RacketStore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online app search optimization (ASO) platforms that provide bulk installs and fake reviews for paying app developers in order to fraudulently boost their search rank in app stores, were shown to employ diverse and complex strategies that successfully evade state-of-the-art detection methods. In this paper we introduce RacketStore, a platform to collect data from Android devices of participating ASO providers and regular users, on their interactions with apps which they install from the Google Play Store. We present measurements from a study of 943 installs of RacketStore on 803 unique devices controlled by ASO providers and regular users, that consists of 58,362,249 data snapshots collected from these devices, the 12,341 apps installed on them and their 110,511,637 Google Play reviews. We reveal significant differences between ASO providers and regular users in terms of the number and types of user accounts registered on their devices, the number of apps they review, and the intervals between the installation times of apps and their review times. We leverage these insights to introduce features that model the usage of apps and devices, and show that they can train supervised learning algorithms to detect paid app installs and fake reviews with an F1-measure of 99.72% (AUC above 0.99), and detect devices controlled by ASO providers with an F1-measure of 95.29% (AUC = 0.95). We discuss the costs associated with evading detection by our classifiers and also the potential for app stores to use our approach to detect ASO work with privacy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.057 |
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".