted Optimal Transport mechanism that aligns coarse- and fine-grained selections via transport over finite measures, thereby alleviating cross-level selection conflicts while preserving the semantics of each input level. Moreover, OptIDC is model-agnostic and can be seamlessly integrated into existing CTR models. Extensive experiments on four real-world benchmark datasets demonstrate that OptIDC consistently achieves higher AUC than existing input-side selection methods, validating the effectiveness of unified input-side dimensional configuration.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of the input-side selection methods for deep CTR prediction. <Figure 1. Fully described in the text.> <A full description of Figure 1 can be found in the second paragraph of Section 1.>
Figure 2. (a) A comparison of the performance of different selection methods on the Avazu dataset. (b) The association between selection consistency and model performance on the Avazu dataset. <Figure 2. Fully described in the text.> <A full description of Figure 2 can be found in Section 3.1.>
Figure 3. The architecture of the Optimal Input-side Dimensional Configuration (OptIDC) framework. <Figure 3. Fully described in the text.> <A full description of Figure 3 can be found in Section 4.1.>
Dataset
Model
DNN
DeepFM
DCN
AutoInt
FinalMLP
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
Avazu
Backbone
.7893 ± .0001
.3757 ± .0001
.7896 ± .0004
.3759 ± .0004
.7893 ± .0004
.3759 ± .0004
.7895 ± .0003
.3755 ± .0003
.7898 ± .0004
.3740 ± .0003
AutoField
.7840 ± .0007
.3812 ± .0007
.7842 ± .0003
.3809 ± .0008
.7838 ± .0006
.3806 ± .0004
.7838 ± .0002
.3815 ± .0005
.7835 ± .0006
.3812 ± .0015
LPFS
.7888 ± .0007
.3762 ± .0009
.7896 ± .0003
.3758 ± .0003
.7894 ± .0003
.3758 ± .0003
.7894 ± .0004
.3756 ± .0004
.7898 ± .0002
.3739 ± .0001
OptEmbed
.7884 ± .0008
.3766 ± .0009
.7895 ± .0004
.3756 ± .0003
.7885 ± .0007
.3765 ± .0007
.7884 ± .0009
.3768 ± .0010
.7885 ± .0007
.3757 ± .0011
OptFS
.7907 ± .0002
.3736 ± .0001
.7915 ± .0002
.3731 ± .0001
.7908 ± .0001
.3735 ± .0001
.7904 ± .0003
.3738 ± .0001
.7916 ± .0005
.3730 ± .0003
Table 1. Results on Avazu and Criteo (mean ± standard deviation over five runs with different random seeds), where the best and second best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively. Note that ∗ indicates a significance level of p≤0.05 based on a two-sample t-test between our method and the best baseline.
Times (sec)
Backbone
OptEmbed
OptFS
AutoDim
AutoDenoise
OptIDC
Train (Total)
1069
3378
1301
2613
2481
2575
Train (Batch)
0.0847
0.0930
0.0902
0.1880
0.0989
0.1032
Inference
0.0034
0.0042
0.0040
0.0124
0.0040
0.0041
Table 2. Training and inference time on the Avazu dataset.
Dataset
Method
DNN
DeepFM
DCN
AutoInt
FinalMLP
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
Avazu
AOP
0.7912
0.3731
0.7916
0.3731
0.7911
0.3735
0.7911
0.3734
0.7920
0.3727
DSFS
0.7911
0.3736
0.7917
0.3732
0.7914
0.3734
0.7911
0.3737
0.7925
0.3728
DSFS+OT
0.7915
0.3733
0.7919
0.3731
0.7921
0.3728
0.7916
0.3734
0.7926
0.3725
DSES
0.7913
0.3738
0.7920
0.3729
0.7912
0.3734
0.7913
0.3732
0.7920
0.3731
DSES+OT
0.7915
0.3738
0.7921
0.3729
0.7917
0.3732
0.7923
0.3727
0.7921
0.3729
Table 3. Ablation analysis of our method on the Avazu dataset, with the best results marked in bold.
