ReMouse Dataset: On the Efficacy of Measuring the Similarity of Human-Generated Trajectories for the Detection of Session-Replay Bots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Session-replay bots are believed to be the latest and most sophisticated generation of web bots, and they are also very difficult to defend against. Combating session-replay bots is particularly challenging in online domains that are repeatedly visited by the same genuine human user(s) in the same or similar ways—such as news, banking or gaming sites. In such domains, it is difficult to determine whether two look-alike sessions are produced by the same human user or if these sessions are just bot-generated session replays. Unfortunately, to date, only a handful of research studies have looked at the problem of session-replay bots, with many related questions still waiting to be addressed. The main contributions of this paper are two-fold: (1) We introduce and provide to the public a novel real-world mouse dynamics dataset named ReMouse. The ReMouse dataset is collected in a guided environment, and, unlike other publicly available mouse dynamics datasets, it contains repeat sessions generated by the same human user(s). As such, the ReMouse dataset is the first of its kind and is of particular relevance for studies on the development of effective defenses against session-replay bots. (2) Our own analysis of ReMouse dataset using statistical and advanced ML-based methods (including deep and unsupervised neural learning) shows that two different human users cannot generate the same or similar-looking sessions when performing the same or a similar online task; furthermore, even the (repeat) sessions generated by the same human user are sufficiently distinguishable from one another.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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".