Papers › Time Aggregation Features for XGBoost Models

Time Aggregation Features for XGBoost Models

15 Jan 2026arXiv:2601.10019added by Syntology

Mykola Pinchuk

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

This paper studies time aggregation features for XGBoost models in click-through rate prediction. The setting is the Avazu click-through rate prediction dataset with strict out-of-time splits and a no-lookahead feature constraint. Features for hour H use only impressions from hours strictly before H. This paper compares a strong time-aware target encoding baseline to models augmented with entity history time aggregation under several window designs. Across two rolling-tail folds on a deterministic ten percent sample, a trailing window specification improves ROC AUC by about 0.0066 to 0.0082 and PR AUC by about 0.0084 to 0.0094 relative to target encoding alone. Within the time aggregation design grid, event count windows provide the only consistent improvement over trailing windows, and the gain is small. Gap windows and bucketized windows underperform simple trailing windows in this dataset and protocol. These results support a practical default of trailing windows, with an optional event count window when marginal ROC AUC gains matter.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

7 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 7 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from MykolaPinchuk/paper_time_aggregations. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2601.10019, was issued in January 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections