Click Fraud in Digital Advertising: A Comprehensive Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has revealed an alarming prevalence of click fraud in online advertising systems. In this article, we present a comprehensive study on the usage and impact of bots in performing click fraud in the realm of digital advertising. Specifically, we first provide an in-depth investigation of different known categories of Web-bots along with their malicious activities and associated threats. We then ask a series of questions to distinguish between the important behavioral characteristics of bots versus humans in conducting click fraud within modern-day ad platforms. Subsequently, we provide an overview of the current detection and threat mitigation strategies pertaining to click fraud as discussed in the literature, and we categorize the surveyed techniques based on which specific actors within a digital advertising system are most likely to deploy them. We also offer insights into some of the best-known real-world click bots and their respective ad fraud campaigns observed to date. According to our knowledge, this paper is the most comprehensive research study of its kind, as it examines the problem of click fraud both from a theoretical as well as practical perspective.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it