Figure 4. Model size of OptIDC and baselines on four datasets. <Figure 4. Fully described in the text.> <A full description of Figure 4 can be found in Section 5.4.>
Figure 5. Analysis of cost matrix design in OT coordination and different coordination methods on the Avazu dataset. <Figure 5. Fully described in the text.> <A full description of Figure 5 can be found in Section 5.5.>
Figure 6. Selection consistency evaluation of OptIDC on the Avazu and Criteo datasets. <Figure 6. Fully described in the text.> <A full description of Figure 6 can be found in Section 5.6.>
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Avazu
Criteo
ML1M
AliCCP
#Train
32,343,174
36,672,494
800,167
38,070,670
#Validation
4,042,897
4,584,061
100,021
4,229,235
#Test
4,042,896
4,584,062
100,021
43,016,614
#Field
24
39
7
18
#Feature
4,428,306
6,780,406
13,240
1,283,107
Appendix
Table 4. Dataset statistics.
Dataset
Model
DNN
DeepFM
DCN
AutoInt
FinalMLP
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
ML1M
Backbone
.8151 ± .0001
.5192 ± .0007
.8147 ± .0006
.5201 ± .0015
.8148 ± .0004
.5199 ± .0013
.8148 ± .0004
.5205 ± .0020
.8138 ± .0003
.5236 ± .0017
AutoField
.8137 ± .0006
.5211 ± .0010
.8137 ± .0003
.5212 ± .0003
.8141 ± .0002
.5206 ± .0012
.8137 ± .0003
.5209 ± .0016
.8137 ± .0002
.5225 ± .0011
LPFS
.8154 ± .0006
.5181 ± .0004
.8158 ± .0005
.5194 ± .0014
.8157 ± .0004
.5177 ± .0006
.8153 ± .0007
.5184 ± .0010
.8136 ± .0008
.5227 ± .0007
OptEmbed
.8156 ± .0004
.5188 ± .0007
.8155 ± .0006
.5188 ± .0009
.8158 ± .0004
.5176 ± .0007
.8159 ± .0004
.5177 ± .0011
.8142 ± .0010
.5209 ± .0012
OptFS
.8161 ± .0002
.5178 ± .0004
.8163 ± .0003
.5173 ± .0004
.8164 ± .0001
.5171 ± .0003
.8161 ± .0004
.5173 ± .0007
.8156 ± .0003
.5194 ± .0013
Appendix
Table 5. Results on ML1M and AliCCP (mean ± standard deviation over five runs with different random seeds), where the best and second best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively. Note that ∗ indicates a significance level of p≤0.05 based on a two-sample t-test between our method and the best baseline.
Figure 7. Comparison of sample retention ratio and embedding retention ratio between OptIDC and baselines on the Avazu dataset. <Figure 7. Fully described in the text.> <A full description of Figure 7 can be found in Appendix C.4.>
Dataset
Method
DNN
DeepFM
DCN
AutoInt
FinalMLP
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
AUC ↑
LogLoss ↓
Criteo
AOP
0.8106
0.4407
0.8104
0.4409
0.8107
0.4406
0.8103
0.4417
0.8108
0.4410
DSFS
0.8109
0.4408
0.8106
0.4410
0.8110
0.4406
0.8109
0.4409
0.8109
0.4408
DSFS+OT
0.8110
0.4406
0.8107
0.4409
0.8112
0.4405
0.8110
0.4408
0.8111
0.4405
DSES
0.8108
0.4407
0.8107
0.4409
0.8109
0.4408
0.8109
0.4406
0.8110
0.4408
DSES+OT
0.8109
0.4407
0.8108
0.4408
0.8110
0.4407
0.8110
0.4405
0.8112
0.4404
Appendix
Table 6. Ablation analysis of our method on the Criteo dataset, with the best results marked in bold.
Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis of key parameters is performed on the Avazu dataset. <Figure 8. Fully described in the text.> <A full description of Figure 8 can be found in Appendix C.5.>
Click-Through Rate prediction, a core task in recommendation and advertising systems, relies on modeling interactions among sparse categorical features. Explicit cross networks are a central paradigm for CTR prediction, and recent progress has largely come from increasing the interaction capacity of a single predictor through deeper cross networks and more expressive cross operators. We revisit whether continually increasing interaction capacity remains the most effective way to improve predictive performance, and find that its benefits quickly exhibit diminishing returns even as capacity continues to grow. This motivates a complementary scaling direction that we call estimator scaling, where additional resources are used to incorporate multiple related estimators rather than only enlarging a single predictor. Through theoretical analysis, we show that the gains from estimator scaling are governed by the amount of non-shared predictive variation available across estimators. However, exploiting this variation naively can be expensive: independently trained models provide substantial estimator diversity but require deployment cost to grow with ensemble size. This motivates a parameter-efficient realization of estimator scaling that can incorporate diversity from multiple estimator sources without maintaining multiple full models. Building on this view, we introduce RECursive Averaged Predictor (RECAP), a parameter-efficient recursive CTR model that operationalizes estimator scaling at three levels: distillation across independently trained models, exponential moving averaging over training trajectories, and aggregation over inference-time routes within a weight-shared recursive backbone. Experiments across multiple benchmarks establish new state-of-the-art predictive performance on standard benchmarks, while placing the RECAP on a favorable performance-parameter Pareto frontier.
Scaling test-time compute has proven highly effective for language models, yet this opportunity remains largely unexplored for industrial Click-Through Rate (CTR) prediction. CTR models suffer from a fundamental asymmetry: feature combinations well-represented in training yield confident predictions, while sparsely observed ones produce unreliable outputs. Existing training-phase solutions such as adaptive gating learn a fixed selection function subject to the same sparsity, offering no per-instance recourse at deployment.We propose UTTSI (Uncertainty-Triggered Test-Time Selective Inference), a training-free model-agnostic framework that scales inference depth proportionally to per-instance uncertainty. A dual-signal estimator combining model logit confidence with a data-level frequency prior distinguishes epistemic uncertainty from aleatoric ambiguity. Every instance undergoes adaptive feature filtering to remove unreliable embeddings; uncertain instances additionally receive stochastic feature-path explorations whose predictions are aggregated via consistency-weighted ensembling. Confident instances bypass exploration entirely, keeping average overhead at approximately 2.8× base model cost with worst-case latency unchanged.Experiments on four datasets with three backbone architectures demonstrate consistent, statistically significant gains over all training-phase baselines. A seven-day online A/B test further confirms a 5.3% relative CTR gain (p<0.01), establishing selective test-time compute allocation as a practical complement to training-phase advances for CTR prediction.
Generative pre-training via discrete diffusion provides dense reconstruction supervision across all feature fields simultaneously, mitigating representation collapse from data sparsity in CTR prediction. However, all existing generative CTR methods share a fundamental limitation: the reconstruction objective assigns equal training weight to every feature field, ignoring the profound heterogeneity of reconstruction difficulty across high-cardinality ID fields, sparse categorical attributes, numerical values, and behavioral sequences. This causes easy fields to dominate training gradients while the hardest but most informative fields remain chronically underfit, a problem we term the generative difficulty imbalance.We propose HeteGenCTR, which resolves this imbalance through per-field learnable difficulty parameters jointly trained with the denoising network. This unified signal drives two coordinated components without additional hyperparameters: a self-balancing loss that automatically reallocates gradient budget toward harder fields with a provably stable equilibrium, and a difficulty-guided attention mechanism that suppresses the influence of already-converged easy fields while amplifying cross-field information flow toward hard fields. Both components share the same learned signal and remain mutually consistent throughout training. Experiments on five CTR benchmarks and a seven-day online A/B test demonstrate consistent, statistically significant improvements over state-of-the-art baselines, with disproportionate gains for cold-start and long-tail users.